It is not going to make a difference. If you run malicious code, you will get hacked. Compiling the code yourself does not prevent the code from being malicious.
The one it might help is it might make it easier to find the back door once you know there is one.
The problem with the parent's suggestion is you end up banning lots of useful techniques while not actually stopping hackers from installing back doors or adding security exploits. The basic problem is once an attacker can submit changes to a project, the attacker can do a lot of damage. The only real solution is to do very careful code reviews. Basically, having a malicious person get code into a project is always going to be a disaster. If they can get control of a project, it is going to be even worse.
Worldcom was a fraud. I believe they were caught inflating their earnings (i.e. saying they made more money than they really did). This was not a business model “ahead of its time”. It’s a crime.
This does not sound plausible because the investors will almost certainly not get anything out of the bankruptcy. Also there is no evidence any investor secretly profited from FTX and it is hard to believe any VC put millions in and some how got them out. They put money in and FTX lost it.
I believe Binance was bigger than FTX. That being said, it’s hard to tell how big any of these organizations really are because they do not release audited financial statements.
I have seen a some posters on HN and a lot of posters else where trying to use this case to bash the Democratic party. It very annoying because they never provide evidence to back up their claims.
You also see a lot of people bashing Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents or accusing them of committing crimes without providing any evidence.
He never said FTX had enough assets to repay its creditors. Even worse, many of FTX’s assets are worthless (the FTT tokens are a prime example of this).
What he said was he had never seen a company with such atrocious record keeping. BTW, the US government would not have charged Sam Bankman-Fried with fraud if the money was all there.
Those are to political action committees, not politicians. The probably spent most or all of it during the last election cycle. If they raise more money, you can go after that but what are you going to do if they don’t raise more money?
I doubt the politicians and political action committees would have taken the money if they had known it was stolen.
In a lot of ways, they are also victims because they now have to do extra work to either defend themselves, or payback the "donation". In the case of the PACs, I bet many of them already spent the money and can't pay it back.
He was worse than Sam Bankman-Fried. First, his scam lasted decades. Second, he was much better at hiding his crime. Third, he destroyed his family (one of his sons committed suicide, and because of this, his wife ended up destitute and alone).
In practice, I don't think it matters. Here is why:
1. The donations to candidates are usually pretty small (think $2,900/candidate). The candidates can return the money but getting all of the money back will not do much for the creditors.
2. Some PACs got a LOT of money (think millions of dollars). The problem is they probably already spent it. You can probably sue them to try to get back the money but the PACs will probably just declare bankruptcy.
Elizabth Holmes committed fraud, endangered lives, and harassed whistle blowers (one spent over $400,000 in legal fees fighting with Theranos). She only got 11 years and 3 months. I would not be surprised if Sam Bankman-Fried also got a fairly short sentence.
1. Sam Bankman-Fried SHOULD NOT HAVE STOLEN CUSTOMER MONEY.
2. Sam Bankman-Fried should have been honest.
3. FTX should have kept excellent records. FTX was notorious for its bad record keeping. Also, its poor record keeping meant it was not sure how much money it had and it was not sure which money it owned and which money its customers owned.
Appeals are expensive and risky. He may appeal but I doubt he has the money to. Also, he probably has no grounds for appeal because he really did commit fraud, the government has a lot of evidence that he is a criminal, and the government did not violate his rights.
The one it might help is it might make it easier to find the back door once you know there is one.