5 ms·

Friendly reminder that he could not have stolen the deposits in the manner he did if this was on-chain and the users self-custodied. Yes, DEXs exist. Yes, you

Friendly reminder that he could not have stolen the deposits in the manner he did if this was on-chain and the users self-custodied. Yes, DEXs exist. Yes, you can self-custody on DEXs.

mrhands556 4y ago
That’s equivalent to saying if a bank goes insolvent you should’ve had your money in a safe at home. For crypto yes you can have a hard wallet, but it can still be stolen from you without anyone physically touching your hard wallet. I don’t and won’t see the appeal for crypto until it has a killer app that people NEED to use for another reason than “I can get rich quick”
- siftrics 4y ago
  Are you suggesting SBF would have physically stolen from millions of different human beings? How?
  - mrhands556 4y ago
    No but with these exchanges collapsing I keep seeing the argument that it people kept everything in a soft or hard wallet then everything would be OK. I disagree with that premise for the reasons prior. Also in the case of Luna and many others their coins are effectively worthless.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Totally valid criticism about the coins potentially being worthless. I just want to stop the ignorant, misinformed takes. It's so paradoxical that HN is paranoid about the government changing settings on your phone without your permission, and yet HN does not think we should prevent the government or an opaque set of third parties from arbitrarily seizing and freezing your money.
- siftrics 4y ago
  > that people NEED All the depositors have the extremely pressing NEED of not having all their deposits stolen from them. Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits. People aren't mad about SBF taking a wrench to their head. They're mad about SBF defrauding them. Could not have happened on a blockchain.
  - mrhands556 4y ago
    > Blockchains mathematically prevent the misuse of deposits Depending on the argument I hear that the ledger is anonymous or not anonymous.
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Anonymity is completely separate. Anonymity has nothing to do with the property that you cannot steal on the blockchain. How do you think blockchains even work? Read primary sources before vaguely disagreeing.
      - mrhands556 4y ago
        I assume you’re saying the way they prevent misuse is because the ledger is public and it’s trackable by anyone who wants to look at the ledger. If I’ve mistaken your argument then please correct me. I’m familiar with blockchain and have contributed to multiple projects in the open source community back when I saw potential and promise in blockchain tech.
        siftrics 4y ago
        Yes, you're mistaken. If you're the only person with the private key, you're the only person who can move the funds. It's math. Unless you have a mathematical argument as to how to move funds without the private key, you're ignorant and uninformed.
        mrhands556 4y ago
pornel 4y ago
Nobody can steal your FTT tokens either.
- siftrics 4y ago
  Correct. It's also correct that FTT tokens are worthless. An argument against the worth of an arbitrary token created on a permissionless blockchain is not an argument against the good, useful, valuable properties of blockchains, such as the fact that you mathematically cannot be stolen from without physical coercion or profound negligence.
polygamous_bat 4y ago
You seem to be under the naive assumption that dexes are safe from what I can only call "Blockchain shenanigans". See: Exhibit A: https://rekt.news/madmeerkat-finance-rekt/ https://rekt.news/madmeerkat-finance-rekt/ Exhibit B: https://rekt.news/monox-rekt/ https://rekt.news/monox-rekt/ Exhibit C: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/11/02/cross-chain-dex-rubic-loses-over-1m-in-funds-after-hackers-gain-access-to-private-keys https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/11/02/cross-chain-dex-rub... Or do you want me to find a few more examples before you stop spreading misinformation?
- siftrics 4y ago
  Those all occurred because users could not or did not read the source code and prove to themselves that their funds cannot be stolen. Why prevent people from using math to prove their assets cannot he stolen?
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    So am I to assume you have read the entire source code of any cryptocurrency you put money in to prove to yourself there is no "backdoor"? And you argue every user of cryptocurrency should do the same? i.e. "don't put money in X if you have not read and verified the source code of X and committed to reading every code for every future update of X, and also verified that the nodes you are talking to are running the same code X, and in the future will keep verifying that the network is not pulling a sneaky on ya?" In which case, I strongly agree with you. Moreover, with such a great user interface cryptocurrency will surely replace traditional finance any day :)
    - siftrics 4y ago
      Never argued blockchains should fully replace traditional finance. Banks are extremely valuable to me and probably always will be. Blockchains have certain properties which make them extremely desirable in a specific set of use-cases. That set was greatly exaggerated by ignorance and insanity in the bull market. Still, the true set is nonzero. Stop being an ideologue. It spreads ignorance.

Friendly reminder that he could not have stolen the deposits in the manner he did if this was on-chain and the users self-custodied. Yes, DEXs exist. Yes, you can self-custody on DEXs.

mrhands556 4y ago

That’s equivalent to saying if a bank goes insolvent you should’ve had your money in a safe at home. For crypto yes you can have a hard wallet, but it can still be stolen from you without anyone physically touching your hard wallet. I don’t and won’t see the appeal for crypto until it has a killer app that people NEED to use for another reason than “I can get rich quick”

siftrics 4y ago
Are you suggesting SBF would have physically stolen from millions of different human beings? How?
- mrhands556 4y ago
  No but with these exchanges collapsing I keep seeing the argument that it people kept everything in a soft or hard wallet then everything would be OK. I disagree with that premise for the reasons prior. Also in the case of Luna and many others their coins are effectively worthless.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Totally valid criticism about the coins potentially being worthless. I just want to stop the ignorant, misinformed takes. It's so paradoxical that HN is paranoid about the government changing settings on your phone without your permission, and yet HN does not think we should prevent the government or an opaque set of third parties from arbitrarily seizing and freezing your money.
siftrics 4y ago
> that people NEED All the depositors have the extremely pressing NEED of not having all their deposits stolen from them. Blockchains mathematically prevent fraudulent misuse of deposits. People aren't mad about SBF taking a wrench to their head. They're mad about SBF defrauding them. Could not have happened on a blockchain.
- mrhands556 4y ago
  > Blockchains mathematically prevent the misuse of deposits Depending on the argument I hear that the ledger is anonymous or not anonymous.
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Anonymity is completely separate. Anonymity has nothing to do with the property that you cannot steal on the blockchain. How do you think blockchains even work? Read primary sources before vaguely disagreeing.
    - mrhands556 4y ago
      I assume you’re saying the way they prevent misuse is because the ledger is public and it’s trackable by anyone who wants to look at the ledger. If I’ve mistaken your argument then please correct me. I’m familiar with blockchain and have contributed to multiple projects in the open source community back when I saw potential and promise in blockchain tech.
      - siftrics 4y ago
        Yes, you're mistaken. If you're the only person with the private key, you're the only person who can move the funds. It's math. Unless you have a mathematical argument as to how to move funds without the private key, you're ignorant and uninformed.
        mrhands556 4y ago

pornel 4y ago

Nobody can steal your FTT tokens either.

siftrics 4y ago
Correct. It's also correct that FTT tokens are worthless. An argument against the worth of an arbitrary token created on a permissionless blockchain is not an argument against the good, useful, valuable properties of blockchains, such as the fact that you mathematically cannot be stolen from without physical coercion or profound negligence.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

You seem to be under the naive assumption that dexes are safe from what I can only call "Blockchain shenanigans". See: Exhibit A: https://rekt.news/madmeerkat-finance-rekt/ https://rekt.news/madmeerkat-finance-rekt/ Exhibit B: https://rekt.news/monox-rekt/ https://rekt.news/monox-rekt/ Exhibit C: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/11/02/cross-chain-dex-rubic-loses-over-1m-in-funds-after-hackers-gain-access-to-private-keys https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/11/02/cross-chain-dex-rub... Or do you want me to find a few more examples before you stop spreading misinformation?

siftrics 4y ago
Those all occurred because users could not or did not read the source code and prove to themselves that their funds cannot be stolen. Why prevent people from using math to prove their assets cannot he stolen?
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  So am I to assume you have read the entire source code of any cryptocurrency you put money in to prove to yourself there is no "backdoor"? And you argue every user of cryptocurrency should do the same? i.e. "don't put money in X if you have not read and verified the source code of X and committed to reading every code for every future update of X, and also verified that the nodes you are talking to are running the same code X, and in the future will keep verifying that the network is not pulling a sneaky on ya?" In which case, I strongly agree with you. Moreover, with such a great user interface cryptocurrency will surely replace traditional finance any day :)
  - siftrics 4y ago
    Never argued blockchains should fully replace traditional finance. Banks are extremely valuable to me and probably always will be. Blockchains have certain properties which make them extremely desirable in a specific set of use-cases. That set was greatly exaggerated by ignorance and insanity in the bull market. Still, the true set is nonzero. Stop being an ideologue. It spreads ignorance.