Did I just lose half a million dollars?

Post by e12e » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:55 AM UTC

gnabgib wrote: post #581

e12e wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for that link, I see it was posted to hn, but gained little traction. It certainly puts words to my feelings around current "crypto" trends as someone (probably like moxie) that still remember the first wave of cypherpunks[1] and dreams of digital currencies. It feels strange when a lot of smart people insists on something that's obviously false in a practical, real-world sense - and it's nice to see someon…

3392pts and 1129comments is "little traction"?? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845208

Post by FDSGSG » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:58 AM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #696

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…

Sidebar: How come such a check is so damn expensive? It should not be.

Post by dylkil » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:33 AM UTC

icedistilled wrote: post #744

dylkil wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you dont know what you are doing you should never interact with a smart contract directly. People like the guy who lost 500k should be using the frontends which interact with the contracts properly. https://wrapeth.com/

it's like telling someone never to deal with physical cash or dollar bills, only use credit cards.

Post by kkjjkgjjgg » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:44 AM UTC

lottin wrote: post #773

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because finance is decentralized doesn't mean the law doesn't still apply. I don't know where you get that idea from. Also not sure what you mean by "dumb contracts" - crypto contracts can contain code on top of text, whereas traditional contracts can only contain text. So obviously the crypto contracts are strictly superior.

The counter-party to both the borrower and the lender is a dumb contract. A dumb contract is not a legal person, and therefore it cannot initiate legal action, nor legal action can be initiated against it. Furthermore, there's no legal agreement between the dumb contract and its counter-parties, since, again, a dumb contract doesn't have a legal personality which is required to enter into legally-binding agreements.

Post by lottin » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 11:20 AM UTC

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #787

lottin wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter-party to both the borrower and the lender is a dumb contract. A dumb contract is not a legal person, and therefore it cannot initiate legal action, nor legal action can be initiated against it. Furthermore, there's no legal agreement between the dumb contract and its counter-parties, since, again, a dumb contract doesn't have a legal personality which is required to enter into legally-binding agreements.

Depends on the service, but I would think (ianal) if somebody publishes a smart contract and says "you can buy my house via this smart contract", then that person is the counter party, not the smart contract. Of course you can burn your crypto and send it so some random contract. You can also take traditional money, go to the woods and burn it.