41–50 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If computer code == what-we-agreed-here isn't what you want, then you don't want smart contracts.
What makes contracts valid and enforceable in the first place is the backing of the law. And the law can choose to not recognize such contracts as valid, or recognize them only with various caveats.
It was a hack, clear as day. I really don't like this mindset of "code is law" that has arisen by calling the code being executed on the blockchain "contracts". I think people sometimes forget that these "smart contracts" are just code, no different than the code running HN or any other web app. This is a hack in the same sense that dumping a database from web app vulnerable to SQL injection would be considered a hac…
Now is it ethical to exploit a bug in a contract? In almost all cases the answer is no, however that is besides the point as smart contracts are devoid of any ethics or intent.
The whole problem with smart contracts is the mindset behind the community. Tech circles far to often follow the mantra "move fast and break things" and this is the issue. If smart contracts were treated like real contracts, then this issue would be largely avoided. Who do you blame for writing a shitty contract? The lawyer. The same should apply for smart contracts. Smart Contracts should be written or at least reviewed by "lawyers" specializing in smart contracts. They should be trained to be able to write contracts that are bulletproof. If the smart contract is defective, they should be responsible just like with normal contract lawyers. If there is a flaw in a contract, there should be a migration strategy for addressing it.
Smart Contracts are a developing technology and an extremely powerful one at that and as such they should be used with extreme caution but that does not mean they are a bad idea. The whole problem is that they are being used haphazardly and often for purposes which are far better served by a more benign and low risk solution.
This logic is the same as saying that an ATM has a software bug and if it spits out too much money it's okay to keep it. The reason being that the "intent" of the machine was programmed to dispense that amount of money. That still feels like stealing to me. I also think the author misrepresents that the only purpose of the blockchain is to eliminate the central governing body. There are many other value propositions…
Computers don't lie, code doesn't lie. The idea of smart contacts is literally that code is law. If the code is flawed, that flaw is law. As soon as you try to wrap intent, disposition, and other legalities into the equation, how is a "smart contract" anything unique?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts will absolutely use intent to judge contracts. The interesting thing with the DAO though, was the explicit INTENT of the contract, was for it to be entirely governed by the code. As in, the announcement website, and all the marketing for the DAO included a whole lot of lines like "None of the information here is binding. The only thing that it binding is the code. The contract is the code". So, it is arguable,…
The intent of all smart contracts is to be exactly what the code says. That is why they exist. For any case where you want to consider intent you should not use smart contracts. People using smart contracts when that's not what they really want are going to cause damage to the ecosystem that will take years to undo.
What is with the smart contract propaganda. Let's put everything in a legal perspective using the DAO as the example...was what occurred there a "hack" or just a proper function of the contract which all parties agreed? let's assume, all things being equal, the DAO smart contract wasn't a smart contract on the block chain but a regular contract, which included a provision allowing any single party to unilaterally tak…
>was what occurred there a "hack" or just a proper function of the contract which all parties agreed? both. Lawyers are just hackers of the legal system. the runtime environment is the courtroom. The contract is the code. loopholes and technicalities are another name for bugs.
>When you own a cryptocurrency, you can’t really “hold it in your wallet” like you could have a $100 bill in your physical wallet. In crypto, your wallet is actually a key which is used to control the associated account number on the Blockchain. This is misleading. "Owning" cryptocurrency comes down yo controlling the private key. Cryptos exist solely as information. The bank analogy is a poor one because it implies…
Moreover fiat (which banks hold) isn't backed by a central physical store of value so the argument holds up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question becomes, under what circumstances would you EVER want to use a smart contract for a non-trivial amount of money? Since smart contracts are software, and all software has bugs, and to a first approximation nobody is interested in having a significant amount of their money, time, or goods erased by a software bug, of what use are these things other than as a curiosity?
They would be useful for making agreements across a large imbalance of power. For example, if I am a one-person operation selling on Amazon, and they screw me over in a clever way, I could not afford to fight them in court. Even if they would have lost, I might simply be incapable of pursuing the case to the end. I personally would much rather use smart contracts for making deals with employers, the overlords of the…
As a programmer, imagine the complexity of the smart contract required to make this sort of transaction work when things go smoothly (including getting information about what has happened in the physical world.) Now imagine proofing it against this scam. Now imagine proofing it against scams in general, including ones you have not thought of yet...
Either you are going to spend a lot of time verifying the contracts you participate in, or you are going to take someone's word for it that it is OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computers don't lie, code doesn't lie. The idea of smart contacts is literally that code is law. If the code is flawed, that flaw is law. As soon as you try to wrap intent, disposition, and other legalities into the equation, how is a "smart contract" anything unique?
This was exactly my (the author) point.
They recoop half the money and the "contract executor" can step above ground with no worries.
The previous owner of the $30M ought to create another smart contract that says something to the effect of: if $15M is sent to this wallet, all rights to press charges will be waived. They recoop half the money and the "contract executor" can step above ground with no worries.
It's not something that can be meaningfully waived (and it's not something Etherium could enforce, anyways).