311–320 of 577 posts
The fact that this is trending on HN shows how little hacker news knows about the cryptocurrency space. A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. Now if dai, usdc or usdt had failed, that would be a big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would we want to encourage such groupthink and discourage dissent?
Taking up the OP's side because it's interesting... Some kinds of groupthink are bad (like making an anti-vaccine subreddit that only ever shows articles about vaccine-related industrial accidents, instead of a vaccine subreddit that shows people a truly representative sampling of vaccine knowledge), but other kinds are arguably good (not seeing 4chan nasty stuff on /r/reallycutekittensandpuppies.) Only some group co…
These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.
Ethereum just forked the entire blockchain to undo a transaction they didn't like. I'm not sure if that's reassuring or a complete violation of the entire premise of smart contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the world just needs less people trying to get something for nothing. If the scammers operating these currencies teach the greedy traders a lesson we'll all be better off.
Agreed. I'd like to figure out how to build a cryptocurrency that is useful for conducting actual business but toxic to investors. An economy that lacked parasitic middle men would be a good thing for the status quo to have to compete with.
Yes, perhaps a currency that you could trade quickly and cheaply all over the world, with 2-3% reduction in its purchasing power each year so that no one has a reason to hoard it or speculate. I wish we had the technology to create such a currency./s
I honestly don't understand why this coin even makes the news. At $250K it was less than a microcap penny token. It's insignificant and not worth a print.
Despite the low liquidity on the exchange, the market cap of the token was supposedly $250M: https://twitter.com/Mudit__Gupta/status/1409463917290557440?...
The fact that this is trending on HN shows how little hacker news knows about the cryptocurrency space. A relatively unknown, recently launched stablecoin collapsing is not big news in crypto. Now if dai, usdc or usdt had failed, that would be a big deal.
The fact that some people think a $250,000 heist followed by the collapse of a half a million dollar stablecoin is "not news" underscores how ridiculous the cryptocurrency space is right now.
These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.
It's possible, but approximately no one in the shitcoin industry knows or cares enough to write fully formally verified programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible, but approximately no one in the shitcoin industry knows or cares enough to write fully formally verified programs.
Are there even any dependently typed smart contract languages that would allow you to encode and carry proofs in your contracts? Without that I think the best you could do is model your program in some other formal verification system and then convince yourself that your model matches the actual contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did they have a marketcap of $250M as a stablecoin when they had 1000x less in reserves?
Because market cap is nonsense, if I create FooCoin with 1,000,000 tokens and sell one for $250, it has a market cap of $250M despite only ever having $250 in real money involved.