801–810 of 837 posts
In case you’re wondering what happened, from the thread: He sent ETH to the WETH contract, received WETH as expected. Then he wanted to do the reverse and sent WETH, but will not receive anything, because you're supposed to swap your WETH to ETH in exchanges like Uniswap, or call the "withdraw" function in the contract. For contracts that want to only work with ERC-20 tokens, you use WETH, which comes from a contract…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto works like cash. If you lose cash, there is no one to dispute charges and issue chargeback. BTW I never had success trying to chargeback VISA for services that were not delivered. Scammers do it without problem though.
Cash transactions are done locally when you can typically inspect the object of the transaction before paying. That's why there is not the same need for these kinds of protection. Crypto combines the worst properties of cash and wire payment into a package that has no customer protection and is almost tailor made for scammers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simpler way: use real financial instruments. Traditional financial systems have had solutions for errors like this for centuries.
Lol verifying with small amounts takes like 5 extra minutes, messing up and having to jump through hoops to fix your errors will take days, especially if you do it on weekends or holidays. And they may not be reversible easily, e.g. IIRC one bank accidently paid off the loan of one of their boderline-default customers to another bank and then couldnt get the money back.
That was a story because it was an incredibly unusual set of circumstances that meant they didn't get their money back - the bank owed the recipients money to repay a loan, and as such the money sent could easily have been a prepayment of the loan, which often happens before legal action is started, as happened a couple of days later. There was no way to distinguish an intentional action and a mistake here, hence the court ruling in favour of the recipient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that it can happen if enough influential individuals in the eth community want it to happen, it is a social software not "immutable", and this will be further enshrined if PoS ever becomes a reality. Bitcoin has the same problem, and cryptocoin enthusiasts are fooling themselves if they think that miners won't raise the 21m cap when the end of Bitcoin rewards start looming.
Anything can be done using a fork. But the days of a chain (read as "only bitcoin & ethereum") doing any kind of deep state change and coming out the other side as the winning fork are done. The stake holders are so diverse and so invested in the values (i.e. immutability, scarcity) that any such fork is doomed to failure. We found out with previous Bitcoin forks, how influential companies and miners are. 21M is non…
When it comes to miner prerogatives the day is never done, they are the sole arbiters of what "winning chain" means, and when they are incentivized to act in unison their will is indomitable.
> and which stakeholder would want to dilute themselves
Miners. Based on your definition, "stakeholders are diluted" every time miners make money, so if the choice is between continuing to make money or not, it's pretty obvious what decision they will make.
I suppose there's a possible future where the miners do nothing and bitcoin transaction fees skyrocket in response. At that point I would expect a mass exodus to altcoins with cheaper transaction fees, but I don't see the miners acquiescing to this future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
>You feel all client software will be suitable? Of course not. There will be more advanced software for expert users that allows them to manually create potentially riskier transactions. That's perfectly fine. Client software targeting end-users should have such checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sidebar: How come such a check is so damn expensive? It should not be.
I agree with you big time. This is hopefully something we'll see addressed by smart contract platforms in the coming years or decades. Clearly Ethereum is far from a ready product, but I think we can expect to see massive improvements when proof of stake goes live this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone explain this in plain English for a newbie that isn’t familiar with these complicated crypto technologies?
Imagine there's a machine that you can deposit dollar bills and it registers in an internal database how much you have. The machine calls these stored values as wrapped dollar. You can withdraw your wrapped dollars back as dollar bills whenever you want. This machine also allows you to send these wrapped dollars to other people - it just subtracts from your balance and adds to the other person's. What this guy did is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the borrower and the lender sign a loan agreement with an intermediary, or among themselves, then sure, but this is conventional finance, not decentralised finance. In this situation the dumb contract becomes redundant. It doesn't do anything.
In the case of real estate, it replaces the solicitor. And it facilitates the money transfer, so it also replaces the bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the misunderstanding is on your side. This is overly simplified so not entirely accurate, but if 100 customers typo their destination IBAN the modulo 97 checksum will probably let 3 of them through.
Wikipedia says that "where used, IBANs have reduced trans-national money transfer errors to under 0.1% of total payments", although there's no source for the claim.