3 ms·

1. They only accept euros. So you get to multiply the euro risk times the ethereum risk times their oracle keeping your balance on ethereum risk. 2. Ethereum h

1. They only accept euros. So you get to multiply the euro risk times the ethereum risk times their oracle keeping your balance on ethereum risk. 2. Ethereum has already human intervention rolled back millions of dollars of transactions in "the dao" and they chosen winning and losing implementations whenever there's a network split due to their dual codebases trying to be bug for bug perfect in consensus. 3. You can't increase security or reduce risk, by layer abstractions on top of other things, in this case, the euro. Smart contracts should never be referred to as "trivial" for many the millions of dollars has been lost over bugs missed in testing. Colored coins is what VISA already does really really well, with higher uptime, larger network effect, and hell even PCI DSS "security" standards. I love crypto, especially when it makes things better, not worse.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Testing is the right place for millions to be accidentally lost.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  The DAO wasn't a test, or at least the people involved in it didn't realize it at the time. And once again: the "AI middleman" mentioned above had very strong human opinions during "The DAO" debacle.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
darawk 9y ago
> 3. You can't increase security or reduce risk, by layer abstractions on top of other things, in this case, the euro. That is pretty demonstrably false. A lock is a layer of abstraction on top of metal. That can increase security and reduce risk. More directly to your point, a set of investments that are, on their own, extremely risky can be set off against one another (i.e. hedged) in such a way as to make the whole far less risky. The idea that you cannot create a low-risk high security product on top of high-risk low-security substrates is simply false.
- RichardHeart 9y ago
  Nope. Depends on what kind of security you are looking for. Which door is more likely to reliably allow me to enter my home? 1. No door. 2. A door with N locks in parallel. 3. A door with N locks in series. As N increases, or goes serial instead of parallel, my ability to enter my own home reliably decreases. Consequently, assuming so side channel attacks (windows or other doors) the chance that other people can't get in also increases. Understanding that adding variables in serial in order to fuel your car reduces the chance you can successfully fuel your car is easy. Understanding that when the internet goes down, you won't get gas is easy to understand. Hedges aren't what they're cracked up to be. 1. What happens when your hedge counterpart fails? (check out credit default swaps, or trades that can't execute, or limit down markets, etc etc, bad oracles (credit rating agencies..)) All hedges require a counterparty. Counterparties fail. Even when they don't fail, they become corrupted by bad oracles. You can't create reliability by wiring variables in series. You can create "security" at the cost of reliablity. How much cash has been lost in "smart" contracts, vs stupid safes per capita.
  - darawk 9y ago
    None of that is correct. 'Series' or 'parallel' are the wrong way to think about things. If you buy 100 shares of AAPL and then you buy a put on SPY, that position is objectively lower risk than the unhedged AAPL position. Your point about counterparties is irrelevant, as I didn't claim that a hedge causes risk to go to zero - merely that it reduces it. It is possible for two risky things to cancel one another (or some components of one another, as in the AAPL/SPY example, the SPY put hedges AAPL's beta).
- golergka 9y ago
  > A lock is a layer of abstraction on top of metal. That can increase security and reduce risk. Metal door welded shut is more secure than a door closed with a metal lock. Harder to use though. But surely more secure.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

erikpukinskis 9y ago

Testing is the right place for millions to be accidentally lost.

dullgiulio 9y ago
The DAO wasn't a test, or at least the people involved in it didn't realize it at the time. And once again: the "AI middleman" mentioned above had very strong human opinions during "The DAO" debacle.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

darawk 9y ago

> 3. You can't increase security or reduce risk, by layer abstractions on top of other things, in this case, the euro. That is pretty demonstrably false. A lock is a layer of abstraction on top of metal. That can increase security and reduce risk. More directly to your point, a set of investments that are, on their own, extremely risky can be set off against one another (i.e. hedged) in such a way as to make the whole far less risky. The idea that you cannot create a low-risk high security product on top of high-risk low-security substrates is simply false.

RichardHeart 9y ago
Nope. Depends on what kind of security you are looking for. Which door is more likely to reliably allow me to enter my home? 1. No door. 2. A door with N locks in parallel. 3. A door with N locks in series. As N increases, or goes serial instead of parallel, my ability to enter my own home reliably decreases. Consequently, assuming so side channel attacks (windows or other doors) the chance that other people can't get in also increases. Understanding that adding variables in serial in order to fuel your car reduces the chance you can successfully fuel your car is easy. Understanding that when the internet goes down, you won't get gas is easy to understand. Hedges aren't what they're cracked up to be. 1. What happens when your hedge counterpart fails? (check out credit default swaps, or trades that can't execute, or limit down markets, etc etc, bad oracles (credit rating agencies..)) All hedges require a counterparty. Counterparties fail. Even when they don't fail, they become corrupted by bad oracles. You can't create reliability by wiring variables in series. You can create "security" at the cost of reliablity. How much cash has been lost in "smart" contracts, vs stupid safes per capita.
- darawk 9y ago
  None of that is correct. 'Series' or 'parallel' are the wrong way to think about things. If you buy 100 shares of AAPL and then you buy a put on SPY, that position is objectively lower risk than the unhedged AAPL position. Your point about counterparties is irrelevant, as I didn't claim that a hedge causes risk to go to zero - merely that it reduces it. It is possible for two risky things to cancel one another (or some components of one another, as in the AAPL/SPY example, the SPY put hedges AAPL's beta).
golergka 9y ago
> A lock is a layer of abstraction on top of metal. That can increase security and reduce risk. Metal door welded shut is more secure than a door closed with a metal lock. Harder to use though. But surely more secure.