The bug which lost more than $600M in various cryptocurrencies a few hours ago

Post by GhostVII » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

legutierr wrote: post #67

malthaus wrote: post #7

So as someone very critical of the whole DeFi / Smart Contracts philosophy (purely in terms of practicality, not the high-level concepts behind it) - please explain to me how the impacts of those bugs are going to be mitigated going forward. At will and ex-post broadcasting "oops, we had a bug - please roll back or block the bad actors" doesn't strike me as a solid solution, nor a fair & automated one. I was under th…

Over time, there will be old smart contract code that is trusted because it has been used for so long, and there will be new code that is less trusted because it is new. Time will ensure that smart contract code that is flawed will be discarded and forgotten, or blacklisted, so it will be safe to assume that any old code that is still popular is trustworthy. Time will also ensure that popular code is well understood…

Post by GhostVII » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

55555 wrote: post #23

There's a serious fundamental problem with DeFi that can't be solved with blockchains. Someone starts a blockchain company and hires a bunch of devs who make, idk, $40 to $100 per hour to build the thing. Maybe more, it doesn't really matter. Even just one dev or a few devs can make all the contracts needed for this. One day that dev notices a vulnerability in the smart contract he's writing! He has two choices: (a)…

Post by Taek » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #72

Taek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chargeback returning the money to the rightful owner doesn't help the merchant who shipped $6,000 of hardware to some stranger. Certain types of electronic sales simply can't be done online because of the high rates of fraud. When you add crypto, these sales become possible. Yes, they become possible at the cost of putting the counterparty risk onto the consumer, but that's better than the sale being entirely non…

I don’t understand your line of reasoning at all. Like the others have said, moving risk from sellers to customers is not a solution. Especially when the risk of customers committing fraud is incredibly low. Why would you start with an assumption that this is something so rampant it needs to be solved in a way that harms literally all honest customers?

Post by yunohn » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #85

yunohn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your line of reasoning at all. Like the others have said, moving risk from sellers to customers is not a solution. Especially when the risk of customers committing fraud is incredibly low. Why would you start with an assumption that this is something so rampant it needs to be solved in a way that harms literally all honest customers?

I operated an online store selling $2,000 pieces of computer hardware, and both credit card companies and banks alike refused to service us because fraud rates were extremely high. If you think fraud rates are extremely low, you've never tried to sell $2,000 electronics online as a boutique electronics store. Bitcoin was the only option.

Post by thehappypm » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

whitepaint wrote: post #74

jokoon wrote: post #19

I'm having a great laugh every time I hear about crypto-stuff goofs. Who thought an amazing new P2P invention would improve the image of normal money and traditional banks?

Rome was not built in a day. Examples of 2008, GME fiasco, and many other display a clear and obvious need for decentralized finance.