Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstanley | Hacker News Reader

That wouldn't solve this problem. Did you read the article? The ICO investors were tricked.

And how wouldn't it solve the problem? (1) would act as a more safe instrument for sending money to addresses you don't regularly interact with, (2) would attempt to make the address type much more apparent to the user so they don't send to addresses they aren't familiar with.

Just because you invent a special type of escrow contract that makes it harder to steal money doesn't mean an attacker would use it... he would just instruct users to send money to his own contract and bypass all of the protections you've invented.

When did I mention an attacker should use this? How does that argument make sense at all?

Legitimate ICOs should take on use of these widgets and contracts, educating users in the process to only send to particular contracts. This requires a great deal of improved hygiene for ICO providers and education for consumers, but there’s no easy foot forward here.

One problem is that the correct contract to fund an ICO might even change during the ICO (as it has happened with EOS) and the current way these “businesses” are communicating these contract changes is pretty poor.

So yeah, we definitely need improved hygiene that addresses the pain points of trying to do these funding events through a blockchain.

The user wallet vs contract distinction might help, but that means tooling and education.

They were being tricked anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com