I was thinking from the other side- i.e., third party can non-interactively move your funds at any time. But I see how your definition makes more sense. Sigh, Eric Wall is... ya know...
-
-
Is it true then that using PoolTogether requires trusting the core team not to exit with your money (since apparently they have that capability)?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @ChrisBlec @ercwl
yep
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Though it is possible that they can’t exit with your winnings, only your deposit (depending on implementation details)
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
@PoolTogether_ I'd love to get confirmation on this from you guys, or pls dispute it if it's wrong.1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @ChrisBlec @DZack23 i sljedećem broju korisnika:
The contracts are upgradeable. “Upgrading” a contract means replacing its code. The new code has total control of the contract, so that’s why it’s an important disclosure.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @b_asselstine @DZack23 i sljedećem broju korisnika:
So in other words, the security of nearly $1m in user deposits relies on how securely PT’s admin keys are being stored right now.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @ChrisBlec @DZack23 i sljedećem broju korisnika:
$250k of the $1m pool is our own sponsorship money. We want to protect the fund. We take this responsibility very seriously and are working on our strategy to eventually step away.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @b_asselstine @DZack23 i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Respect that! But users deserve to understand this today.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @ChrisBlec @DZack23 i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Absolutely! That’s why we published the article. I think it’s also worth noting that our incentives are aligned and that we’re actively working to mitigate this need for trust.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
Why didn't you opt for trust-minimisation? An approach like Uniswap's, where you deploy an upgraded contract and people have to migrate over to it, is much safer than allowing your team to swap out all code on the contract at any time.
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @nicksdjohnson @b_asselstine i sljedećem broju korisnika:
If you're not happy with that for some reason, there are more trust-minimised options than total upgradeability - for instance, storing users' deposits in separate, non-upgradeable contracts with strict rules on how the funds can be withdrawn
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @nicksdjohnson @ChrisBlec i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Yes! I’m considering a more modular approach where we can upgrade elements of the algorithm (like entropy derivation) but not the contract itself. The worst case in that scenario might be loss of the interest accrued, but user deposits would be safe.
0 replies 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.