Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
#2See many comments suggesting irreversible fat-finger transactions are why Ethereum is flawed by design. I would argue immutability is not something inherently flawed - rather, the design of the client software should take more responsibility for warning of a situation like this. And to an extent, if you're using a platform that's immutable by design you ultimately have some responsibility as a user that can never be done away with. Clients can warn of potentially erroneous transactions all day, but ultimately, an "erroneous transaction" is not something that can be precisely defined. Don't dismiss verification dialogs just because they're exceedingly common.
Re: Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
#3See many comments suggesting irreversible fat-finger transactions are why Ethereum is flawed by design. I would argue immutability is not something inherently flawed - rather, the design of the client software should take more responsibility for warning of a situation like this. And to an extent, if you're using a platform that's immutable by design you ultimately have some responsibility as a user that can never be…
It’s really hilarious to see the clowns acting like the traditional banking system is immune to this, it’s not.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3e2cb339-3135...
Re: Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
#4See many comments suggesting irreversible fat-finger transactions are why Ethereum is flawed by design. I would argue immutability is not something inherently flawed - rather, the design of the client software should take more responsibility for warning of a situation like this. And to an extent, if you're using a platform that's immutable by design you ultimately have some responsibility as a user that can never be…
It’s really hilarious to see the clowns acting like the traditional banking system is immune to this, it’s not. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3e2cb339-3135...
The linked case made headlines precisely because the court's decision was so unusual.
Usually when such a thing happens, the funds are returned, or they go to court, but this case had complicating factors and isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be.
Re: Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
#5Now we get to watch the apologists come out and say it was the users fault and say how traditional banking and governments are worse. There are already posts like that on other sites covering this story
Eg, from Twitter, “people burn themselves while cooking so cooking is flawed”
Re: Someone using Ethereum paid a $23.6M transaction fee
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s really hilarious to see the clowns acting like the traditional banking system is immune to this, it’s not. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3e2cb339-3135...
The linked case made headlines precisely because the court's decision was so unusual. Usually when such a thing happens, the funds are returned, or they go to court, but this case had complicating factors and isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be.
> The linked case made headlines precisely because the court's decision was so unusual.
Same goes for this ethereum transaction, it’s making headlines because it’s so unusual. It’s weird to sign a transaction like this without extensively verifying what you’re about to send.
> Usually when such a thing happens, the funds are returned, or they go to court, but this case had complicating factors and isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be.
You make it sound like these cases are generally straightforward, but that’s absolutely not true. Any case involving a messed up international transfer has a significant risk of losing the funds.