the onchain activities of the attackers were monitored and […] action was taken to freeze the wallets held by the attackers by working with other cryptocurrency exchanges

a member of the cryptocurrency community questioned how Binance could freeze these funds despite the fact that cryptocurrencies are marketed as not being confiscable by third parties

Changpeng Zhao […] said that the whole thing is a matter of balance. […] CZ implied that a solution to events such as theft cannot be found in a system that cannot be completely frozen.

CZ stated that if users use privacy coins such as Monero (XMR), such freezes will not occur, but the stolen funds cannot be returned.

Cf.

Almost entire balance (2675 XMR) of Community Crowdfunding System (CCS) Monero wallet has been stolen https://monero.town/post/983106
Monero Project admits thieves stole 6-figure sum from a wallet in mystery breach https://monero.town/post/1045387

PS. See also: Bitcoin can be traced, If you use XMR, then there isn’t much anyone can do https://monero.town/post/1069626

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dragonsidedd@sciencemastodon.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Saki aka "CEXes, and why not to use them"

[–] Saki@monero.town 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Admittedly it may sound weird, as if trying to protect a kidnapper or thief. But that’s not the point. If they can freeze “bad guy’s” funds, they can freeze anyone’s funds. The problem is, “they” can define something or someone arbitrarily as “bad” or “suspicious.”

On the other hand, of course any Monero supporter thinks it would be nice if we could catch the attacker(s) and the stolen funds would be returned. Is this self-contradictory?