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

491–500 of 577 posts

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

#491

Post by threeseed »

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.

With ecommerce the worst you can do as a seller is take out as much money as the credit limit on the card. Which for most people is in the low thousands.

With smart contracts the liability upside is orders of magnitude higher.

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

#492

Post by Aperocky »

xur17 wrote: post #456
Aperocky wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a rapidly inflating bubble like NFTs and subprime mortgages.

What aspect of stablecoins makes them a bubble?

It only really works on good times (read low interest rates).

Good thing that the national debt is also out of control, which kind of restrict Fed's ability to raise interest rates without bankrupting the government.

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

#493

Post by threeseed »

fleddr wrote: post #334
iNane9000 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From a humanitarian and economical point of view, Bitcoin doesn't hurt the poor. It allows the unbanked to finally store wealth, as a counter to a local strongly inflationary currency. Besides storing wealth, also growing wealth, as pretty much the only option they have. Unless you don't believe the narrative that Bitcoin stores/grows wealth very well, in that case...poor people can simply not use it. Perhaps you mea…

> Bitcoin doesn't hurt the poor

The impacts of climate change, which Bitcoin unquestionably contributes to, skew significantly towards poorer countries.

And the consumer protections built into the regulations around fiat currencies are there to protect people who can't afford teams of accountants and lawyers.

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

#494

Post by vmception »

skizm wrote: post #280
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.

They altered a state of a smart contract with consensus, although I believe this to be a mistake, they didn't roll back blocks or reorganize. Some miners used that opportunity continue a non-edited fork. I personally find this technical understanding to be distinctive from the common narrative.

I also don't think it matters and there is no consensus to do the same thing any longer.

The explanation for why they did it was because the transaction would have a very large percentage of Ether in the hands of one actor who would eventually be able to alter control of the future Proof of Stake network. If it was any other asset they wouldn't have bothered, and now much larger $ values are captured from people without any notice or fanfare. They didn't know it would be 7-9 years before Sharded Proof of Stake or the Beacon Chain would exist, and its likely that the means did justify the ends at that point in time as many of their supporters and institutional supporters had their funds in that contract.

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

#495

Post by reidjs »

doesnotexist wrote: post #285
rawtxapp wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bugs found in smart contracts equal large sums of money right away unlike 0-days in OSes or other systems where the link is much more indirect. For example, if you find a 0-day on Windows, sure you might sell it for 7-8 figures on the black market, if you found a bug on maker (or any of the big contracts), you could walk away with billions of dollars in a practically untraceable way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_for_zero-day_exploits#M... The wikipedia entry on this is a bit misleading or misinformed. As there are multiple above ground buyers for 0-days that have no interest in making it difficult for people to sell to them.

There's still a middle-man to deal with in that process. In this case, you extract a decent amount of 'money' directly.

Would you rather win $100 and have to make a phone call to claim it, or find a $100 bill on the street?

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

#496

Post by fleddr »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #455
fleddr wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I could. You just did it, as did the 3 other replies. You double down and confirm my point. Like I said, I see the humor in it. It's culture. Every forum has a culture. That's why you came to the defense, even in absence of an attack. I know I won't change that, but I do want to explain my counter point by means of an example. You have absolutely no idea how deeply I hate Google. I could write books full of it.…

I tried to present the arguments around here in a nuanced way. I don't think that there is much of a closed mind or a simplistic binary rejection, or a taboo, on technical topics here on HN. The onus is on crypto boosters (who are usually invested and would benefit from more hype) to present better arguments and demonstrate the general benefit/feasability of crypto.

You don't think there's a closed mind because you're never on that other side. So you likely never experience it.

Yes, there are self-serving crypto maximalists. But even if you add nuance, you get downvoted and standard replies debunked years ago. Doesn't matter what you say, the arguments aren't even heard.

That's absolute closed mindedness. And the quality of many of those replies shows how extremely little those people know about it at all.

A massive problem? No. But I'm just telling you it does exist.

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

#497

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #484
frumper wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There obviously is a reason for merchants to eat the losses, or else virtually every merchant in the modern world wouldn't accept credit cards. The reason is that merchants (on the whole) agree with credit card companies that it is better for customers to feel safe and comfortable shopping, and thus increase transaction volume, even if doing so means that merchants will occasionally eat losses from fraud.

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

#498

Post by vmception »

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.

Nah its just a small, irrelevant project falling apart. That has nothing to do with the cryptocurrency space. Amounts this small rarely makes the news in the crypto space and happen every day. They also barely make the news in the fiat space and happen every day.

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

#499

Post by fleddr »

quadcore wrote: post #398
fleddr wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say they are "simply" a representation of fiat money, basically a fiat mirror held in crypto, but they play an incredibly important role in the ecosystem: - In some countries, swapping crypto to stablecoin (another crypto) has no tax implications whilst swapping to fiat does have consequences. - For big account holders (not me), stablecoins are the only way to put gains on "dry land". If you win big on exchanges,…

Interesting there is this new series on Netflix, StartUp about this stuff. So the question really is "does it work?". Couldn't this be interesting for that it will force us to change the way we code? For sure the best paradigm will win over time. And the best coders. People are investing in the coders at this point like they do in a bank. Feels like this story isn't stopping anytime soon.

In general, everything in our society that can be turned into software code, will. Every company, every institute is a tech company, they just don't know it yet.

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

#500

Post by Karrot_Kream »

fleddr wrote: post #428
UweSchmidt wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see: - Google: monopolistic tendencies, decline of their search engine, copyright troubles for youtubers, overall bad execution with their projects recently. - iot: really bad security and privacy, otherwise it would be neat. - modern websites: gauntlet of cookie banners and modals, ads and surveillance are criticized, page weight often silly, but the capabilities of modern websites are generally appreciated he…

Yes, I could. You just did it, as did the 3 other replies. You double down and confirm my point. Like I said, I see the humor in it. It's culture. Every forum has a culture. That's why you came to the defense, even in absence of an attack. I know I won't change that, but I do want to explain my counter point by means of an example. You have absolutely no idea how deeply I hate Google. I could write books full of it.…

Shrug it's happening throughout technical circles, at least in the English-speaking world. It's one thing to try to push back against politics that you feel are harmful and disenfranchising, in purely political or social forums. It's another when technology forums develop taboos on what technology you can and cannot discuss. I agree it's cultural, but folks who are immersed in the culture don't seem to be willing to call it that. I'm really looking forward for this to be "over" so that the internet can have nuanced discussions about technology again.
Post reply on HN