I like that one of the recommended solutions is to use named addresses instead of wallet hashes.
DNS and domains instead of IP addresses
A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#12Why don't these tech support the oldest trick every financial companies have been doing? They send a cent and see if the recipient received it or not. If the money went through and is secured, then send the rest. Simply by doing this, you could avoid almost all incidents like these.
I do this for every new address that I send to.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#13I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
I suppose I'll be downvoted for this but my unpopular opinion is that I feel like the voting problem is solvable with some combination of decentralized and cryptographic tech. It's just that the people who can solve it don't want to solve it.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#14It's not 50k (more like $50), but I have a similar story with Stellar. I was one of the (thousands of?) people who Keybase/Stellar/mysterious parties decided to gift some of their tokens to. I tried to transfer them to a provider with my bank information, and immediately flushed them into /dev/null because I didn't understand the separate sequences of numbers that I was supposed to provide. I wasn't exactly upset, bu…
That's a pain. If you might still be willing to give the _entire_ entire space a try, it's getting easier to participate with services like Coinbase and e.g. XLM-USD trading, which is different from holding XLM. (Is that a cup with handle on the 1D?) Or trading crypto-related stocks, even.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#15I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
I suppose I'll be downvoted for this but my unpopular opinion is that I feel like the voting problem is solvable with some combination of decentralized and cryptographic tech. It's just that the people who can solve it don't want to solve it.
The thing about voting is that for the public to trust voting, it needs to be something a general member of the public can understand.
That is why paper balloting is such a durable voting mechanism. Pretty well anyone can understand how you would take a stack of paper ballots and decide who got the most votes. From there you just need to maintain a chain of custody where all ballots are monitored by any interested parties from the time they are cast to the time they are counted.
The more technical you get with your voting solutions, the less overall trust the public will have in the final vote counts.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#16I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
I suppose I'll be downvoted for this but my unpopular opinion is that I feel like the voting problem is solvable with some combination of decentralized and cryptographic tech. It's just that the people who can solve it don't want to solve it.
I'm not sure it is solvable. Voting has to satisfy two requirements:
1) Votes must be private and anonymous (i.e. not linked to your identity)
2) Voting must be secure
It's easy to satisfy either one of these requirements, but currently impossible to satisfy both.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#17I like that one of the recommended solutions is to use named addresses instead of wallet hashes. DNS and domains instead of IP addresses
ENS is nothing like DNS despite both being name services. ENS is decentralised and not subject to a plethora of attacks that give DNS a bad name.
A bad actor maliciously taking control of a ENS address means it's likely you'll lose your money whether you send it to 1.1.1.1 or one.one.one.one
Think you should trust the Solidity dev on this one rather than intuition.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#18Why don't these tech support the oldest trick every financial companies have been doing? They send a cent and see if the recipient received it or not. If the money went through and is secured, then send the rest. Simply by doing this, you could avoid almost all incidents like these.
I fairly regularly do that. It's easy to get complacent and as the average fee increases it becomes a higher and higher incentive to just send the amount.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#19I'm never trusting software for two things: 1. Voting 2. Irreversible transactions
(2) the transactions are irreversible, and the software is clearly doing that well.
The problem is people don't actually want irreversible transactions, they've just been told that they do.
Re: A Crypto User Sent $50k to a Smart Contract. It's Gone Forever
#20Why don't these tech support the oldest trick every financial companies have been doing? They send a cent and see if the recipient received it or not. If the money went through and is secured, then send the rest. Simply by doing this, you could avoid almost all incidents like these.
Each transaction takes minutes to complete, and costs an absurd amount of money.