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

271–280 of 577 posts

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

#271

Post by donio »

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…

> The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid.

They all are until they aren't.

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

#272

Post by UIGYUIUYG »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #187
UIGYUIUYG wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can literally say that about cold hard cash. Blackmail? Pay cash. Buying illegal substances? Cash. Gambling? Get your cash out. It's all in how you use it. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/05/moon-missi... Anything is a store of value, wood, gold, water, dogecoin ect. If people want to accept something for something else this is a way of life. It's just sad that people only see the bad use cases. Ho…

Do people who had SafeDollar have control over their own money? Did the people whose money got locked in the DAO because of a software bug have control over their own money? > How about if I transact only in crypto (Monolith card), now every purchase I make is via crypto Do you in fact do this? > nothing different to using a bank card with US dollars backing it There certainly is if you read Monolith's fine print, an…

> Do people who had SafeDollar have control over their own money? Did the people whose money got locked in the DAO because of a software bug have control over their own money?

Nope, because they didn't do their due diligence. Do you deposit your savings to a new bank that's not had a single audit done? Are there any specific banks that you won't do business with? It's the exact same in the crypto sphere.

> Do you in fact do this?

I do indeed. I use it as my daily spending card. Should Contis Financial Services Ltd collapse it'd be a bummer, but I've lost more on a night out by dropping a paper note. I will agree it's not like using a bank card, I should specify more like a pre-paid card.

Whilst you don't get the financial protection that you do with standard institutions it's the price you have to pay to start working towards a different financial future.

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

#273

Post by arcticbull »

zionic wrote: post #260
Retric wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, that's governed by contracts, law and enforced by the police. That money tends to be traceable and recoverable.

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

#274

Post by solomonb »

wyager wrote: post #57
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.

It's possible, but approximately no one in the shitcoin industry knows or cares enough to write fully formally verified programs.

Are there even any dependently typed smart contract languages that would allow you to encode and carry proofs in your contracts?

Without that I think the best you could do is model your program in some other formal verification system and then convince yourself that your model matches the actual contract.

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

#275

Post by acka »

jvanderbot wrote: post #99
drcross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people in the world can't get a credit card.

This argument does not help. Those same folks cannot carry around a crypto-buck either. There are plenty of mobile-only banking solutions that are widely used in non-western worlds, and that's likely a model for emerging economies. When electronic banking comes, OP is saying that standard banking ("perfected over millenia TM") is honestly quite preferable over algorithmic contracts.

> This argument does not help. Those same folks cannot carry around a crypto-buck either.

I'm commenting on this as well as sibling and descendant comments: There are First World countries (several in Europe) in which credit cards are both uncommon and pretty much inaccessible to the majority of the population while at the same time crypto services apps and wallets are ubiquitous. The reason why credit cards are not is because governments want to discourage excessive personal debt.

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

#276

Post by theli0nheart »

rawtxapp wrote: post #257
lisper wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. This is precisely why there aren't (or at least, in a rational world, should not be) any undisclosed zero-days in crypto. If you're aware of an exploit, you're just going to exploit it immediately unless you're willing to let someone else exploit it in your place.

There is a large amount of money at stake with these exploits and it doesn't make economic sense to let one sit around.

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

#277

Post by omk »

kybernetikos wrote: post #243
omk wrote: post #31

A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…

These topics are orthogonal to the technology. It's perfectly possible to create tokens using smart contracts on the ethereum blockchain that have keys that can reverse transactions. I deployed a simple one to a testnet a while back as a proof of concept for a bank (any time an enforcement action was taken, a reason had to be provided, and it was broadcast as an event). And just because you're using a smart contract,…

That’s precisely my point. An oracle in the system is needed for an override. But introduction of such an oracle is viewed by most crypto enthusiasts as a undebatable compromise.

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

#278

Post by whatshisface »

lisper wrote: post #262
whatshisface wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can do better than pinky swearing. Each lawyer gets mining fees when they enforce a contract fairly. "Fairly" is defined by consensus, where each lawyer is forced to predict the consensus before voting in a private ballot that is only revealed when the rewards are issued. Lawyers who predict the consensus get rewarded. If you start it off with people who are trying to be fair then predicting fairness will lead to…

That's actually a pretty good idea. I had a similar idea to discourage the gaming of upvotes on sites like HN and Reddit: make each upvote cost a point, but then you get a point for everyone who upvotes after you, divided by the number of votes the item had at the time you upvoted (or something like that). So people who upvote popular stories early, i.e. people who successfully predict what people will like, get rewa…

Don't give me too much credit, I stole it straight from https://augur.net/ by swapping "truth" with "justice." ;) Fortunately for me the idea blockchain is irrevocable and my theft cannot be reversed.

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

#279

Post by rodiger »

flixic wrote: post #238
sonicggg wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your seem uninformed. Dai is backed by USDC.

Last I heard, Dai was backed over-collateralized crypto, like ETH. Even Coinbase says so: > Unlike centralized stablecoins, DAI isn't backed by US dollars in a bank account. Instead, it’s backed by collateral on the Maker platform. https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/cr...

You should take a look at the breakdown... USDC is such a large portion of Dai backing (62%) that it's deemed an existential risk. They're working on reducing the reliance though with more stablecoins and more collateral classes.

https://share.streamlit.io/tadzz/maker_dai_collateralization...

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

#280

Post by skizm »

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.

Ethereum just forked the entire blockchain to undo a transaction they didn't like. I'm not sure if that's reassuring or a complete violation of the entire premise of smart contracts.
Post reply on HN