31–40 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who hasn't been hurt if you invested in NFTs in the past year.
adults made adult decisions most lost money, some did not i don’t see anyone complaining about the millions of people losing their paychecks to state lotteries and i think that’s cool, they are adults. decisions have consequences. so to op, grow up and take responsibility for your actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it is accurate
I agree but it's noise and has nothing to do with the topic. Why do you want to encourage that instead of actually discussing the article? I was glad to see it flagged and dead after my comment, but then someone even vouched for it. Like it's such an important comment that it needs to be heard. Even the premise is questionable (does quality presuppose it is moral?) but it's obvious what the parent means and commentin…
This is a bad title on the HN submission. I suspect the title is intentionally designed to capture people's attention and mislead them. The article title is much better: Does OpenSea Shared Storefront have a backdoor? The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions wh…
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the title is written in such as way that it is very easy to misparse as something like "Backdoor in OpenSea allows anybody to take tokens..." That actually is how I first read it. Not saying that doesn't make this a bad thing, but the HN title should really be reverted to the article title.
1. they meant it as a question "does backdoor in opensea allow to take anyone's tokens?".
2. they meant it as a statement "backdoor in opensea allows you to take anyone's tokens"
Obviously #2 is a lot worse. Hopefully they just forgot the question mark and weren't intentionally being malicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes a 'high quality' NFT, in your opinion or experience?
i assume the implication is that successful/desirable nfts also tend to have a well-thought-out implementation, the union of which being hqnft
seems the wrong way around
This is a bad title on the HN submission. I suspect the title is intentionally designed to capture people's attention and mislead them. The article title is much better: Does OpenSea Shared Storefront have a backdoor? The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions wh…
Best title for submission would be: OpenSea administrators can take any tokens minted on the OpenSea Shared Storefront
I have been keeping tabs on digital currency/NFT news just out of sheer malicious curiosity. The "positive" news mostly seem to be "company X is trying out NFTs!". The high profiles cases don't seem to end up with a usable product or are outright cancelled Y months later with the whole thing labeledd as an "experiment". The negative news on the other-hand are pretty scarring - insane amounts of theft, bankruptcies, p…
Keeping in mind this is an established market now (5+ years old) - and that the vast majority of sales are known to be wash trades - this is a small, extremely insignificant market.
Magic the Gathering, at this point, is substantially larger than the non-wash trade NFT market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but it's noise and has nothing to do with the topic. Why do you want to encourage that instead of actually discussing the article? I was glad to see it flagged and dead after my comment, but then someone even vouched for it. Like it's such an important comment that it needs to be heard. Even the premise is questionable (does quality presuppose it is moral?) but it's obvious what the parent means and commentin…
The article is about the low-quality implementation of platforms selling NFTs. I don't see how discussing the lack of quality of NFTs themselves, the "product" they sell, falls too far off the tree.
This is a bad title on the HN submission. I suspect the title is intentionally designed to capture people's attention and mislead them. The article title is much better: Does OpenSea Shared Storefront have a backdoor? The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions wh…
The original title is bad as well, because it is clickbaity. Best title for submission would be: OpenSea administrators can take any tokens minted on the OpenSea Shared Storefront
I find it really weird that they had to decompile the smart contract. That surprised, me I thought the whole point of these smart contracts were that everyone could see them like the transactions that take place.
Some websites like etherscan show the the source code with the version of compiler which was used to compile it. I assume that it works by author of contract uploading original source to the website as gesture that there is nothing to hide. But not every author does that. Assuming a reproducible build the website and anyone else who wants can then verify that it's the original (ore equivalent to original) source code by compiling it with specified compiler version. If the compiled output matches with what's on blockchain, it's then relatively safe to assume it's the original source code and analyze that instead of decompiling bytecode.There is still a chance that clever person hid a backdoor by exploiting a bug or quirk of compiler, making it harder to find unless you reverse engineer compiled bytecode or aware of specific bug in that version of compiler.