TTN is not at 0. It's at $0.00206950, which ought to pass what the poster claims is a bad > 0 error test. So what's really going on?
[deleted]
The collapse of the IRON stable coin
141–150 of 502 posts
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#142This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.
Programs have bugs in. This is something programmers should be aware of!
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#143Earlier 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…
It's common for people to take mechanical/technological steps to make sure agreements will be respected when they know that if they just wrote a contract they could not rely on the legal system to enforce it in a reliable or economical manner. This is not necessarily bad. When I get my car fixed at the mechanic, I am paying for the service but at no time do I transfer ownership to him. One procure we could follow is…
Most places recognize something called a "mechanics lien" that means the police won't get your car back either. Workmen usually have a legal claim to property that they worked on and have not been paid for. Sometimes it requires specific paperwork (more often with real property, e.g. a contractor can place a lien on your house but usually needs you to agree to it before they start work) but often it's implicit. I guess my point here is that this is a scenario with specific legal backing that goes way back into history, which smart contracts don't really have.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#144I have never read so much about nothing as I have when reading about some new coin. It's worse than a pyramid scheme. At least there, you end up with a decade-worth of skin cream.
You're talking about multi-level marketing. Which isn't quite a pyramid scheme (even though it is pyramid-ish).
Pyramid Schemes have the originators (the "top" of the pyramid) win lots of money, while the base (the "bottom" of the pyramid, where most people are) losers. And the top barely did any work to get there: they just took the money from people below them.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#145Does this contract have a money transmission license? Selling an IRON or a TRON for USDC is money transmission. BSA requires money transmitters to be licensed in states where they operate, as well as register with FICEN, etc. How can we enforce them to comply at the state level? Can an individual sue the states to enforce compliance on the people behind this smart contract? Those that have lost money might have an in…
Were the devs even American? From reading the article and their bad grammar, it seems not. If so these US regulations don't really apply/have any consequences.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#146Since the price is not an integer, this is not an “off-by-one” error. No? It was the common mistake of writing `>` when `>=` was intended.
What do you think would be a better name?
I kind of agree with you, but then, since it would fit for integers, I can’t think of a better name and could live with some generalization of “off by one”. I’m not a mathematician but maybe something like “off by n; n -> lim 0”
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if you both sign a legal contract to obey the outcome of the smart contract then no one owes anything, because the smart contract says that the $200M is gone. Obviously this doesn't allow you get around laws such as warranties but I don't see why it can't be used if everyone agrees to it.
> Sure, but if you both sign a legal contract to obey the outcome of the smart contract then no one owes anything, You are begging the question by presupposing that for every smart contract there could be a possible legal contract that can bind the people who sign it to the results of the smart contract. If a smart contract is illegal, then any written contract that binds people to the results of that contract would…
Contracts can be unenforceable for reasons that might not be obvious to people who don't do contract law, as well. For example, the concept of consideration is not especially obvious, that contracts are often not enforceable if both parties do not receive consideration, which leads to things like peppercorn payments. I know about that as a layman but a contract attorney would know of many more non-obvious things that must be checked out to avoid having problems actually enforcing the contract. It seems like it would be very, very easy to produce a smart contract which a court would later determine was not enforceable in the first place, and perhaps order reversal of payments or other things.
For one, as a general concept the parties to the contract need to actually understand the terms and courts will somewhat regularly throw a contract out if they think there were implications that were not apparent to one of the parties. Smart contracts seem like absolute minefields for this kind of problem.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#148This has always been the problem with smart contracts. They are infact dumb contacts. To program one you need to think about all the edge cases. The programmers here likely did want >0 here. The possibility that the thing feeding price data return zero incorrectly was higher than the price legitimately being zero in their minds. There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract.
> There is no court or lawyer who can interpret the spirit of the contract. That's obviously the point, though. You are trading one set of risks for a completely different set of risks that might suit your use case much better; your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you.
Bad news for you, then… your counterparty can’t still bring you to court.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#149I have never read so much about nothing as I have when reading about some new coin. It's worse than a pyramid scheme. At least there, you end up with a decade-worth of skin cream.
You're talking about multi-level marketing. Which isn't quite a pyramid scheme (even though it is pyramid-ish). Pyramid Schemes have the originators (the "top" of the pyramid) win lots of money, while the base (the "bottom" of the pyramid, where most people are) losers. And the top barely did any work to get there: they just took the money from people below them.
You are correct, good sir. As you point out, both are somewhat the same: your value increases as more people buy into the illusion of value.
Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin
#150> 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 i…
"They are comparable in that both keep working as long as no one tries to cash out, and money keeps coming in."
So...a Ponzi scheme?