The collapse of the IRON stable coin • Hacker News Board

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#251

Post by aidenn0 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

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?

That reminds me of a discussion a while back on whether or not "Snow Crash" was a parody. The main character was named "Hiro Protaganist" who worked delivering pizza for the mafia and there was a character who could take on pretty much any number of people completely unarmed, plus had a nuclear bomb wired to a dead-man's switch which caused quasi-governmental organizations to leave him alone.

That's two items, but there's more. However, cyberpunk in the early 90s was so gonzo that it was not an obvious parody to many readers.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#252

Post by daaang » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

raziel2701 wrote: post #221

bombcar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used to have to build your Ponzi scheme, now it builds itself and is fully automated. Such advances. Much technology. Wow.

We truly are witnessing the next-generation of Ponzi schemes.

Is that related to IRON somehow?

PlusToken was certainly a Ponzi, I don't see anything in this article that suggests IRON is/was one.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#253

Post by munificent » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

gerikson wrote: post #2

> The developers seem to have been earnest in their attempt to create a new kind of stablecoin , one that was only partially collateralized by a “real” stablecoin. This space is a giant house of cards.

It's like Ponzi schemes but everyone is Ponzi. Scammers trying to scam scammers. Like Vegas without the tourists, only hustlers.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#254

Post by aidenn0 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #96

Since 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.

Are prices really not integers? That alone seems a huge design flaw. BTC prices are integers (in units of Satoshis, which are smaller than BTC).

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#255

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:09 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #250

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your counterparty being able to contest a contract in court could very well be a "bad" thing for you. Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti... (SEC Cyber Enforcement Actions, control-f "blockchain" | "cryp…

> Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. Oh wow. If only this were true. If only they were so diligent in punishing other kinds of things. Here's something I read recently, from the aftermath of the Libor scandal: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-grante…

[deleted]

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#256

Post by w4 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

tfang17 wrote: post #228

georgyo wrote: post #5

This 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.

That's the whole point. Code is law. The alternative is our current, arcane legal system - only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.

> Code is law.

Law is law, code is code. They're two very different things. Code can't prevent someone from using violence to force you to overturn a smart contract's decision. The law can because it's enforced by the state. You could certainly choose to build a system of law that uses code, but code by itself cannot substitute for law.

> only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.

What do you think the going hourly rate would be for software engineers capable of writing bug-free smart contracts? If adoption takes off I'd bet that it will look a lot like the hourly rate of a good lawyer, or even exceed a lawyer's hourly rate given the impossibility of an appeal if the smart contract is poorly coded.

Also lawyers don't interpret contracts. They draft them and advocate on behalf of their clients in disputes. Judges interpret contracts, and are available as a public service paid for by taxes.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#257

Post by karatinversion » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:12 PM UTC

ipsin wrote: post #72

I found this article interesting, but the HN title ("Off-by-one error...") doesn't match the article's, or its conclusion? The article mentions a boundary condition ("_share_price > 0"), not an off-by-one error.

The off by one error is that the condition should have been >= 0

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#258

Post by RaketenStadt » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #241

So, Dai is a stablecoin that by my understanding is collateralized similarly to this one, except that it requires ether (and I believe USDC is also an option). However, its peg held up very well during the recent precipitous drop in the price of ether. I'm curious if anyone here knows whether that was an algorithmic success in comparison to this, or perhaps just an artifact of people having more confidence in ether.

According to paragraph 3 of TFA it's not collateralized similarly

> Other on-chain stablecoins like DAI are over-collateralised. For every $1 of DAI, there’s ~$1.75 worth of crypto assets in the DAI system.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#259

Post by msgilligan » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

georgyo wrote: post #5

This 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.

Smart contracts is a horrible name. The better analogy (which has been around for years) is that they are the digital equivalent of (snack and beverage) vending machines.

As with vending machines, they have their use cases, but they aren't lawyer "smart" and they certainly aren't legal contracts. I'm not sure how much trouble a better name would have saved everyone, but it might have done a better job of setting expectations.

Re: The collapse of the IRON stable coin

#260

Post by knownjorbist » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

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?

For what it's worth, this isn't "the state of the art" of cryptocurrency.