811–820 of 837 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of real estate, it replaces the solicitor. And it facilitates the money transfer, so it also replaces the bank.
No. A dumb contract doesn't replace a solicitor and it doesn't replace a bank. You're just saying things now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumer wallet software gives you a warning that this is probably not what you want. > In the US at least, you can get your money back through the legal system. Accidentally dropping your money into someone else’s account does not give them a right to it and for substantial amounts of money people can and do get their money back. I doubt this is true in the case of uncooperative out-of-country second party - yeah th…
Did this guy get a warning? I still find the wire transfer comparison lacking, mostly because one shitty design does not justify another.
Of course one shitty design doesn't justify another, but the point is not justification but a reply to all the people saying "this is way worse than and would never happen with the traditional banking" that they are wrong. I agree that better UX is needed.
Regarding your point about legal action against Ethereum designers, well... That'd be like pursuing legal action against the designers of your web browser because it allows you to open phishing sites. Nonsense IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
exactly, with no-do overs. Everyone hand codes their assembly correctly on the first try right!?!!
There are plenty of do-overs, it's called the "development phase" and involves testing things on your local computer with the team. No one gets everything right the first time, but with a lot of testing, you can actually write software that does exactly what you think it will do, and you can achieve pretty cool stuff. Remember that humans wrote the software that took humanity to the moon!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2019/07/16/apollo-11...
There are 0 do-overs on smart contracts in production. No stopping the network for a minute to triage, no rolling back a minute, no circuit breakers. No "Error 1202, do you want to continue?" pop-up messages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. A dumb contract doesn't replace a solicitor and it doesn't replace a bank. You're just saying things now.
That's why you use smart contracts. You are just unwilling to consider any possibility that crypto could be useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Doesn't the WETH smart contract store all the tokens it receives at its address? Doesn't anyone have the private key of that address? It's been quite a long time since I have been playing with smart contracts and I don't actually remember what happens when a smart contract is created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why you use smart contracts. You are just unwilling to consider any possibility that crypto could be useful.
You use a dumb contract in a situation where otherwise you'd need a solicitor? Please, explain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are intentionally misrepresenting the parent comment. The point is not that nobody should be able to transfer from one address to another, and pretending otherwise is pretty dishonest.
But then please share with me what the argument is? The user made a transfer that shouldn't have been done in the first place, and somehow people are saying that the protocol should have safe-guards against doing transfers to the wrong address , but how is the protocol supposed to know what address is right/wrong? There is literally no distinction between them, so therefore you need to allow any transfer, or no trans…
Sure, the user sent stuff to the wrong address... Or did he? Seems, rather, that he sent the wrong kind of stuff. Had he sent, whateveritwas, WETF in stead of WETH or vice versa, then it would have gone right.
So then it seems the receiving thingamajig was at least as much at fault: It accepted (and just swallowed) a kind of stuff it shouldn't receive. It's like, say, a one-way currency-changing ATM that takes dollars and returns euros. If you feed in euros by mistake, it fucking obviously should just spit them back out (and preferably display or print an error message, "Wrong currency: Gimme dollars to get euros.") You're saying just swallowing your euros would be a "valid" behaviour for that machine.
That's so obviously bullshit that the only remaining mystery here is whether you're actively trying to defend what you know is indefensible, or actually so deluded that you've somehow convinced yourself this bullshit is true. Well, no, not the only one: The other mystery is, which is worse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> have you ever dealt with the insides of forex trading before? Why, is there a way to send currency directly and irrecoverably into a paper shredder on the inside?
The idea behind 'smart' contracts is to have immutable and decentralized pieces of code on the blockchain to execute transactions, eg. to swap ETH for NFTs or ETH to WETH like in the OP. They have addresses because they can keep a balance, but because they are supposed to be dencentralized no one can move that balance. If it did have a transfer or withdraw function people would have to trust the creator not to sudden…
It could apparently only swap from one kind of crypto-"currency" to other stuff.
> But yeah the ability to send the directly to the address is stupid.
Isn't the problem raher the ability to send the wrong "currency" to the address?
If it can only change from one kind to others, then the correct behaviour is obviously to accept only that kind, and reject any others. This is basically an online version of a physical currency-changing ATM, where you feed in dollars to get euros (or other currencies?) in stead. If you feed in euros or pounds or yen by mistake, the ATM should obviously spit it back out. This online version just swallowed the wrong currency. You don't have to know how ATMs actually work internally in order to determine that this is invalid behaviour not only on the user's part, but definitely on the ATM's too. If the ATM can only change from dollars to other currencies, then it should only accept dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What % of the people that use IBAN, know that there is a checksum, know what a checksum even is, or how to apply it? Thankfully we have banks to deal with that - and legal framework that can help us undo problems. "But you can use an exchange with ETH!" Like banks? Making such networks ostensibly not 'decentralized'? The entire point of Crypto/Blockchain is that is decentralized and is accessible to everyone. If it r…
I think you missed that the user went beyond just using something to swap ETH for WETH and instead interacted directly (manually) with the contract, effectively bypassing the safe-guards that are already in place (even without exchanges) to prevent issues. The user basically guessed that this is how you turn ETH into WETH and vice-versa, without actually reading anything about it. If the user searched for "How do I t…
Isn't it the "contract" that is supposed to be the "smart" thing here?
> effectively bypassing the safe-guards that are already in place (even without exchanges) to prevent issues.
YTF aren't these "safe-guards" built into the "contract", if it's supposed to be so "smart"?
Even the most stupid ordinary non-"smart" conversion program has the "smarts" to reject invalid input, not confiscate it.
This whole Crypto/Blockchain business is so obviously bullshit all the way down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with crypto is despite your explanation, I have no idea what any of your post means. Not any of it.
From what I understood of afidrya explanation (in a sub-comment): * there's a smart contract to which you can send ETH (directly), it sends WETH back * however the inverse operation (WETH -> ETH) is not done by sending the WETH, you're supposed to call a special conversion function of the contract I guess the smart contract only looks for ETH in its wallet (at its address), it ignores the WETH entirely, and thus the…