5 ms·

Your logic doesn't add up. Attackers are only willing spend $90k if there's a 90 percent chance they can exploit a bug in the contract to extract the entire $1

Your logic doesn't add up. Attackers are only willing spend $90k if there's a 90 percent chance they can exploit a bug in the contract to extract the entire $100k value. Clearly if TWO hackers both spend $90k and only one extracts the value, the other one has lost their entire $90k - unless there's a way to be sure you are the one who will win that, your expected return on the $90k is only $50k if there are two parties trying to hack the contract. The interesting bit is yes - the immediate loss. But a loss of unmarked cash is similarly instant.

lordnacho 9y ago
> But a loss of unmarked cash is similarly instant. True, there isn't a global list of where every bank note is. I've already lost a tiny amount of BTC just by testing a bit with short keys. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every time you left your wallet for 10 seconds, it vanished?
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  Just in case lordnacho's meaning here isn't clear to anyone. testing a bit with short keys. He's put some bitcoin into wallets with keys/passwords that don't meet very high security standards. I've already lost a tiny amount of BTC He's then lost that bitcoin because there are programs running running around the clock to programatically empty any wallets with passwords that don't meet very high standards of security. Thus, Can you imagine what the world would be like if every time you left your wallet for 10 seconds, it vanished? But this is the "trustless" world you signed up for right?
  - thinkmassive 9y ago
    A more accurate analogy would be that your money vanished from a public locker with combination 0-0-0. Nobody complains about the shortage of address space provided by 256 bits. This guy was experimenting, and being lazy during his experiments, so at the very least he should have known what to expect after the first loss.
    - bloominglotus 9y ago
      It still violates the optimistic premise of blockchain advocates that it helps us move to a world where trust is baked into the systems. If you live under the assumption that you're perpetually under attack unless you rigorously protect yourself, it's not really the example of trust we're promising to non-technically adept folks.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - lordnacho 9y ago
      > A more accurate analogy would be that your money vanished from a public locker with combination 0-0-0. And it's a pleasant world where every time you do that, you get robbed. > Nobody complains about the shortage of address space provided by 256 bits. This guy was experimenting, and being lazy during his experiments, so at the very least he should have known what to expect after the first loss. This is totally beside the point. There's a social cost to constantly having to watch what you do. If you're robbed any time you're on the street, you'll have to spend time learning self defence and you'll have to buy appropriate tools such as locks. You'll also have to teach your friends about this, and you'll need friends. And your attitude to strangers will change.
lmm 9y ago
People here love to extol the virtues of cash, but most decent law-abiding folk prefer to keep their assets in safer forms for precisely that reason.
- cesarb 9y ago
  Assuming by "safer form" you mean a bank account (since that's what "most folk" use instead of physical cash), it's hard to know how safer it is. In the early 90s, my country's government froze almost all the money on everybody's bank accounts with no warning; obviously, whatever physical cash you had in hand wasn't affected by the freeze (though it lost its value fast, due to the inflation). On the other hand, recently another country changed its note design, and made the older design no longer valid. Whatever physical cash you had in hand instantly lost its value, while whatever value you had in bank accounts was automatically converted. As you can see, sometimes cash is safer, sometimes bank accounts are safer.

lordnacho 9y ago

> But a loss of unmarked cash is similarly instant. True, there isn't a global list of where every bank note is. I've already lost a tiny amount of BTC just by testing a bit with short keys. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every time you left your wallet for 10 seconds, it vanished?

canoebuilder 9y ago
Just in case lordnacho's meaning here isn't clear to anyone. testing a bit with short keys. He's put some bitcoin into wallets with keys/passwords that don't meet very high security standards. I've already lost a tiny amount of BTC He's then lost that bitcoin because there are programs running running around the clock to programatically empty any wallets with passwords that don't meet very high standards of security. Thus, Can you imagine what the world would be like if every time you left your wallet for 10 seconds, it vanished? But this is the "trustless" world you signed up for right?
- thinkmassive 9y ago
  A more accurate analogy would be that your money vanished from a public locker with combination 0-0-0. Nobody complains about the shortage of address space provided by 256 bits. This guy was experimenting, and being lazy during his experiments, so at the very least he should have known what to expect after the first loss.
  - bloominglotus 9y ago
    It still violates the optimistic premise of blockchain advocates that it helps us move to a world where trust is baked into the systems. If you live under the assumption that you're perpetually under attack unless you rigorously protect yourself, it's not really the example of trust we're promising to non-technically adept folks.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lordnacho 9y ago
    > A more accurate analogy would be that your money vanished from a public locker with combination 0-0-0. And it's a pleasant world where every time you do that, you get robbed. > Nobody complains about the shortage of address space provided by 256 bits. This guy was experimenting, and being lazy during his experiments, so at the very least he should have known what to expect after the first loss. This is totally beside the point. There's a social cost to constantly having to watch what you do. If you're robbed any time you're on the street, you'll have to spend time learning self defence and you'll have to buy appropriate tools such as locks. You'll also have to teach your friends about this, and you'll need friends. And your attitude to strangers will change.

lmm 9y ago

People here love to extol the virtues of cash, but most decent law-abiding folk prefer to keep their assets in safer forms for precisely that reason.

cesarb 9y ago
Assuming by "safer form" you mean a bank account (since that's what "most folk" use instead of physical cash), it's hard to know how safer it is. In the early 90s, my country's government froze almost all the money on everybody's bank accounts with no warning; obviously, whatever physical cash you had in hand wasn't affected by the freeze (though it lost its value fast, due to the inflation). On the other hand, recently another country changed its note design, and made the older design no longer valid. Whatever physical cash you had in hand instantly lost its value, while whatever value you had in bank accounts was automatically converted. As you can see, sometimes cash is safer, sometimes bank accounts are safer.