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

Smart Contract Security Field Guide

scsfg.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#141

Post by latchkey »

DropInIn wrote: post #140
latchkey wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you've just done more to prove to me that you crypto folks are generally just ignorant of real world issues. I didn't know I was supposed to "prove" anything to you or handhold you on reading even the basics of the available documentation. All I have to say is your loss for not making the effort on your own and being so negative and combative. Good luck sir.

Just more deflections and allusions. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/encumbrance Educate yourself.

You chastise me above for "the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner" and then you do something even more silly. Oh the hypocrisy. At least I don't say something rude like "educate yourself."

I'll end my replies here. This is a circular non-productive 'conversation'. It is clear reading your past comments here that everything is negative from you, which is really strange to me. Seriously, have a great day, but I'm done.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#142

Post by dbmikus »

DropInIn wrote: post #136
latchkey wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is baked into the contracts and the way that the networks and protocols work. The general idea isn't super complicated though. You have tokens, they sit in a wallet that you control. Let's say you own 10 ETH. Then that is in your wallet. Those ETH are mathematically provable to be in your wallet. In the case of AAVE, you send your tokens to their contract, they give you back a receipt token which represents how mu…

Just ignored my questions to give the standard allusions rants.... "proves the collateral exists" means who validates the asset doesn't have a standard run of the mill contract/lien/etc? Just answer that, and _actually_ answer it (the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner) and we'll go from there.

The collateral provably exists because blockchain code is public and ownership is secured via cryptography.

Are you asking about an off-chain asset that is brought on-chain? For that, you are correct you need to rely on a socially trusted institution that attests that the off-chain asset isn't actually owned by someone else.

There are some off-chain assets that are tokenized and are very trustworthy, IMO, such as USDC. And then there are a number of purely on-chain assets, such as ETH, MATIC (Polygon), and coins that power protocols like Uniswap and Aave and give the owner of those coins a right to dividends. The blockchain proves ownership of purely on-chain assets directly through cryptography.

I do want to add, you are being pretty combative here towards someone that was genuinely answering your questions.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#143

Post by kspacewalk2 »

Uptrenda wrote: post #82
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking about practical applications of a relatively mature technology is an entirely, 100% legitimate question to ask. It is frequently asked about many other techs and advances, although it's also frequently omitted since the answer is obvious and readily available/forthcoming. Not so with pretty much anything blockchain. So yeah, if a technology is a solution in search of a problem for ten years, that's gonna come…

It reflects a profound level of ignorance which over time feels more like gas lighting than any real attempt to understand what the industry is about. - provably fair gambling, lotteries, etc (otherwise vulnerable to selective scamming) - p2p asset exchange without centralised deposits (otherwise vulnerable to theft) - micro-payments and offchain payments (they help to scale the tech) - flash loans (instant access to…

These are a bunch of either superficially or actually plausible ideas. How can I tell whether it's legit or bullshit without seeing how it fares in the real world? Perhaps I wasn't clear - I was looking for company names, product names, something I can get a feel for in terms of concrete metrics like $$$ invested, sales, profits, how it's faring in the real world, etc.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#144

Post by DropInIn »

latchkey wrote: post #141
DropInIn wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just more deflections and allusions. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/encumbrance Educate yourself.

You chastise me above for "the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner" and then you do something even more silly. Oh the hypocrisy. At least I don't say something rude like "educate yourself." I'll end my replies here. This is a circular non-productive 'conversation'. It is clear reading your past comments here that everything is negative from you, which is really strange to me. Seriously, have a grea…

You're insufferable.

The definition for the word encumbrance is literally the opening line and is the exact issue at hand that you refuse to address.

To quote it:

"Encumbrance means any charge, claim, community property interest, pledge, condition, equitable interest, lien (statutory or other), option, security interest, mortgage, easement, encroachment, right of way, right of first refusal, or restriction of any kind, including any restriction on use, voting, transfer, receipt of income or exercise of any other attribute of ownership."

How does AAVE or any other smart contracts ensure there are no outside encumbrances?

It has to use human third parties and pay those fees, on top of the SC fees.

Really, you're just proving to me that folks promoting this garbage are childish, ignorant and baseleslly arrogant.

And BTW, You are the one running in circles. I've been asking you the same question without getting an answer for several comments now...

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#145

Post by DropInIn »

dbmikus wrote: post #142
DropInIn wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ignored my questions to give the standard allusions rants.... "proves the collateral exists" means who validates the asset doesn't have a standard run of the mill contract/lien/etc? Just answer that, and _actually_ answer it (the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner) and we'll go from there.

The collateral provably exists because blockchain code is public and ownership is secured via cryptography. Are you asking about an off-chain asset that is brought on-chain? For that, you are correct you need to rely on a socially trusted institution that attests that the off-chain asset isn't actually owned by someone else. There are some off-chain assets that are tokenized and are very trustworthy, IMO, such as USD…

So, by definition, the only asset that doesn't have external costs which make the SC cost _more_ than traditional paper contracts are those where the collateral asset is the exact same currency as will be issued?

You do see the glaring issue there right?

As for combative, I am beyond tired of the games played by crypto folks when it comes to answering basic questions they should already have the answers for.

If they don't answer the simple questions with clear and simple answers, then why should I act as though they are acting in good faith, let alone actually educated on the topics they claim the tech solves to know whether it solves a problem at all? Because from my perspective they sure as hell aren't.

Ed: oh I forgot to include the other major issue that undermines even on chain encumberance, that is the fact that a preceding off chain encumbrance takes precedent in court and thus even if the SC executes properly the funds may be taken by the courts as a consequence of preexisting encumbrance and thereby undermine the entire value proposition of the SC.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#146

Post by latchkey »

DropInIn wrote: post #144
latchkey wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You chastise me above for "the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner" and then you do something even more silly. Oh the hypocrisy. At least I don't say something rude like "educate yourself." I'll end my replies here. This is a circular non-productive 'conversation'. It is clear reading your past comments here that everything is negative from you, which is really strange to me. Seriously, have a grea…

You're insufferable. The definition for the word encumbrance is literally the opening line and is the exact issue at hand that you refuse to address. To quote it: "Encumbrance means any charge, claim, community property interest, pledge, condition, equitable interest, lien (statutory or other), option, security interest, mortgage, easement, encroachment, right of way, right of first refusal, or restriction of any kin…

> It has to use human third parties and pay those fees, on top of the SC fees.

No, it doesn't. This can be codified into contracts and automated. Voting in the DAO ensures no single point of failure.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#147

Post by DropInIn »

latchkey wrote: post #146
DropInIn wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're insufferable. The definition for the word encumbrance is literally the opening line and is the exact issue at hand that you refuse to address. To quote it: "Encumbrance means any charge, claim, community property interest, pledge, condition, equitable interest, lien (statutory or other), option, security interest, mortgage, easement, encroachment, right of way, right of first refusal, or restriction of any kin…

> It has to use human third parties and pay those fees, on top of the SC fees. No, it doesn't. This can be codified into contracts and automated. Voting in the DAO ensures no single point of failure.

Any asset Off Chain must be validated Off Chain thereby adding external costs, which from my napkin math suggest the total costs would exceed traditional alternatives.

And that's without even addressing actually checking for encumberance of the asset, which then makes the whole thing no different than traditional contracts except for much higher costs, an inability to readily modify without significant expense (if at all), and more.

Without checking for encumberance Off chain the entire value proposition of an SC is a joke, as what the code says doesn't matter when a preexisting encumberance applies. (Ed: This applies to on chain assets as well)

And if you're going to say it's not for off chain assets then all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#148

Post by latchkey »

DropInIn wrote: post #147
latchkey wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has to use human third parties and pay those fees, on top of the SC fees. No, it doesn't. This can be codified into contracts and automated. Voting in the DAO ensures no single point of failure.

Any asset Off Chain must be validated Off Chain thereby adding external costs, which from my napkin math suggest the total costs would exceed traditional alternatives. And that's without even addressing actually checking for encumberance of the asset, which then makes the whole thing no different than traditional contracts except for much higher costs, an inability to readily modify without significant expense (if at…

> all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained

Pretty sure my loans are perfectly not undermined.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#149

Post by DropInIn »

latchkey wrote: post #148
DropInIn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any asset Off Chain must be validated Off Chain thereby adding external costs, which from my napkin math suggest the total costs would exceed traditional alternatives. And that's without even addressing actually checking for encumberance of the asset, which then makes the whole thing no different than traditional contracts except for much higher costs, an inability to readily modify without significant expense (if at…

> all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained Pretty sure my loans are perfectly not undermined.

Again, avoiding the issue with a allusory deflection.

Re: Smart Contract Security Field Guide

#150

Post by latchkey »

DropInIn wrote: post #149
latchkey wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained Pretty sure my loans are perfectly not undermined.

Again, avoiding the issue with a allusory deflection.

What's the issue again? Everything works fine for me.
Post reply on HN