There is nothing magical here. It's a bit like avoiding the checksums that IBAN has, and then complaining that IBAN is broken. Most people interact with WETH via UIs, but for some reason this user chose not to, and got severely burned because of it.
Things that require expertise usually requires one to know acronyms and how things works underneath, the cryptocurrency space is no different.
Now I don't know what you do for a living, but it certainly isn't cryptocurrencies. I'm sure there are more industries you don't work with on a day-to-day basis, and when people who are in those industries talk with each other on a technical level, you'll see the same amount of jargon. That's just part of expertise in a subject.
For example, two of my friends are chemists, and sometimes they talk chemistry stuff when we're having dinners and stuff. Of course I don't understand most of the stuff they are saying, but I'm not gonna claim "chemistry" is "magical knowledge" just because I don't understand it, so I'm not sure why you would about cryptocurrencies.
In general, giving someone money does not require intimate knowledge of what's happening behind the scenes, that's true. But the submission is not about a normal transfer, the user is explicitly avoiding the safe-guards in place, and got burned by it. It's no surprise really.
Why, is there a way to send currency directly and irrecoverably into a paper shredder on the inside?
And yes I'm aware the lady in the case suffered and it's terrible. I'm just being facetious
Thankfully we have banks to deal with that - and legal framework that can help us undo problems.
"But you can use an exchange with ETH!"
Like banks? Making such networks ostensibly not 'decentralized'?
The entire point of Crypto/Blockchain is that is decentralized and is accessible to everyone.
If it requires that we trust 'quasi-centralized nodes' like CoinBase (i.e. banks) then it mostly defeats the purpose. Just use a bank.
At absolute minimum, the purveyors of such tech should be providing 'off the shelf' free wallet software that solves all of these problems of magical knowledge.
All of these arguments are fading quickly and the people doing this are risking a lot of credibility.
We talk about people wasting their time on AdTech, but at least there is actually some value in AdTech. We are facing an entire generation of people doing 'NoTech'. Let's turn this into something useful.
The user basically guessed that this is how you turn ETH into WETH and vice-versa, without actually reading anything about it.
If the user searched for "How do I turn ETH into WETH?" and read the first few links, they would have avoided this problem. If they made a mistake of entering an invalid address in a wallet for a transfer, the wallet wouldn't allow the transfer in the first place.
> The entire point of Crypto/Blockchain is that is decentralized and is accessible to everyone
Yes, indeed. That also implies that you're responsible enough to have a basic understanding of what you're doing. Or at least recognize that you don't have a basic understanding, and seek to attain one when needed.
Its not like going to a shell and putting a random command. It was one of the most used GUIs for crypto!
People will always press the Magic Red Button without knowing what it does with some, if rare, consistency. That's human nature, ergo, our systems must accommodate.
The fact it's possible to lose $500K whereupon 'nothing can be done about it' is a 'dealbreaker' for this tech.
The truth is, when one goes down the rabbit hole, one discovers that ETH doesn't really solve any problems and creates a bunch of problematic side-effects. When you solve those side-effects you end up with something that looks like a regulated banking system.
There needs to be a new angle/twist or use case that we haven't thought of yet, in order for any of this to make sense. We risk getting into accidents when we drive a car, because the 'upside' of fast travel is worth the risk. There's just no real upside with Crypto yet. NFT was a neat idea, but that's not it either.
Isn't it the "contract" that is supposed to be the "smart" thing here?
> effectively bypassing the safe-guards that are already in place (even without exchanges) to prevent issues.
YTF aren't these "safe-guards" built into the "contract", if it's supposed to be so "smart"?
Even the most stupid ordinary non-"smart" conversion program has the "smarts" to reject invalid input, not confiscate it.
This whole Crypto/Blockchain business is so obviously bullshit all the way down.
> At absolute minimum, the purveyors of such tech should be providing 'off the shelf' free wallet software that solves all of these problems of magical knowledge.
UI is continually improving and is already much better than in the early days. But the “purveyors of this tech” don’t owe you anything. If you’re not satisfied with the current wallet offerings, you can go build your own, or you can simply choose not to use cryptocurrencies.
"But the “purveyors of this tech” don’t owe you anything"
You're right.
And it's why nobody in world uses crypto, blockchain or any of this nonsense for doing anything productive and use it solely for trading magic numbers.
You'd expect that invalid actions lead to idempotent errors, not glitch states where you lose everything.
Indeed, and that's exactly how most cryptocurrencies work today. You try to send funds to an invalid address, the wallet will present you with an error that you cannot do that.
The user in the submission did not perform an invalid action, because they wouldn't be able to perform an invalid action.
They clearly didn't want to burn £500k, and that is now irrecoverable, alongside 260 other people who made the same mistake, on a smart contract that forgoes validation for gas fees.
How is this not invalid?
This guy was pretty far over on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to Ethereum knowledge.
It's still obviously a giant design gotcha that losing money this way is possible. They fact that it happened to a guy who knew probably 95% of the esoterica he needed to know to complete the transaction successfully and still got completely burned is an issue.
You'd think so, but you'd be surprised.
> This guy was pretty far over on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to Ethereum knowledge.
No, that's not true. Even people at the beginning of the bell curve know that you don't send half a million worth of anything around without verifying first that what you're about to do, is correct. You first do that by reading through everything and double-checking. And after that, you do the thing you want to do, but with 1% of the value or less, and verify/double-check again. After that, you do what you actually wanted to do.
The ecosystem is very new, has bunch of sharp edges everywhere and there is no recourse if you do anything wrong, so going through this process is something you learn very early on.
> They fact that it happened to a guy who knew probably 95% of the esoterica he needed to know to complete the transaction successfully
This is obviously not true, as the person seems to not even have search for "How to convert X to Y" before performing something they know they might not be able to undo.
