71–80 of 85 posts
Every time I see these stories I'm glad I keep all my cash in a regulated bank with regulator backed compensation rather than some startup powered by gargling bong water and hoping the fuck they don't get hacked.
Every time I see these stories I'm glad I keep all my bitcoin in my own self-custodial wallet. Not your keys not your bitcoin. You keep fiat currency in a bank? HFSP
Love your self management. Just have the balls later when you loose access :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dude who's been hunting for his hard drive with his wallet keys on a dumpster yard would like to speak a word with you. Or those who had their disks seized by the government and the coins auctioned off. Or those where someone placed malware on their PCs or phones and exfiltrated keys.
Your bank account can sure ve seized by the government and even not auctioned off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I see these stories I'm glad I keep all my bitcoin in my own self-custodial wallet. Not your keys not your bitcoin. You keep fiat currency in a bank? HFSP
Enough to eat for a couple of years. I keep my fiat currency in property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet you're the one not contributing to the discussion while someone else provided a much more interesting response to my speculation.
In my very first reply to you, I wrote the answer: "smart contracts can be made immutable."
Just because smart contracts can be made immutable, doesn't mean contracts are commonly deployed that way, and even when they are, developers need a way to get people to use newer versions of immutable code (like uniswap v1 to v2).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that almost all of them seem to be using an update mechanism anyway... Here's USDC on Ethereum, for example: https://etherscan.io/address/0xa0b86991c6218b36c1d19d4a2e9eb... – you can clearly see the upgrade mechanism that will allow anyone that knows the admin key to swap out the contract for anything they like. The cryptocurrency ecosystem's idea of decentralization in a nutshell.
Of course USDC is upgradeable; it's run by an entity that is attempting to comply with the laws and regulations of many different jurisdictions. No power-hungry regulator would allow them to deploy USDC without the capability to arbitrarily intervene, freeze, and blacklist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course USDC is upgradeable; it's run by an entity that is attempting to comply with the laws and regulations of many different jurisdictions. No power-hungry regulator would allow them to deploy USDC without the capability to arbitrarily intervene, freeze, and blacklist.
In a sibling thread you keep condescendingly repeating immutable this, immutable that...
The standard decentralized setup is this:
1. Developers write a smart contract that does something. For example, a token exchange to trade tokens, or a derivatives exchange to trade exposure to tokens/real world assets/etc.
2. Developers publish the source code for this smart contract, deploy it to the chain, and, with the leverage of basic cryptography, make it impossible to change the code --- make it immutable.
3. Anyone who now comes along to use their smart contract does not have to trust the developers because they can 1) read through the open source code and 2) verify that the open source code they are reading is the same as the code deployed on chain. Of course this does not eliminate the risk of unforeseen bugs in the smart contract, which is known as "protocol risk."
If you say you are building a decentralized exchange, that is what you're doing. Otherwise, you're arguably committing fraud.
Many companies want to build financial primitives like decentralized exchanges, hopefully because they think that's where the future will lead and ultimately because there is a lot of money to be made. However, companies must comply with the rules and regulations of the jurisdictions in which they operate. These regulators nearly always insist on the ability to intervene. This creates a slightly different setup:
1. Same as above
2. Same as above, but strikeout the "make immutable" part and leave in an "upgrade authority" backdoor, which allows the code of the smart contract to be replaced (avoiding semantics). This upgrade authority can be gated by a multi-sig, requiring m of n keypairs to sign for new code to be deployed.
3. Often the code is still published, but there are many cases where the code remains closed-source.
The original commenter said this, in paraphrase:
> If you get access to the deploy keys to a decentralized exchange, can't you just deploy new code and take all the funds?
The answer is "no" because a decentralized exchange is immutable. If it were not immutable, then it would not be a decentralized exchange.
If, however, the exchange was not actually decentralized, but fraudulently claimed to be, then yes, you can do exactly as the original commenter speculates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to all those Russian oligarchs that got their assets frozen
To be fair to the parent commenter, they specifically said "the West", which is exactly the opposite of Russia. That said, I do think freedom to transact is an essential human right yet to be enshrined.
You literally cannot create a "freedom to transact" without violating other people's freedom of association. You have no right to other people's anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to the parent commenter, they specifically said "the West", which is exactly the opposite of Russia. That said, I do think freedom to transact is an essential human right yet to be enshrined.
>That said, I do think freedom to transact is an essential human right yet to be enshrined. You literally cannot create a "freedom to transact" without violating other people's freedom of association. You have no right to other people's anything.