Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FDSGSG 1605 days 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.
2 comments
ddingus 1605 days 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.

link
FDSGSG 1605 days 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.

link
ddingus 1605 days 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.

link
FDSGSG 1605 days 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.

link
ddingus 1604 days ago
But it just won't. You read it here first.
link
FDSGSG 1603 days 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.

link
ddingus 1605 days ago
Sidebar:

How come such a check is so damn expensive?

It should not be.

link
FDSGSG 1605 days 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.

link
ddingus 1604 days ago
Yes! It is all very interesting, but way too rough, IMHO.
link