5 ms·

In this case, not really. User was calling a "ROM" What you describe are dry runs.

capableweb 5y ago
Are you talking about the user from https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/sfz4kw/did_i_just_lose_half_a_million_dollars_by_sending/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/sfz4kw/did_i_just... ? And do you mean "read-only memory"? I'm not sure how that's relevant. The contract they made the transfer to is read-only yes, like any contract on Ethereum. But they could have tested the contract call with a smaller sum before actually performing the bigger one. Just like the people writing the computer that took us to the moon, I'm pretty sure they tried it before in small-scale simulations before hooking it up to the rocket and letting it go to the moon.
- zepto 5y ago
  The idea that people need to treat financial transactions in crypto as if they were writing software for a moon mission shows how impractical the entire space is.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    If that was the case, I'd agree with you. But as outlined in the comments of this submission time and time again, it was not what happened here. The user was not doing a normal transfer (at least, they didn't want to, but they ended up doing). They didn't know what they were doing at all, a simply Google search would have showed them the way. Using UIs instead of interacting with the contract directly would have prevented them from making the mistake they did. Doing a small test transfer before doing the big one would have revealed what was wrong as well. It's not that I'm comparing writing software for moon missions with making cryptocurrency transactions. I was directly replying to mox1 implying that writing 100% correct code is impossible and shouldn't be attempted.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      "simply Google search would have showed them the way" That is how high toxicity systems get made.
- ddingus 5y ago
  TL;DR: They could have got it right. Didn't.
- ddingus 5y ago
  There is a difference! The incentive was robust code that would work well, get it done, go to the moon. Here, machine time is expensive, puts emphasis on code that works, but just barely... Let's just say NASA would check for the "yup, you are gonna burn some money" case, and reject it.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    Well, there's about $3B worth of WETH issued and only about $1.1M worth of those have been lost due to mistakes like the OPs. I think that people are so unlikely to fuck this up that such a check would be rather pointless.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Again NASA would disagree. Money matters a lot. Should this mess endure, people will forever be saying a little bit of gas would have been worth it. And we've people with six figure arguments as to why such a check makes sense. The idea of minimal code, focused on speed coupled with financials leads me FAR away from all this. I will watch with great interest and entertainment.
      - FDSGSG 5y ago
        >Again NASA would disagree. Yeah, because NASA has been utterly fucked by the congress. Because of politics it's better for NASA to spend 5x the money on 1 reliable spacecraft than to build 5 slightly less reliable spacecraft out of which only 1 fails. Even if the economics of it don't make sense, NASA can't afford to be seen failing because because politicians will not want to fund them. I guess my point is that NASA is an exceptionally badly managed entity, not something you'd want to aspire to. (Of course the people working at NASA are not the ones to blame for this.) >Money matters a lot. Should this mess endure, people will forever be saying a little bit of gas would have been worth it. That gas would probably add up to more money than has been lost here. >And we've people with six figure arguments as to why such a check makes sense. The gas fees of such a check would probably be higher than the losses averted, especially in the long run. And any "losses" are essentially distributed among all ETH holders anyway.

Are you talking about the user from https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/sfz4kw/did_i_just_lose_half_a_million_dollars_by_sending/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/sfz4kw/did_i_just... ? And do you mean "read-only memory"? I'm not sure how that's relevant. The contract they made the transfer to is read-only yes, like any contract on Ethereum. But they could have tested the contract call with a smaller sum before actually performing the bigger one. Just like the people writing the computer that took us to the moon, I'm pretty sure they tried it before in small-scale simulations before hooking it up to the rocket and letting it go to the moon.

zepto 5y ago
The idea that people need to treat financial transactions in crypto as if they were writing software for a moon mission shows how impractical the entire space is.
- capableweb 5y ago
  If that was the case, I'd agree with you. But as outlined in the comments of this submission time and time again, it was not what happened here. The user was not doing a normal transfer (at least, they didn't want to, but they ended up doing). They didn't know what they were doing at all, a simply Google search would have showed them the way. Using UIs instead of interacting with the contract directly would have prevented them from making the mistake they did. Doing a small test transfer before doing the big one would have revealed what was wrong as well. It's not that I'm comparing writing software for moon missions with making cryptocurrency transactions. I was directly replying to mox1 implying that writing 100% correct code is impossible and shouldn't be attempted.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    "simply Google search would have showed them the way" That is how high toxicity systems get made.
ddingus 5y ago
TL;DR: They could have got it right. Didn't.
ddingus 5y ago
There is a difference! The incentive was robust code that would work well, get it done, go to the moon. Here, machine time is expensive, puts emphasis on code that works, but just barely... Let's just say NASA would check for the "yup, you are gonna burn some money" case, and reject it.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  Well, there's about $3B worth of WETH issued and only about $1.1M worth of those have been lost due to mistakes like the OPs. I think that people are so unlikely to fuck this up that such a check would be rather pointless.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Again NASA would disagree. Money matters a lot. Should this mess endure, people will forever be saying a little bit of gas would have been worth it. And we've people with six figure arguments as to why such a check makes sense. The idea of minimal code, focused on speed coupled with financials leads me FAR away from all this. I will watch with great interest and entertainment.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      >Again NASA would disagree. Yeah, because NASA has been utterly fucked by the congress. Because of politics it's better for NASA to spend 5x the money on 1 reliable spacecraft than to build 5 slightly less reliable spacecraft out of which only 1 fails. Even if the economics of it don't make sense, NASA can't afford to be seen failing because because politicians will not want to fund them. I guess my point is that NASA is an exceptionally badly managed entity, not something you'd want to aspire to. (Of course the people working at NASA are not the ones to blame for this.) >Money matters a lot. Should this mess endure, people will forever be saying a little bit of gas would have been worth it. That gas would probably add up to more money than has been lost here. >And we've people with six figure arguments as to why such a check makes sense. The gas fees of such a check would probably be higher than the losses averted, especially in the long run. And any "losses" are essentially distributed among all ETH holders anyway.