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

481–490 of 577 posts

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

#481

Post by Analemma_ »

mikkelam wrote: post #350
danellis wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Thank goodness we've gotten away from a system where the government can arbitrarily decide to steal my money and towards a glorious future where a bunch of randos on the internet can arbitrarily decide to steal my money. I feel so much better.

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

#482

Post by recursive »

raverbashing wrote: post #291
admax88q wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not what I'm saying. But sure, if you think you can write smart contracts without bugs for all means don't set a limit. I'm saying you should define a ceiling for your smart contract so in case of a bug, no transactions over that ceiling go forward. So if you have a stupid bug that causes you to transfer 1BTC instead of 0.001BTC you don't lose all your money.

What's the distinction? That just means you won't be able to use smart contracts for anything useful.

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

#483

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

georgeecollins wrote: post #315
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'd like to figure out how to build a cryptocurrency that is useful for conducting actual business but toxic to investors. An economy that lacked parasitic middle men would be a good thing for the status quo to have to compete with.

>> I'd like to figure out how to build a cryptocurrency that is useful for conducting actual business but toxic to investors. Yes, perhaps a currency that you could trade quickly and cheaply all over the world, with 2-3% reduction in its purchasing power each year so that no one has a reason to hoard it or speculate. I wish we had the technology to create such a currency./s

We lose a lot more than 2% each year to wasteful policies designed to ensure that investors get their returns.

Downtown there are hungry people, downstream there are thirsty people, and yet my HOA won't let me stop watering my lawn, nor will they let me replace the grass with something edible.

And if you won't accept food and drink as part of that 2%, consider the more measurable economic costs of the climate of of unrest that these practices create.

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

#484

Post by thaumasiotes »

frumper wrote: post #323
thaumasiotes wrote: post #178

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. 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…

As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make. I did not initiate the sale with the merchant, I did not verify I was the rightful card holder, I did not authorize the funds to be transferred, and I will not send money to that bank to make up for any of that. Banks are in the business of encouraging transactions and my card number could…

> As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make.

This applies to everyone involved, but someone's going to pay for the loss anyway, unless you can recover from the thief.

There is no reason for the merchant to pay for the purchase either -- he is even less culpable than you are. But that's what everyone is advocating here.

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

#485

Post by [deleted] »

imtringued wrote: post #466
SavantIdiot wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd: HN is made up of the people closest to cutting-edge technology on the planet, and yet sentiment is negative on cryptocurrency. Hmmm...

Cutting edge black market currencies? Most people aren't interested in that. People come with their Argentina and Venezuela inflation and capital control stories and I fully agree with them but it feels like that is in no way justifying the hype around cryptocurrencies. Average people just want the MLM fueled number go up speculation and that is about it.

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by WalterSear »

drdrey wrote: post #436
WalterSear wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immutability is at the heart of blockchain functionality. Everything involved requires it. So, you'ld have to throw it all out and try to invent something entirely different.

That’s not true, upgradable contracts using proxies is a common pattern.

A contract isn't a blockchain.

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

#488

Post by cmelbye »

gumby wrote: post #478
ekir wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly common to deploy a proxy contract, which allows for a sort of updating. Basically you deploy a new contract and have the proxy point to that new contract instead of the old one. There are definitely some limitations and it's not fully standardized yet. There's a tentative standard here https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1538 and OpenZeppelin also has their own implementation. Although neither of thes…

Doesn't a proxy contract defeat the whole purpose of algorithmically enforced contracts?

I don't think it's realistic to think that human judgment can leave the picture after the first deploy. New systems are fragile, requirements change, and mistakes happen. A certain level of trust is required in the founders of a project. And generally, they have long-term incentives that are aligned with your own.

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

#489

Post by soared »

m00dy wrote: post #486

I see a lot of negative comments about blockchains in general here. We are now trying to build a new world order and It is purely built on code. Of course, we will have issues like this. Nothing is perfect.

Isn’t that a tautology?

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

#490

Post by slownews45 »

fleddr wrote: post #356
slownews45 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding - each of the these crypto folks go "trust us" - and then even the simplest things (1:1 US Dollar backed coin - seriously - how hard is this!) turn out to be a full of crap and lies. And if you believe USDT has been 1:1 backed by us dollars for its full history - dream on. If you believed they would actually get audited when they said they would - hahah.

Your statement "how hard is this" shows your complete incompetence regarding the backing of anything. Nothing of value is backed in our world. If a mere 7% of bank account holders go to the bank to collect their money, the bank collapses. They don't have your money, it's not there. If all owners of gold (gold value papers) today claim their physical gold, it can't be done. There's 400% more value paper compared to th…

I obviously understand this better than many of the experts then.

The buyer of all apple stock gets a claim to all apples future profits (and control of the corp). This happens regularly - all sellers selling when businesses are taken private. In general, this results in a premium to present value, not a discount. And even if the price went to zero, I still end up with this profit generating asset.

What crypto people don't understand is that the constant LYING (!) undermines their arguments.

We understand how banks work. FDIC insured to 250K, you can do an ICS or other accounts to spread your cash to get FDIC coverage for about $100M of your balance. For most folks that is plenty of cash insurance for funds if they need it. If not, buy 13 week t-bills.

What you totally fail to understand, is when someone says something is backed 1:1 by a related asset, then when someone buys item A, the issuer needs to be 1 unit of the related asset. This is not complicated math. This actually happens all the time in the real world. Even the title to my vehicle even is backed 1:1 by my vehicle.

Even your "successful" 1:1 backed crypto is likely anything but that, and yes - when the run starts, we will find out how bad it is.

Post reply on HN