4 ms·

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 unlike

by 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.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    "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. " This is also how high toxicity systems get made.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      The real solution is better client software. Doing these checks on the client-side is free, that's where they should live. It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        "It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software. " You feel all client software will be suitable? I don't. There is NO WAY. Lots of people will do ANYTHING for a bit of margin, hoping for volume.
        FDSGSG 5y ago
        >You feel all client software will be suitable? Of course not. There will be more advanced software for expert users that allows them to manually create potentially riskier transactions. That's perfectly fine. Client software targeting end-users should have such checks.
        ddingus 5y ago
        But it just won't. You read it here first.
        FDSGSG 5y ago
        This really doesn't line up with the reality of how most people are congregating around user friendly wallet software and steering away from the more advanced options. You only one need one wallet software to be the official WETH-approved client, sucks for anyone else risking their money with unsupported software.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Sidebar: How come such a check is so damn expensive? It should not be.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      I agree with you big time. This is hopefully something we'll see addressed by smart contract platforms in the coming years or decades. Clearly Ethereum is far from a ready product, but I think we can expect to see massive improvements when proof of stake goes live this year.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        Yes! It is all very interesting, but way too rough, IMHO.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Should this mess endure, people will just keep using dollars and other fiat currencies.

by FDSGSG 5y ago

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.
- ddingus 5y ago
  "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. " This is also how high toxicity systems get made.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    The real solution is better client software. Doing these checks on the client-side is free, that's where they should live. It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      "It would be stupid to put these checks in the contract, they would be very expensive and only help people using unsuitable client software. " You feel all client software will be suitable? I don't. There is NO WAY. Lots of people will do ANYTHING for a bit of margin, hoping for volume.
      - FDSGSG 5y ago
        >You feel all client software will be suitable? Of course not. There will be more advanced software for expert users that allows them to manually create potentially riskier transactions. That's perfectly fine. Client software targeting end-users should have such checks.
        ddingus 5y ago
        But it just won't. You read it here first.
        FDSGSG 5y ago
        This really doesn't line up with the reality of how most people are congregating around user friendly wallet software and steering away from the more advanced options. You only one need one wallet software to be the official WETH-approved client, sucks for anyone else risking their money with unsupported software.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Sidebar: How come such a check is so damn expensive? It should not be.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    I agree with you big time. This is hopefully something we'll see addressed by smart contract platforms in the coming years or decades. Clearly Ethereum is far from a ready product, but I think we can expect to see massive improvements when proof of stake goes live this year.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Yes! It is all very interesting, but way too rough, IMHO.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Should this mess endure, people will just keep using dollars and other fiat currencies.