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

251–260 of 577 posts

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

#251

Post by lisper »

rawtxapp wrote: post #242
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.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

That's no guarantee. Someone might have a zero-day stashed away somewhere.

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

#252

Post by rawtxapp »

rednerrus wrote: post #207
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #108

The fact that this is trending on HN shows how little hacker news knows about the cryptocurrency space. A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. Now if dai, usdc or usdt had failed, that would be a big deal.

USDT failed a LONG time ago.

What is failure specifically? USDT (despite it's shadiness) trades at 1USDT:1$ on pretty much all exchanges and you can short it if you truly believe it'll flop anytime soon.

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

#253

Post by Retric »

rawtxapp wrote: post #242
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.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

How many major bugs in software and especially cryptosystems went undisclosed for decades?

The core issue is the inherent asymmetry where 1 person finding 1 bug can destabilize giant systems. Even if these systems where hundreds of years old that doesn’t actually mean much.

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

#254

Post by G3rn0ti »

remram wrote: post #240
G3rn0ti wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the word „smart contract“ does not actually describe them very good. Of course, a piece of software can not replace a legal contract, really, because software is stupid and inflexible. Think of smart contracts rather as vending machines for financial transactions. For example: You enter some crypto coins, maybe select an option and the machine returns a receipt for redeeming your investment plus some interest…

In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts. In the same way a "smart speaker" allows for interactive and sensitivity to its environment compared to a "dumb speaker", a "legal contract" allows for arguing and bugfixing and sensitivity to its environment compared to an block chain "contract". They should call them "strict contracts" or "inflexible contracts" or "software-enforced c…

> The smarts have been taken out on purpose.

Yes. Where dumb contracts make sense, they make many financial services much cheaper. But investing your life savings somewhere will probably forever demand counselling by a human being.

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

#255

Post by admax88q »

raverbashing wrote: post #62
jwlake wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Yes, I agree. Most of the security of smart contracts should be in the VM. Things like self-asserting the results and only finishing the transaction if it actually passes a double-check. Or set value limits to each smart-contract (so even if there's a bug it will only operate on 0.00001 BTC for example).

If your smart contract can only process tiny amounts of money, then it's no useful.

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

#256

Post by solomonb »

rawtxapp wrote: post #242
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.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

This sounds like a fallacy of the inverse. Those contracts not being hacked yet is no proof that they are resistant to hacks.

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

#257

Post by rawtxapp »

lisper wrote: post #251
rawtxapp wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

That's no guarantee. Someone might have a zero-day stashed away somewhere.

The game theory comes into play, if you found a bug that could empty maker's vaults for example, you better do it right now, otherwise, someone else will before you and you wasted all your time/energy.

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

#258

Post by uncomputation »

rawtxapp wrote: post #242
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.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

Considering there are still new bugs found in chip designs, operating systems, and compilers that have been around 4 times as long as any cryptocurrency I have literally no idea why you would feel safe in “smart contracts.” At least if my bank account is hacked, I have a solid legal standing for compensation and I have good reason to believe centralized financial institutions will keep extensive documentation and logs. With decentralized finance, all I have is some Medium dot com post on the “Forward Plan” and an ominous message that “SAFEDOLLAR IS UNDER ATTACK.”

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

#259

Post by solomonb »

intrasight wrote: post #52
mrec wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen them described as "self-funding bug bounties".

When I think about it in those terms... Why not fund bug bounties that way?

Because you presumably want to find bugs in applications that are not smart contracts.

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

#260

Post by zionic »

Retric wrote: post #253
rawtxapp wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

How many major bugs in software and especially cryptosystems went undisclosed for decades? The core issue is the inherent asymmetry where 1 person finding 1 bug can destabilize giant systems. Even if these systems where hundreds of years old that doesn’t actually mean much.

By this logic most e-commerce is a mistake as well, since a serious flaw in the linux kernel could take down most web servers.
Post reply on HN