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

341–350 of 577 posts

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

#341

Post by humbleMouse »

brianwawok wrote: post #132
Barrin92 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna be honest I don't know what the audience is for a product where you risk losing your entire life savings because you typed a wrong word in a smart contract rather than paying a middleman a fraction of a percent. It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.

Doing illegal things, mostly. If you are working a w2 job and paying taxes and paying your mortgage / auto loan... crypto doesn't really help you. Blackmail? Awesome. Buying illegal substances? Awesome. Gambling? You got it...

Why would any of those things be better bought with crypto? If anything, better to buy all of those things with fiat cash, no? Why would you want a permanent record recorded every time you buy something? (Crypto)

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

#342

Post by AgentME »

iNane9000 wrote: post #89
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.

That’s not even close to the main flaw. The main flaw is that it incentivizes crime, human trafficking and accelerates environmental destruction. None of these are huge problems if you can afford a private bunker in New Zealand. It’s a major problem for ordinary citizens, especially those of poorer countries. Everything involving code has bugs. Bugs aren’t a reason not to use code. Bitcoin isn’t a problem for the ver…

>accelerates environmental destruction

Ethereum is working on moving to proof-of-stake within the next year, which completely removes its need for energy-intensive proof-of-work mining.

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

#343

Post by notJim »

progbits wrote: post #59
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.

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.

This, but unironically.

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

#344

Post by bvaldivielso »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #231
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #164

There are more than $100b of stablecoins — 285x year-over-year growth — with a variety of very interesting and high-quality stablecoins proliferating. And of course, Hacker News focuses on some garbage project nobody in the space even followed. How is there no discussion about FRAX, Maker's DAI, USDC, CRV's 3pool token, Liquity's LUSD, and so many other interesting projects?

Because there's nothing interesting about them. They're just another variation on the same ol' "we peg our value to the dollar(*)!" pitch. The interesting stuff happens when they fail.

You can be dismissive about literally anything that way. Computers: another variation on the same ol' "input in, output out" pitch.

You find stablecoin's failures interesting. Crypto enthusiasts (which admittedly are a tiny fraction of the people holding cryptocurrencies) do too, while at the same time finding the pegging mechanisms interesting as well

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

#345

Post by scottpf »

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 plus side is that smart contracts provide their own "bug bounty" programme. If a smart contract that handles a coin with a market cap of +50M USD has not been breached, I absolutely trust that contract to be safe.

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

#346

Post by __s »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #317
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.

> A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. The fact that some people think a $250,000 heist followed by the collapse of a half a million dollar stablecoin is "not news" underscores how ridiculous the cryptocurrency space is right now.

VCs blowing an order of magnitude more on coke doesn't make the news

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

#347

Post by [deleted] »

brianwawok wrote: post #338
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…

Totally true. That said, to deposit 10k of cash in a bank you need to fill out some forms. I also don't have a great way to send you say 100k in cash. Suitcase full of dollars? But I can send you 2 BTC much easier. The big hole in demanding giant ransoms was always taking delivery of the suitcase full of money. Not so hard to do with digital currency.

[deleted]

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

#348

Post by 71a54xd »

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?

Only in academia

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

#349

Post by fleddr »

NationalPark wrote: post #311
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.

I think it's pretty obvious that people here are very literate about the cryptocurrency space and just find it amusing, apparently to the chagrin of true believers.

Quite the opposite.

It's valid, healthy and even recommended to have significant skepticism regarding crypto. I think that's fair game, as about 90% (or more) of coins are pump-and-dump schemes. Further, almost everything "Defi" is supremely risky, as they are completely unregulated, not insured, often lack liquidity, and can go down the drain at moment's notice.

Fine. However, there's a general anti-crypto stance here largely based on outdated mainstream narratives that if you truly would be literate about crypto, could only laugh at.

So this community is not "very literate", it doesn't even past the basic smell test.

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

#350

Post by mikkelam »

danellis wrote: post #322
mikkelam wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as everyone agrees i see absolutely no problem. The entire value proposition of decentralized blockchain is to establish consensus without trust. If everyone agrees to undo a transaction, it seems perfectly fine to me, as that would require the consensus the blockchain already establishes

> As long as everyone agrees i see absolutely no problem. They didn't all agree, though. Now there's Ethereum (the people who agreed with the fork) and Ethereum Classic (the people who didn't agree).

Some agreed, others didn't and they decided to create a fork. Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree, just the majority
Post reply on HN