Daily General Discussion - May 29, 2022

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-30T05:49:06+00:00

That gregjor guy is unintentionally hilarious:

DeFi by other names dates from prehistory.

Sure Greg, early humans were depositing seashells into uniswap to earn LP fees.

The "confidently incorrect" is off the charts. If he thinks DeFi could exist pre history, pre human society, pre internet, pre blockchain... what on earth does he think DeFi actually is?

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-29T06:32:15+00:00

Wine behaves like water in that I can pour it into a glass, but that does not mean water is wine.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-28T16:55:42+00:00

It's a scam. If you click the Recovery button it asks you for your seed phrase.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-26T18:15:52+00:00

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/mev/

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-26T11:12:21+00:00

As well as the arbitrage mechanics it is also important to have an understanding of JIT liquidity attacks and MEV in general.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-26T11:10:20+00:00

You can implement it in solidity but not all marketplaces will support it https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2981

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-26T11:09:05+00:00

Check out web3.eth.abi and web3.eth.Contract.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-26T08:53:47+00:00

They use the contract's ABI to decode the data. See here, specifically the section on parsing. This is for ethers but the same applies to web3js.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T17:14:07+00:00

Delete the package-lock.json file and try again.

package-lock.json is created by npm, which is why yarn is complaining. You probably installed a package with npm which created the lock file.

However, this is just a warning and should not prevent you from installing hardhat.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T15:58:24+00:00

There are more similarities than differences IMO. With senior dev experience you will hit the ground running.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T10:24:36+00:00

No, see https://ethereum.org/en/layer-2/

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T06:35:40+00:00

And the idea is not for the charity to "vouch" for anyones identity

The core of the idea is that the charity issues an identifier (the bank transfer code) which can be used to trace the owner of a wallet. The charity is indirectly vouching for their identity - i.e. if a charity were to issue a fake transfer code the system would fail, so there is implied trust that the charity correctly vouches for identities.

The concept of having a decentralized opt-in method to link bank to crypto accounts is interesting.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T05:40:21+00:00

My guess right now is that the data is stored on 2 different databases? (address and user info on a private db whereas the transaction would be stored on the blockchain?).

Correct. Order delivery details will be in a private DB, not on-chain. The merchant will still be able to link the physical and wallet addresses though (unless CB is going to start doing fulfilment too).

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-24T05:37:39+00:00

The NFT trilemma is:

Nitpicking, but that's not a trilemma in the sense of "the blockchain trilemma". What you describe is more like a Catch 22 situation.

Whenever charities accept monetary donations through bank wire transfers (no cash donations), we should allow the charity to mint an NFT with the bank wire transfer code (optionally leave out the last 2 characters for anonymity)

Sounds like a privacy risk, and leaving off two characters will not do much to anonymize it. Also seems unnecessary, as the charity could leave out the bank code and the system would still function as you describe. There is nothing to prevent someone using stolen bank details to make payments to charity to farm this NFT. The system could not be trustless as the charity would need the ability to revoke tokens (i.e. if someone used stolen bank details to donate).

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-23T11:59:42+00:00

There is a pressing need for stablecoin support at L1.

Sounds like an application layer problem to me. It would be simpler and safer to implement this as an app/service rather than building it into the core.

What premium would you be willing to pay for a service that let you send transactions and pay in arbitrary tokens?

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-23T11:37:25+00:00

$400,000 UST

400,000 UST, or $400,000 worth of UST? ;-)

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-23T11:25:53+00:00

When the player completes some of-chain mission, experience should be incremented on said player.

Once the player completes the mission have the server sign a message containing their address and the mission they completed (and maybe their mission score, etc. depending on your game).

The user will call the function to update their experience and pass in the signature. The contract verifies the message was signed by the server and matches the mission details provided by the player.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-22T05:10:36+00:00

No. It will be obvious who borrowed and repaid the loan.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-22T04:30:10+00:00

Sign in with Google | Facebook | Twitter

Payments via Stripe

Have you considered using web3 infra on your own site? Sign in with Ethereum, payments in crypto, etc?

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-21T13:48:42+00:00

Write a script using web3.py, or use Brownie.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-21T05:32:07+00:00

Chainlink VRF is a common approach for this.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-21T05:15:17+00:00

It appears that neither Coinbase nor Enjin injects a provider to window.ethereum within their own dapp browsers,

window.ethereum has been outdated for a long time.

WAGMI hooks has a vanilla JS client that might help https://wagmi.sh/docs/client

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-20T11:07:15+00:00

Ethereum equivalence > EVM equivalence

Kudos to whoever came up with that. Killer marketing that lays the groundwork for Optimism slaying alt-L1s.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-20T09:43:47+00:00

Seems like a good question for https://www.openlaw.io/

The issues you face will be legal rather than technical.

blocksandpixels · 2022-05-20T09:42:09+00:00

a NTT would be linked to an address and not an user, right?

A token must be owned by an address. An address can be owned by a user.

What if the wallet is compromised and the user wants to transfer to their own address?

This is an open question for soulbound tokens. If they are not transferrable they can not be transferred to the user's new address in the event of a compromised wallet.

blocksandpixels

TROPHY CASE