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

SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

cryptoslate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–577 of 577 posts

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#571

Post by hanniabu »

w4llstr33t wrote: post #540
hanniabu wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot of buzz words to say soft forks. Also this has nothing to do with upgradeable contracts.

> has nothing to do with upgradeable contracts. Although the article is talking about the SafeDollar contract, there were some general points about crypto / blockchain in this thread that I was responding to. Tezos is one example that has on-chain governance, which is why I mentioned it. If you want to provide more info about how the on-chain governance is really just done through soft forks, and why you think that's…

Tezor governance is for protocol upgrade. They vote and push them through as a soft fork. There's really nothing different there but they market it like it's something special. This has nothing to do with contract upgrades, although ethereum is at the forefront with having contracts that are upgradeable via DAO voting.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#572

Post by arcadeparade »

jsemrau wrote: post #534
arcadeparade wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

250k is nothing compared to the biggest defi losses: https://rekt.news/leaderboard/

Thank you for sharing this. But holy moly, what has happened in April in the crypto space?!

i think the quantity of scams generally increases in bubbles

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#573

Post by Closi »

theli0nheart wrote: post #565
solomonb wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes this is what I was implying. I am curious how else the previous commenter would interpret my statement.

Let's formalize this to make it easier to discuss. 𝐏(𝐀) = 𝐏(contract has been hacked) 𝐏(¬𝐀) = 𝐏(contract has not been hacked) 𝐏(𝐁) = 𝐏(contract is hack resistant) Relevant conditional probabilities: 𝐏(𝐁|¬𝐀) = 𝐏(contract is hack-resistant given that it has not been hacked) 𝐏(¬𝐀|𝐁) = 𝐏(contract has not been hacked given that it is hack-resistant) The fallacy of the inverse would be assuming that: > The…

To be honest, I don’t fully follow the above, and I’m not sure if this formalises the same problem. Copying the definition from Wikipedia:

> If P, then Q.

> Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

In this case, we could plug in the below values:

P = Contract Hacked Q = Insecure

I.e. if the contract has been hacked the code was insecure. Therefore if the contract has not been hacked, it is not insecure.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#574

Post by w4llstr33t »

hanniabu wrote: post #571
w4llstr33t wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has nothing to do with upgradeable contracts. Although the article is talking about the SafeDollar contract, there were some general points about crypto / blockchain in this thread that I was responding to. Tezos is one example that has on-chain governance, which is why I mentioned it. If you want to provide more info about how the on-chain governance is really just done through soft forks, and why you think that's…

Tezor governance is for protocol upgrade. They vote and push them through as a soft fork. There's really nothing different there but they market it like it's something special. This has nothing to do with contract upgrades, although ethereum is at the forefront with having contracts that are upgradeable via DAO voting.

Thanks!

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#575

Post by armatav »

nlitened wrote: post #396
armatav wrote: post #383

Why not just have a version 1 smart contract, that inside of it has an amount check that, if passed, rewrites the smart contract (or issues a new one) - version 2 - that rectifies the problem? So people who "agree" with the change can just insta-exchange their cash, and those who don't can keep their cash on version 1. Then you don't have bugs like this as easily anymore. This whole thing will no go very far without…

What is the point of a smart contract that its owner might update on a whim? Just deploy an HTTP server.

I think the whole point of the post is that you can move your coins to the new protocol through an exchange mechanism, or stay put. Unlike a deployed server.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#576

Post by armatav »

knownjorbist wrote: post #444
armatav wrote: post #383

Why not just have a version 1 smart contract, that inside of it has an amount check that, if passed, rewrites the smart contract (or issues a new one) - version 2 - that rectifies the problem? So people who "agree" with the change can just insta-exchange their cash, and those who don't can keep their cash on version 1. Then you don't have bugs like this as easily anymore. This whole thing will no go very far without…

Any major smart contract updates over time, but in some cases they back themselves into a corner with a bug.

That makes sense, like a bug too scuffed to allow a recovery.

Re: SafeDollar ‘stablecoin’ drops to $0 following DeFi exploit on Polygon

#577

Post by norswap »

uncomputation wrote: post #258
rawtxapp wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side of that is any smart contract that stood the test of time should be rock solid. For example, there are huge incentives to go ahead and hack a big contract like maker, compound, uniswap or aave, so you can bet that there's highly qualified people out there trying to hack them as we speak, yet after all this time, they are still working as intended. I have a lot more trust in that kind of product than in…

Considering there are still new bugs found in chip designs, operating systems, and compilers that have been around 4 times as long as any cryptocurrency I have literally no idea why you would feel safe in “smart contracts.” At least if my bank account is hacked, I have a solid legal standing for compensation and I have good reason to believe centralized financial institutions will keep extensive documentation and log…

As someone that has experience in compilers and smart contracts, I can tell you they are an order of magnitude or more apart in terms of difficulty. Most smart contracts are not that complicated.
Post reply on HN