Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

cryptoslate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 577 posts

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#21

Post by tyre »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

Because traditional contracts can be interpreted by a court of law and adjudicated with context. There's an entire field of contract law, with hundreds of years of precedent to fix very obvious human errors, like a typo where neither party could have possibly meant what is "technically" in the contract.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#22

Post by [deleted] »

duxup wrote: post #14
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

There's actually some chance that a poorly written contract, can be fixed / worked out between the parties involved.

[deleted]

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#23

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

aerovistae wrote: post #5

There is no such thing as a stablecoin, it's a made up term to try to lend legitimacy to new crypto scams. And I say this as someone who just bought some Ethereum in the hopes of making a profit :)

Currency pegging isn't a new thing. For instance, the ratio of Belizian dollars to US dollars is defined as 2:1.

That peg could certainly fail, and you could certainly argue that there's something not quite right about the practice, but it was made up to legitimize tokens long before crypto.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#24

Post by aerovistae »

twox2 wrote: post #11
aerovistae wrote: post #5

There is no such thing as a stablecoin, it's a made up term to try to lend legitimacy to new crypto scams. And I say this as someone who just bought some Ethereum in the hopes of making a profit :)

All terms are made up by your definition.

Sure, that's true although it's just semantics. I'll be unreasonably specific then: the term stablecoin was made up with harmful intentions to deceive and mislead in order to make a profit off others' losses.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#25

Post by leifg »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

Regular written contracts are not automatically enforced.

Not a lawyer here but I’m guessing.

Not all legal loopholes automatically deprive you of all your savings. Intentional loop holes only go so far before consumer protection or other entities overwrite it. And if both parties are in agreement and in good standing you can figure out a way to find a reasonable compromise.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#26

Post by exdsq »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

Lawyers argue over ambiguities or mistakes and use precedent to solve these issues, smart contracts don't have that extra level of protection.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#27

Post by jwlake »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

Mostly it involves people making systems that are too complex to trivially analyze. You can not write arbitrarily complex secure code. You need to limit your scope and do one very simple thing extremely tersely and correctly.

You can make powerful systems with simple correct independent components. You can not make complex secure monolithic systems. It gets even worse when you look at contracts with delegation.

The problem with most "smart" contracts is they have abstractions, delegation and scope creep.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#28

Post by sneak »

duxup wrote: post #14
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

There's actually some chance that a poorly written contract, can be fixed / worked out between the parties involved.

See also: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-tha...

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#29

Post by donmcronald »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #10
lalaland1125 wrote: post #8

These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.

How is that different from a traditional contract written by a lawyer? A single word could leave a huge unexpected hole in a traditional contract.

With a traditional contract you don't have to worry about an unrelated 3rd party coming in and taking all your assets. And if you have a mistake in a contract that governs a business relationship there's a lot of incentive on both sides to compromise (assuming it's a good relationship).
Post reply on HN