Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ...
by lxgr on Saturday June 05, 2021 @03:12AM
(#27402917)
Does the proxy implementation pattern used in this contract actually mean that the owner of the corresponding keys can not only block addresses from holding USDC, but actually swap out the entire implementation, e.g. for one implementing transaction or inactivity fees?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ...
by runeks on Saturday June 05, 2021 @03:45AM
(#27403088)
Why does it matter? They owe you the money in the first place. If they’re ill-intentioned they can just refuse to redeem your coins, or require that you send them to a new contract with different rules.
There’s no reason credit instruments should be on a blockchain in the first place, given you’re depending on a central party for redemption.
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ...
by comboy on Saturday June 05, 2021 @06:44AM
(#27403838)
> There’s no reason credit instruments should be on a blockchain in the first place, given you’re depending on a central party for redemption.
Can you elaborate? Say you issue RUNEKs, how do we move them around freely in a digital world with the assumption that you are not required for transfers?
Re:Bitcoin’s reliance on stablecoins harks back to the Wild ...
by runeks on Saturday June 12, 2021 @10:13AM
(#27484646)
Why don’t you want me to be required for transfers?
You already depend on me for redeeming your coins for USD, so depending on me for transfers doesn’t present any additional risk.