Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did I just lose half a million dollars?

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 837 posts

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#621

Post by FDSGSG »

ddingus wrote: post #617
FDSGSG wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again NASA would disagree. Yeah, because NASA has been utterly fucked by the congress. Because of politics it's better for NASA to spend 5x the money on 1 reliable spacecraft than to build 5 slightly less reliable spacecraft out of which only 1 fails. Even if the economics of it don't make sense, NASA can't afford to be seen failing because because politicians will not want to fund them. I guess my point is that NAS…

"The gas fees of such a check would probably be higher than the losses averted, especially in the long run. And any "losses" are essentially distributed among all ETH holders anyway. " This is also how high toxicity systems get made.

The real solution is better client software. Doing these checks on the client-side is free, that's where they should live.

It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#622

Post by Sargos »

dTal wrote: post #311
xtracto wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean generally accepted word? A word is or is not a word . Dont get butthurt because you were pointed wrong after trying to correct someone.

Sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? From the link: >We label irregardless as “nonstandard” rather than “slang.” When a word is nonstandard it means it is “not conforming in pronunciation, grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.” Irregardless is a long way from winning general acceptance as a standard English word. For that…

>No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

The problem is that you think trying to sound smart by interrupting a conversation with irrelevant factoids is a "good deed". Maybe some introspection is appropriate here.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#623

Post by shadowgovt »

monktastic1 wrote: post #560
triangleman wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, could the Ethereum community get together and agree to rewrite the blockchain and undo this transaction? Perhaps they could vote on it and have a hearing of the facts. Of course that introduces its own tyranny but is it possible?

The chain is by nature append only, so you'd have to fork it, which they sure as hell are not going to do for a "little guy," to put it mildly. At least, that's my layman's understanding.

Yep. Little users can still get screwed, but players too big to fall get to make up new rules.

... Reminds me of another financial infrastructure I know.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#624

Post by can16358p »

swiftcoder wrote: post #169
djhworld wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can the code be corrected though it sounds to me like the fix would be create a new map that maps account ID -> tokens, where account ID = the "sender" account where the tokens came from, and do the migration to move these 'orphaned' tokens into the right buckets. admittedly I guess that would break everything/trust if someone can just rewrite the code to say who has what tokens!

> can the code be corrected though A defining feature of "smart contracts" is that the code is immutable once deployed, and can never be upgraded or bug-fixed.

There are actually some approaches that makes smart contracts "upgradeable" but it involves using a special base class that proxies everything through delegate calls.

But yeah you're definitely right about the nature of the contracts being immutable, unless that immutable code contains some setter that delegates the function calls to some other contract.

ERC-721 (NFTs) actually has a nice way of dealing with sending NFTs to an incorrect address by checking if it implements a special interface if the recipient is a smart contract. But any measures come at the cost of extra gas so they are usually avoided.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#625

Post by YATA0 »

ciupicri wrote: post #102
YATA0 wrote: post #54

Crypto Darwinism is a real thing. Insane to see that amount of money just disappear. Literally just poof , it's gone. Not "gone" like someone stole it, because that money didn't disappear, the thief has it now. This money literally went into a digital blackhole.

What do you mean by crypto Darwinism?

It's like a Darwin award, but instead of removing yourself from existence, you're removing your life savings from existence.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#626

Post by Tenoke »

sp332 wrote: post #390
posterboy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost bills before, forgot to check change, that was all on me.

At least in that case someone actually got the money. In this case there was a valid transaction to a valid address that no one owns and no one can access.

Not if the money were say burned but at any rate, someone 'gets' them here, too - all holders' get the value of their eth proportionally increased because of the decreased amount of eth in circulation.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#628

Post by Adrox »

mattdesl wrote: post #183
Adrox wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to have used MetaMask! He was not writing any code or “tunneling into their servers”! Unless MetaMask is not recomended anymore and I should use centralized websites that I have no idea what code they are running? Even my bank that has a REST API would probably tell me where the money went, instead of “it’s gone”.

Interacting with a contract by sending it tokens (and having no idea what the outcome will be) is about as risky behaviour as you can imagine, and is quite a lot like using a low level API to circumvent the guardrails put in place by typical payment processors. Certainly client and wallet UX can be dramatically improved to mitigate these problems. And education more generally about the risks of interacting with smart…

So, you don’t recomend MetaMask to send tokens? Which wallets/services would you recomend to avoid this situation?

Would binance not allow me to send WETH to that wallet?

Would any decentralized/centralized wallet be safer? Please tell me which?

Or should I not be sending tokens and just use coinbase and binance non-centralized features?

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#629

Post by sanderjd »

dpark wrote: post #614
FDSGSG wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The terminology is quite standardised, but just like "gui, compilers, loop, trees, objects, etc." you're not going to know them unless you're familiar with the subject.

Is it really? From what I can tell these are all Etherium-specific terms. This is not standardized. It might be consistent but that’s not at all the same as actually being standardized. This seems like saying that Chef terminology is standard. It might be internally consistent with its talk of recipes and ingredients and whatnot for imaging machines. But this terminology is not standard because it’s meaningless to so…

I think it's a mix. Some of it is Ethereum specific and some is pretty standard across all blockchains that support smart contracts.

Re: Did I just lose half a million dollars?

#630

Post by ddingus »

FDSGSG wrote: post #621
ddingus wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The gas fees of such a check would probably be higher than the losses averted, especially in the long run. And any "losses" are essentially distributed among all ETH holders anyway. " This is also how high toxicity systems get made.

The real solution is better client software. Doing these checks on the client-side is free, that's where they should live. It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software.

"It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software. "

You feel all client software will be suitable?

I don't. There is NO WAY. Lots of people will do ANYTHING for a bit of margin, hoping for volume.

Post reply on HN