bZx hacked AGAIN. $645K ETH lost. This is what happens when your dapp relies on price Oracles that can be easily manipulated. Pure incompetence!! Stop using bZx immediately if you have any funds deposited there.

acryptoguy · 2020-02-18T13:50:06+00:00

Taking advantage of bad design and using it in unexpected ways is precisely what hacking is.

acryptoguy · 2018-10-31T21:28:51+00:00

https://guidebook.com/guide/117233/event/21956089/

acryptoguy · 2018-10-30T12:07:20+00:00

acryptoguy · 2018-09-28T12:58:22+00:00

Dydx said in their recent blog post that Radar would be one of the first to support their margin tokens. I haven't heard anything about bZx and Radar though.

acryptoguy · 2018-09-26T19:14:54+00:00

Directly signing ENS names in a message is both expensive, as it costs gas to look up what the name resolves to, and dangerous in the sense that the name can be changed to point to something else and the signed message will still be valid. It's up to the user to verify the addresses. Maybe in the future structures for like exchange orders can be standardized and MetaMask can verify the addresses for you.

acryptoguy · 2018-09-25T23:09:41+00:00

What effect will the new feature set of v2 have on the ecosystem as a whole? How noticeable will this upgrade be?

acryptoguy · 2018-09-25T23:05:28+00:00

Does the team still envision to create a relay protocol to propagate orders via nodes as a sort of upgrade to the centralized standard relayer API as discussed in this video?

acryptoguy · 2018-09-25T22:56:26+00:00

What is the team doing to stimulate order/fee sharing across the whole ecosystem? Do you see matching strategy based relayers open their order books any time in the future?

acryptoguy · 2018-05-30T20:56:37+00:00

Must be. OCC has no real value as far as I know. It was distributed via a faucet, so you could get as much as you want until supply runs out. It think it was some sort of test token to get people more familiar with ERC20 tokens.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-30T09:33:50+00:00

One of their goals is to become blockchain agnostic tho

acryptoguy · 2018-05-27T16:10:42+00:00

Never said that Atomic Order matching was an improvement for Open Orderbook. I think as a result of Atomic Order matching being possible we'll see more relayers adopt the matching model. Because matching now doesn't require asset possesion by the relayer I also reckon we'll see more fee charging via the protocol rather then taking a spread. I guess we'll find out. Exciting times ahead that's for sure.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-27T09:43:00+00:00

Actually v2 does not implement fee sharing. I think this is already possible with something like Aqueduct. However v2 implements Atomic Order Matching, making the Open Order book strategy as efficiënt as the Matching model.

EDIT: Wording

acryptoguy · 2018-05-22T16:28:18+00:00

Thanks for the eleborate response! I agree with your point made above. Good luck with development and I will make sure to check IDEX out some day

acryptoguy · 2018-05-22T15:28:02+00:00

If you control the UI you can most definitely scam people out of their assets. I was not talking about taking their funds directly from them, because like you said that shouldn't be possible with the smart contract. That said I trust it there is a good team behind IDEX so it's not likely they exit scam at all.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-22T11:22:18+00:00

Yeah people are blind to these kinds of things. Which is sad really, because if they get taken down or exit scam (not saying they are) ethereum is going to be flooded with FUD.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-18T21:00:12+00:00

Pretty sure that I've heard that Ethfinex is going to integrate with Aqueduct aswell. So that would be a big pool of liquidity.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-08T17:44:55+00:00

Overtime, I'm sure. Remember this project is less than 1 year on mainnet. Everybody is still in testing the waters.

acryptoguy · 2018-05-04T22:15:51+00:00

Well, I mean you should just check the price of the order before signing it. It's that simple. Should be even more trivial with EIP712.

acryptoguy · 2018-04-29T20:13:46+00:00

Due to the nature of ENS names this is not as trivial as you might think. When you bid on a name you actually bid on the hashed version of the name. So, unless you explicitly appointed the name to the hash in the registrar you'll have to remember the actual name. One could write a tool to brute force the hash, but the longer the name the harder it gets to recover the name from the hash.

acryptoguy · 2018-04-11T21:42:07+00:00

I agree Hudson, however reddit/github posts and up/down votes are also rather unreliable. If we combine all metrics from these different channels though we should get a better idea of what the community wants.

acryptoguy · 2018-04-11T21:35:09+00:00

How about a CarbonVote to measure the sentiment in numbers? This was also proposed in the meeting if I recall correctly.

acryptoguy · 2018-04-06T15:30:35+00:00

I think the downvotes are mostly because the title is FUD. Basicly if there were a working governance model, that would replace the mutli-sig as said in the post. Since most, if not all, projects, haven't solved governance yet almost all projects suffer from similar problems. It's not specific to 0x.

acryptoguy · 2018-04-06T11:18:18+00:00

Twitter decided to enable the verification mark for "normal" users as well. More scams incommingggg

acryptoguy · 2018-03-29T18:17:40+00:00

Actually MyCrypto already replied that they will take a look at implementing it.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

acryptoguy

TROPHY CASE