A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted
-
@blek said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
. I think it's just a bug.
Their hand-written JSON parser didn't realized comma could be a period?
-
Come on Doge! Just drop another .05 and ill buy €100 of it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Huh? Oh, hang on, I've got this.
sudo dnf update -y && systemctl reboot
-
-
@topspin said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Article @Rhywden linked to in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
By using the same token for both tokenIn and tokenOut, the hacker greatly inflated the price of the MONO token because the updating of the tokenOut overwrote the price update of the tokenIn.
Of course these morons have never heard of atomic transactions.
It's not like finance was literally the textbook example for these
I wonder how they think they're going to enforce any of what they're trying to do now anyway. Wikipedia on the legal status on Smart Contracts quotes a US Sente report, which lacking any explicit legislation is probably as close as you get:
While smart contracts might sound new, the concept is rooted in basic contract law. Usually, the judicial system adjudicates contractual disputes and enforces terms, but it is also common to have another arbitration method, especially for international transactions. With smart contracts, a program enforces the contract built into the code.
The way I read that is that unlike traditional contracts that are arbitrated in court, the code is the arbitration method. The contract is not subject to interpretation by lawyers; rather, it is defined by what it does. Everything it does is an intended effect and if it doesn't do what someone expects it to, that's because it wasn't intended. So if the contract increases the value of a token when you exchange it for itself, that increase is what you're contractually entitled to, there's no "oh, that's what the contract does but I didn't really mean that!" later.
-
@LaoC said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
So if the contract increases the value of a token when you exchange it for itself, that increase is what you're contractually entitled to, there's no "oh, that's what the contract does but I didn't really mean that!" later.
Works as coded!
Although the report you quoted seems to accept the "contract" part literally. I prefer the take from a comment to the ars article linked further above.
Marlor_AU said in Really stupid "smart contract" ...:
"Smart contract" is really an overblown term for this kind of thing. It's not a contract in any legal sense. It doesn't encode all the terms of offer and acceptance that would normally be in a contract agreement. It doesn't do anything to ensure either party has a legal capacity to contract. It doesn't encode exclusion clauses or any of the vitiating factors for contract avoidance. Nor does it need to include logic to handle termination or remedies for breach of contract.
It's just a stored procedure running on a platform that uses blockchain as a distributed ledger.
But I guess "blockchain stored procedure" sounds less fancy than "smart contract".
-
-
@HardwareGeek "Non Fungible People" - that would be NFP.
We need a word starting with T.
Non Fungible Tits?
-
@HardwareGeek I first read it as "first hipster-realistic". I think I'll stick with it.
-
@BernieTheBernie
Twats?
-
@HardwareGeek TIL that ”hyper-realistic” means looking artificial enough to not even go into the uncanny valley.
-
@Atazhaia said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
TIL that ”hyper-realistic” means looking artificial enough to not even go into the uncanny valley.
Well yeah, "hyper-realistic" means more real than reality, so obviously it can't look like it was real; that would just be "realistic".
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Yes, nothing says "smart" like a program which lets stuff happen where any sane human would immediately say: "What? No!"
See the Internet of Shit thread for more examples
-
A more honest look at fungibullshit than we're used to:
FPTs: Pure Fungibility on the Blockchain
It’s time to lean into the crypto grift but with purity.
...main :: IO (Either MoarMoney ()) main = runFpt privKey $ embedToFinal @IO helloWorld where privKey = "$PRIVATEKEYHERE"
This function will run for about 32 hours while your transaction propagates through the bitcoin mempool, then through a bunch of coal-guzzling server farms in Xinjiang. This ultimately burns through an acre of rainforest in the Amazon, but we can ignore that because it’s an unobservable side effect.
-
@boomzilla said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
fungibullshit
Fungi, at least the edible sorts, are usually grown in horse shit, not bull shit.
"Mushroom compost" is not like the bags of dried, well-composted, mildly smelly steer manure you can buy at your favorite orange-and-black or blue-and-white home center. It is fresh and stinks to make your neighbors hate you.
-
@HardwareGeek said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@boomzilla said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
fungibullshit
Fungi, at least the edible sorts, are usually grown in horse shit, not bull shit.
"Mushroom compost" is not like the bags of dried, well-composted, mildly smelly steer manure you can buy at your favorite orange-and-black or blue-and-white home center. It is fresh and stinks to make your neighbors hate you.
Definitely seems like an easier way to farm loathing than to hone one's pendantry skills
-
launched in August this year, with a homepage header that read "One Token To Rule Them All" because simply putting "My precious" at the top would probably have been too much of a self-own.
The developer, in turn, claimed that it was all done to parody Tolkien in good faith ... but also said that 'JRR' was actually meant to stand for "Journey through Risk and Reward" because we really live in a world where anyone can just make anything up and somehow demand others believe it/buy into it.
Sadly not a literal volcano.
-
@ixvedeusi said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Atazhaia said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
TIL that ”hyper-realistic” means looking artificial enough to not even go into the uncanny valley.
Well yeah, "hyper-realistic" means more real than reality, so obviously it can't look like it was real; that would just be "realistic".
I also just remembered that hyper-realistic is most popular amongst creepypasta writers where the haunted NES game can produce hyper-realistic blood graphics on the 8-bit hardware.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity I'm surprised they haven't been sued into oblivion. Considering the content of the books the Tolkien estate is very emphatic in the defence of their estate.
-
@DogsB They did file a trademark complaint.
The US-based developer paid the estate's legal costs, which the lawyers said were "significant".
Unfortunately for them I believe legal fees cannot be settled in Skittles
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Yup. That's the Tolkien estate I know and love. Can't wait for the tv series. They'll probably charge Amazon by the frame for nip slips.
-
Behold... the first playable NFTs designed by the Ubisoft Strategic Innovation lab
Ubisoft is not alone among the big publishers in having declared an interest in Non-Fungible Tokens, but now it is the first to launch its take on the most irritating digital trend of the moment. Ubisoft Quartz now has an announcement trailer, an official site, and my eternal scorn.
basically the NFTs are hats with tiny numbers on them. Or bits of armour. These are cosmetic items released in 'limited editions' which are then, so Ubisoft says, made 'unique' by the number.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Triumphant crypto-bros are coming to your Discords, to your forums, to every part of the gaming world you like. And they're gonna stick this crap into every single game they can. Today Ubisoft: Tomorrow, sadly, the world.
-
Unfortunately, it was inevitable that those two evils shall meet to create something even worse than the sum of its parts.
-
I think twitter need to step in and take his account off of him at this stage.
-
@DogsB did it affect the price? Or does that only happen when Lord Elon does it?
-
@DogsB And just 500 BTC? For 1.38e+9 that would net about 13 rupees (or 1.5 euro cents). And so now my search profile includes "price of skittles in india"...
-
[...] the owner of Bored Ape number 3,547 made a "fat fingered" typing error when listing the item for sale online.
The NFT was instantly snapped up by an automated account - and put back on sale at nearly $250,000.
[...]
The suspected-bot buyer also paid very high "gas" fees - which determine how quickly the Ethereum network processes a transaction - of 8 ETH ($32,000), to ensure the sale went through almost instantly.
Such great art.
-
@Zecc my favorite part of this whole scam is this, though:
The suspected-bot buyer also paid very high "gas" fees - which determine how quickly the Ethereum network processes a transaction - of 8 ETH ($32,000), to ensure the sale went through almost instantly.
-
@boomzilla From Matt Levine's daily newsletter (under "Fat ape finger"):
In traditional finance, there have been long boring controversies over high-frequency traders getting microsecond advantages over regular traders by paying for direct feeds of stock-exchange data, paying to colocate their servers near the stock exchanges’ data centers, paying for high-speed fiber-optic lines between exchanges, etc. The idea is that there are sometimes brief dislocations in stock prices, or brief arbitrage opportunities where the price of something on one venue does not match the price on another venue; being the first to capture those dislocations is profitable, and trading firms will pay for advantages that make them faster. Sometimes they will pay the exchanges, for fast data or fast connections, and people with slower connections find that unfair.
Decentralized finance does not get rid of those sorts of conflict; it just renders them explicit and creates a market for them. Instead of a tier of high-frequency traders paying a stock exchange a monthly fee for fast connections to its matching engine, it’s as if a stock exchange auctioned priority on every trade to the highest bidder. If a stock is trading at $10.01 on one exchange and at $10.02 on another exchange, whoever gets there first can buy it for $10.01 and sell it for $10.02 and make an instant penny of profit. Knowing that, the first exchange could just say “whoever pays the most to the exchange to buy the stock gets it,” and it would run a little auction, and some high-frequency trader would bid, like, $0.0095 to be first, and would make $0.0005 of profit and the exchange would get $0.0095. And when I type numbers that small, you can probably see why this particular approach is not common in equity market structure.
Meanwhile in crypto every transaction does work this way, and there is an auction market for transaction priority, and sometimes the trade is “buy a 75 Ether NFT for 0.75 Ether,” and the right amount to pay for that opportunity is, you know, 73 Ether or whatever, and paying 8 Ether for it is an absolute bargain.
-
-
@DogsB said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Pepperidge Farms remembers when we used to prosecute Pump & Dumps.
-
You ok there Yahoo?
-
@blek said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
You ok there Yahoo?
Yahoo! hasn't been ok for a very long time.
-
Randomly seen on reddit. No, not on some crypto bros sub, but on botw.
-
This should also go into the log4wtf thread, plus the new forum feature request one for a crosspost feature.
-
@boomzilla said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The suspected-bot buyer also paid very high "gas" fees - which determine how quickly the Ethereum network processes a transaction - of 8 ETH ($32,000), to ensure the sale went through almost instantly.
To Insure Promptness => TIP. The original meaning, btw.
-
@pcooper said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
and sometimes the trade is “buy a 75 Ether NFT for 0.75 Ether,” and the right amount to pay for that opportunity is, you know, 73 Ether or whatever, and paying 8 Ether for it is an absolute bargain.
And the fat fingers hit again (by omitting a
.
in73
).
-
A line has been crossed.
-
@DogsB since NFTs only make sense in a fantasy universe, this makes a surprising amount of sense.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@pcooper said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
and sometimes the trade is “buy a 75 Ether NFT for 0.75 Ether,” and the right amount to pay for that opportunity is, you know, 73 Ether or whatever, and paying 8 Ether for it is an absolute bargain.
And the fat fingers hit again (by omitting a
.
in73
).I think the sentence is actually as intended. He's saying the thing that's actually "worth" 75 is being sold for 0.75, and so in theory an arbitrageur should be willing to pay as much as 73-ish for the opportunity to actually snap it up at that price and still make a profit. Only needing to pay 8 means that their profit was substantially higher than it could have been, and indicates that there wasn't enough of a bidding war for the opportunity to exploit the typo than would have been the case in a perfectly "efficient" market.
(And in case it's not clear, Matt Levine is as aghast that these things have this sort of "worth" as anybody else here. It's a bizarre world of burning art to make it more valuable and assets being valued by proximity to Elon Musk rather than any sort of cash flow analysis, and he's just along for the ride trying to explain what in the world is going on as best he can.)
-
@pcooper said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
(And in case it's not clear, Matt Levine is as aghast that these things have this sort of "worth" as anybody else here.
It's funny how some people can at once fiercely reject the labor theory of value, allegedly subscribe instead to the Austrian view that the price of a thing is a direct expression of individual preferences, hence a thing is "worth" whatever people are willing to pay for it, and pretend to know the exact opposite: that certain things are worth something completely different than the price at which they were exchanged in the market.
I don't know whether that true of Levine, I've just noticed it often as was reminded of it.
-
-
@LaoC said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
It's funny how some people can at once fiercely reject the labor theory of value, allegedly subscribe instead to the Austrian view that the price of a thing is a direct expression of individual preferences, hence a thing is "worth" whatever people are willing to pay for it, and pretend to know the exact opposite: that certain things are worth something completely different than the price at which they were exchanged in the market.
There's no contradiction. Things have different value for different people. Saying "it's not worth the price paid" means just "I would not pay that much".
Labor theory of value is insane.
-
@LaoC said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@pcooper said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
(And in case it's not clear, Matt Levine is as aghast that these things have this sort of "worth" as anybody else here.
It's funny how some people can at once fiercely reject the labor theory of value, allegedly subscribe instead to the Austrian view that the price of a thing is a direct expression of individual preferences, hence a thing is "worth" whatever people are willing to pay for it, and pretend to know the exact opposite: that certain things are worth something completely different than the price at which they were exchanged in the market.
No. They're just looking in amazement at people's preferences the same way they look in amazement at the reasoning skills of the people who don't reject the labor theory of value.
-
-
That's the current meaning, yeah. But it could have meant something different back in 1275 - there are definitely words in French that significantly drifted away from their old meaning in much shorter time frames.
Filed under: things that are like WTDWTF threads
-
@TimeBandit Now, sure. I assume though that Old French differs from Modern French much like how Old English differs from Modern English.
-
@loopback0 said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
how Old English differs from Modern English.
Entirely separate languages that are completely mutually unintelligible?
Many people (especially high school English students) complain that Shakespeare (Early Modern English) is hard to understand. Middle English (e.g., Chaucer) is more difficult, but still intelligible to a Modern English speaker with significant difficulty and effort (frequent reference to a glossary; it also helps to read it aloud with correct Middle English pronunciation, because some words sound identical to Modern English even though they are spelled very differently).
Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of engelond to caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.You can pick some familiar words out of that, and make (mostly) pretty good guesses at many others.
Old English (e.g., Beowulf) is another matter entirely:
Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.I defy you to make any sense of that at all. I can't make heads or tails of it, and I actually studied it in university. I remember one single sentence out of the entire epic that was (sorta) recognizable English:
Grendel gongan, godes yrre bær;
Grendel went, bearing God's ire.
-
@HardwareGeek said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Entirely separate languages that are completely mutually unintelligible?
We're talking about the same word meaning two completely different things so yes?
-
@HardwareGeek I think Scandinavians would actually have a shot at understanding old English.