Quote:
Originally Posted by Two SHAE
Your continued distortion of my statements are annoying, nevermind your inability to parse context or recognize the distinction between market risk and smart contract risk, then try to misrepresent something I said.
this is pretty funny because the only one misrepresenting my position is you.
exhibit z:
Quote:
You're trivializing 1) defining a good tamper-resistant price 2) implementing something so a smart contract can use it for critical functions. It's nowhere near the same problem as building a price checking site. There's an inherent tradeoff between complexity of code changes/additions and security. In general, you should expect Compound Labs to prioritize security of the entire system (liquidations being just one part of it).
i am arguing from the perspective of the user, the user experience and reasonable user expectations. whereas you seem to be operating from the perspective of some sort of compound shill.
i also think it is you who has the inability to parse context. i will repeat what i said earlier in the thread:
"the aggregate price seen on coinmarketcap, coingecko, chainlink price feeds never went above 1.03 and liquidations were triggered at the price level of 1.24. this is wrong."
that is the crux of my argument.
the difficulty of smart contract implementation because it is irrelevant to my point. if a plane crashes because there is a fault in the way it's designed and results in injury/death, what relevance does the difficulty of aircraft design have to the claim that people died because its design it's faulty?
the difficulty of the problem is not a valid defense against bad design. the fact that aircraft design is difficult does not absolve the designers of the plane from wrongdoing if they designed something that resulted in death/injury. in the same way that the fact that defining tamper-resistant price oracles being difficult does not absolve compound from wrongdoing if their design resulted in loss of funds!
in fact, the boeing 737 max problem is quite apt for what's being discussed here.
to give a little background for those unfamiliar, this is the summary of the boeing 737 max situation:
Quote:
Boeing faced pressure to design a longer-range airplane, and they had to do it quickly to not lose sales to Airbus. The fastest way for them to do this was to modify the design of an existing product, the 737.
To extend the range, they fitted it with newer, more efficient engines. Those engines were a bit taller than the ones that the original 737 had, so they had to be mounted differently, more in front of the wing than under it.
The different mounting point changed where the thrust was applied, which tended to force the nose up and stall the plane. To compensate for this, they included an anti-stall system in the plane's software. Essentially, if it detects that the plane is pointed too far up, it will dip the nose of the plane down.
Now this is where the problem starts: When Boeing promised the long-range plane to American Airlines, they also promised that there would be no additional training required, and that it would fly just like the existing 737. In the 737 MAX manual, there is only one mention of this automatic anti-stall system, so pilots just didn't know about it; they were told the plane would fly exactly like the 737 they already flew, and so didn't know what was going on when planes started diving automatically. And, well, when a plane dives, it hits the ground.
if we were discussing the safety of boeing 737 max and i held the position that it is bad that people died due to its faulty design, you would be saying that i am trivializing the difficulty of constructing airliners and that it's hard to develop new designs quickly so as to not lose sales to other airliner manufacturers.
throughout our discussion about compound liquidating users at dai prices way higher than the global dai price, you've also responded with the following:
-the single price feed is well documented and functioned as intended and therefore grievances are invalid because users should have known to read better
-not many users got liquidated
-not many users were at risk of liquidations in the first place
if we were discussing the 737 max, you would also be of the belief that the system functioned as intended because it was designed that way and boeing's airplanes were therefore not faulty.
you would also believe that the pilots or the families of the dead passengers should have no grievances because it is mentioned in the manual and it should have been up to passengers and pilots to read/know/understand.
you would also be saying that only a small fraction of passengers were ever at risk of death or injury in response to my grievances about the 737 max.
Quote:
There were no faulty liquidations because I don't think anyone defines faulty as "things invictus doesn't like" or "things people who can't/don't bother to read don't know/understand".
rofl. and you say that i'm the one distorting your statements and misrepresenting what you've said?
so i guess to top all that off, you would be saying that boeing airplanes shouldn't be considered faulty because nobody defines faulty as "things invictus doesn't like" or "things people who can't/don't bother to read don't know/understand."
