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.
Yes, DEXs exist. Yes, you can self-custody on DEXs.
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”
How?
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.
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.
Depending on the argument I hear that the ledger is anonymous or not anonymous.
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.
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.
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.
Again, read primary sources and learn fundamental concepts before vaguely disagreeing.
Exhibit A: https://rekt.news/madmeerkat-finance-rekt/
Exhibit B: https://rekt.news/monox-rekt/
Exhibit C: 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?
Why prevent people from using math to prove their assets cannot he stolen?
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.
Yes, I strongly recommend everyone do the same.
If it's a "yield vault" or an "LP pool" then you really truly should read every line of code and understand all the risks, because it is extremely likely that there is some catastrophic exploit, given the current near non-existent scaffolding regarding formal verification of smart contracts.
1. People only deposit their crypto on LP pools they can read and verify, on chains whose code they can read and verify. Since people with such technical know-how is very limited, there is not much liquidity in the "liquidity pools" and thus the DEXes are virtually unusable.
2. People deposit their money to DEXes without reading and verifying every single smart contracts and Blockchain code. DEXes have sufficient liquidity but the depositors sometimes wake up with all their money gone in the air.
If you are arriving at a third possibility, naturally you are making a different assumption than I made in the above two points. What are the assumptions that leads you there? I would really like to understand.
It could be that there is no good answer and blockchains are simply hard to use and we should advise the general public to exercise extreme caution when using them, if at all.
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.