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

301–310 of 577 posts

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

#301

Post by dragonwriter »

ConcernedCoder wrote: post #229
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.

Can there ever be 'bug free' software? As a lifelong programmer, I'm starting to think that it's impossible to write perfect software free from bugs.

> Can there ever be 'bug free' software?

Sure. And if you look at sufficiently small-scale pieces of software, there is probably a lot. As scope of a software system increases, the probability of bugs rapidly approaches unity, though.

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

#302

Post by rsync »

Is there speculation, to match my own, that a fatal flaw in a stablecoin such as this was placed there on purpose ?

Probably not in this case as one wouldn't "liquidate" the stablecoin at merely $250k of assets ... but wouldn't this be a viable (albeit, nefarious) mechanism to defraud crypto investors ?

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

#303

Post by whatshisface »

falcor84 wrote: post #287
lisper wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But why would we want to encourage such groupthink and discourage dissent?

Taking up the OP's side because it's interesting...

Some kinds of groupthink are bad (like making an anti-vaccine subreddit that only ever shows articles about vaccine-related industrial accidents, instead of a vaccine subreddit that shows people a truly representative sampling of vaccine knowledge), but other kinds are arguably good (not seeing 4chan nasty stuff on /r/reallycutekittensandpuppies.) Only some group content coordination is filter bubbling, while other times it's filtering.

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

#304

Post by xyzelement »

dcolkitt wrote: post #185
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally does not. The world runs advised by algorithms, but not governed by them. It's a fundamental difference. When algorithms in the real world create lose-lose outcomes, people override them, which is why when your credit card gets stolen you don't end up paying for stuff. You can bake that logic into a software contract, but if the design of your system is that the totality of software contracts are the fin…

You are aware that the vast majority of financial market trading is run by algorithms that govern not advise vast amounts of capital in an irreversible way. Sometime these algorithms break or are exploited. Often in spectacular disasters. Knight lost half a billion dollars in 30 seconds. Nobody reversed though, even though it was clear error. If you have a 401k I guarantee you that a significant amount of your money…

// Knight lost half a billion dollars in 30 seconds. Nobody reversed though, even though it was clear error.

You cited Knight twice in this thread, and it's just not the same concept. I think your point is that people should accept irreversible transactions in whole because there are some edge cases where they exist today, and that just doesn't make sense.

First, there's a difference between an average person and Knight in the degree of sophistication of tools that they can wield. So the fact that Knight is allowed to operate like this is in no way connected to whether this mode should be the default for an average person.

Second, the Knight example can be interpreted as an exception that proves the rule. They had an unforced error that (from what I recall) looked to the rest of the world like real trading. But there's a whole other slew of issues (clearly bad prices, exchange-errors, etc) that cause trades to be unwound. Some exciting reading if you care: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/erroneous-trade.asp

You have a point that yes to some extent we're all subject to underlying risk of irreversible activity but the bigger point is that we as society try to minimize it where possible. So moving the system in the other direction, especially where it makes it easy for Joe-Blow to fuck it up, is not the way.

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

#305

Post by toomuchtodo »

phreack wrote: post #189
toomuchtodo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but with that said 54 countries have instant payments [1] [2]. This number will only grow, as you’re just pushing messages around queues. Once Congress lit a fire under the Fed, it’s only taking ~4-5 years to roll out instant payments in the US. This is very fast for such endeavors. Your average financial consumer in most countries is going to trust their bank and government to protect their fiat vs cry…

The crypto movement in South America is growing explicitly because people are increasingly not trusting their banks and government to protect their fiat. I've never heard of Zelle and not everyone has access to a clandestine US account, while anyone can buy open a crypto wallet and get some DAI.

Could you provide evidence or a citation of crypto uptake in South America?

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

#306

Post by sjtindell »

iNane9000 wrote: post #120
twox2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it incentivizes human trafficking and crime is pure hyperbole. Also turns out that the barrier to entry for crypto is lower in the 3rd world than you might think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvHN0MEBoZo

I believe the synagogue shooter was paid in Bitcoin. So not pure hyperbole. Edit: might have the details confused about above point, but the general thrust of things is pretty clear. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/19/neo-nazis-banked-on-bit...

Their complaint was not with your premise but the language. Rather than incentivizes perhaps facilitates.

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

#307

Post by seibelj »

DanHulton wrote: post #296
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.

Yeah, the classic example is the original binary search algorithm. It had an overflow bug that went undetected for two decades: https://thebittheories.com/the-curious-case-of-binary-search... It's an incredibly simple algorithm and still got missed. Smart contracts have no chance.

There was not $Billions to be paid out for finding that - it's a matter of incentives.

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

#308

Post by spicybright »

jwlake wrote: post #27
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 p…

I don't know much in the field, but formally verifiable programming methods come to mind.

You'll potentially have less of a chance for contracts to be exploited (at least compared to what we have now).

That said, you can't protect against infrastructure exploits as easily, mathematically flawless program or not.

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

#309

Post by spicybright »

shadowgovt wrote: post #233
progbits wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time for LawyerCoin (TM). The smart-contract is written in English (or other human language) and the oracles are powered by a bunch of lawyers who pinky swear to enforce them. I'm doing ICO next week, if anyone wants in.

Did you just re-invent law from first principles? ;)

As long as you can pitch it as a new idea to SV, you'll be rolling in it!

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

#310

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #178
adtac wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal my credit card and buy things with it, I will call my bank and I won't need to pay for it when I settle my statement balance at the end of the month. The bank will follow up with the merchant and/or law enforcement and, in most cases, the bank will get its money back somehow. In the cases where it doesn't, I'm sure the bank is insured against losses. Banks and insurance companies probably have a complica…

> If you steal my credit card and buy things with it, I will call my bank and I won't need to pay for it when I settle my statement balance at the end of the month. This is an epically terrible argument for why you shouldn't have to pay for things someone else purchased with your stolen credit card. "I shouldn't have to because I don't have to"? Compare tptacek's claim: >>> which is why when your credit card gets sto…

I was sure someone would make this argument and debated dumping more words into my comment to address it preemptively, but figured instead I'd wait for someone to spell it out first.

So, just to clear this up: you, the customer, and your credit card company agree that it's lose-lose for retail customers to be on the hook for credit card fraud. It makes it much harder to actually use the credit card transaction processing system, which you want to do because it's way better and safer than carrying cash, and the credit card companies want you to do because they're credit card companies.

In any given situation, a merchant on the hook for stolen stuff does not agree that this is lose-lose. Them getting paid with stolen money is a win-lose for them. But the credit card company takes the long view: if customers were always on the hook for this stuff, customers would stop using credit cards as much. It's better for everyone if it's easy to buy things, and not terrifying to shop online.

Merchants that disagree with this assessment can refuse to take credit cards. They can just take Bitcoins, The Currency Of The Future. The consensus view here is not hard to discover.

Post reply on HN