Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The collapse of the IRON stable coin

irony-97882.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 502 posts

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#131

Post by mcguire »

hef19898 wrote: post #63
toomuchtodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the legal system takes authority. A smart contract doesn't avoid or override that authority. https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-... > Is A Smart Contract Always A Legal Contract? > No. Because a smart contract is computer code, a smart contract may represent all, part, or none of a valid legal contract under U.S. law. Smart contracts function – in whole or in part – to give effect…

Contracts, at least in my jurisdiction, can come in all forms and colours. Even purely verbal contracts are valid, in fact. Those are hard to enforce, with nothing written it is always he-said-she-said when it comes to disputes. So I would be surprised if "smart-contracts" couldn't be litigated if push comes to shove. No way avoid the legal system. And that is a good thing.

Depends on how strong the cryptography is, no?

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#132

Post by bombcar »

tluyben2 wrote: post #89
ramesh31 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As I get older, I do not understand how known scammers, especially the ones that raise millions over and over, get support time and time again. Con artists are good at what they do. People are a thousand times easier to hack than a database server. And there's no security patches for human emotion; we are full of 10,000 year old zero days.

Agreed, but if you are a VC you do basic DD right? And if there is a reddit group calling your new star CEO a scammer, you might check a bit? But yes, full agree.

I suspect that many VCs don’t do due diligence beyond “someone we trust is already in” and others assume they can get out before it collapses.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#134

Post by shkkmo »

gknoy wrote: post #93
RandomLensman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts remain the legal authority, you cannot trade on for other unless provided by law (as in statute), and then it is back again to the courts to interpret. What did both parties really agree to? IANAL, but intentions and assumptions of the parties can matter - for example, quite a few things you cannot waive in some places, irrespective of what you agree or not.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall that when it comes to contracts, they often allow you to waive protections that the law would normally give you (e.g., specifying that conflict is resolved with arbitration) if both parties agree to it. In the case of smart contracts, where both parties (if I understand it right?) agree that the code defines the contract itself, it seems like saying "... but I made a mista…

You can amend some legal requirements, but certainly not all. There are many, many restrictions on the types of contracts that are legally enforceable.

> but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove

I don't think it would be that hard to prove that the implementation of a smart contract doesn't match the clear intent. The bigger issue isn't the disputability of the contract, but the difficulty of identifing who you would take to court.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#135

Post by RandomLensman »

gknoy wrote: post #93
RandomLensman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts remain the legal authority, you cannot trade on for other unless provided by law (as in statute), and then it is back again to the courts to interpret. What did both parties really agree to? IANAL, but intentions and assumptions of the parties can matter - for example, quite a few things you cannot waive in some places, irrespective of what you agree or not.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall that when it comes to contracts, they often allow you to waive protections that the law would normally give you (e.g., specifying that conflict is resolved with arbitration) if both parties agree to it. In the case of smart contracts, where both parties (if I understand it right?) agree that the code defines the contract itself, it seems like saying "... but I made a mista…

That is somewhat a US/Common Law perspective, in places with codified civil law might be tougher/different (but again, IANAL - just from experience doing complex contracts)

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#136

Post by RaketenStadt »

bombcar wrote: post #55

> Non-collateralized stablecoins require continual growth to be successful. In the event of a price crash, there is no collateral to liquidate the coin back into, and the holder’s money would be lost, as seen with many past projects trying to utilize such design [sic]. Isn’t that just a Ponzi scheme?

No, much different, in a Ponzi scheme you're fraudulently claiming that the high returns you're delivering your old investors are real, and result from your investing acumen, when in fact they aren't real, they're just money from new investors that was never invested in the first place.

This is more like if you bought a lot of dollar bills that were 75% backed by gold and %25 backed by Dogecoin. They are comparable in that both keep working as long as no one tries to cash out, and money keeps coming in.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#137

Post by ramesh31 »

bombcar wrote: post #132
tluyben2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but if you are a VC you do basic DD right? And if there is a reddit group calling your new star CEO a scammer, you might check a bit? But yes, full agree.

I suspect that many VCs don’t do due diligence beyond “someone we trust is already in” and others assume they can get out before it collapses.

It's also a calculated risk. Every ICO in existence has its' detractors. But with so much free funny money floating around, the calculation is heavily outweighed towards FOMO.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#138

Post by shkkmo »

exporectomy wrote: post #92
jcpham2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying for a very long time now to anyone who chooses to listen that a contract itself is a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location to be relevant and useful. Without all of those properties a contract ceases to useful to a human being under all edge cases. So it is, in fact, a dumb contract. Humans want contracts that make them whole at the end of the day, that's the point of th…

How is that thing you've been saying relevant here or how does it lead to your 2nd paragraph? Smart contracts meet all your requirements for a contract just as PDF contracts do.

I believe the point the poster was making is that "smart contract" is a misnomer and contracts comprised of code should be more realistically called "dumb contracts" since they lack the intelligence to understand and compensate for context and intent.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#139

Post by bruce343434 »

meowface wrote: post #18
sashimi-houdini wrote: post #8

I wrote Skepticoin as a serious parody of Bitcoin. Articles like these about the "state of the art" of cryptocurrency make me wonder: would a parody of a more "modern" cryptocurrency even be recognizable as such?

I can't imagine it'd be possible. There're a whole lot of Andy Kaufman-esque / kayfabe / "the most entertaining outcome is the most likely" things going on. Literally no conceivable parody could work as an actual parody, I think. There are coins people are getting rich off of with names and logos like "Pregnant Butt", "CumRocket", racial slurs, etc. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if it hasn't already hap…

> Doesn't matter if you do or don't publish the verified source code; if you do, no one will look at it, and if you don't, no one will notice/care that you didn't before investing their life savings in it.

As someone who doesn't know much at all about crypto, it seems insane that apparently coins can be closed source? But how? How does the chain know what code to execute?

Post reply on HN