Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The thing is that is not an invalid transaction. The problem is in what happens _after_ the smart contract has received the money.



As far as Ethereum is concerned it's valid, but the contract API is riding on top of Ethereum's blockchain. It's middleware. It's responsible for enforcing the contract. How does it have a giant black hole in it?


It's the same as you and I agreeing on a contract where it says when you send me money, I will burn it. If you then use a bank transfer to me, it's not the bank's fault your money is gone, we agreed on that contract and it's not the bank's business to deal with that. Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be safeguards, there absolutely should be, but just laying out where the responsibilities start and stop and the whole deal with crypto currency is the absence of central control so if you choose to shoot yourself in the foot, you're free to do so. But freedom of action doesn't mean freedom of consequences and in the case of a blockchain, it's forever.


> it's not the bank's fault your money is gone, we agreed on that contract and it's not the bank's business to deal with that.

There's a reason some contracts (in the regular legal world) are illegal.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: