Live data from Hacker News

Stellar Smart Contracts

stellar.org

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#51
post #47
post #3

> As a reminder, smart contracts are created using code. Code can contain bugs or may not perform as intended. Be sure to analyze and agree upon all possible edge cases when coming up with the conditions and outcomes of the smart contract. Predicting all possible edge cases of a piece of software has been proven to be very hard in the past (there have been software bugs that literally killed people). Why would I ever…

> Predicting all possible edge cases of a piece of software has been proven to be very hard in the past (there have been software bugs that literally killed people). This is what formal verification is for. But seemingly the current Smart Contract ecosystem doesn't care...

yeah, this is amazing. bunch of scriptkiddies put javascript in cryptocurrencies and people literally dump truckloads of money on them. wth..

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#52
post #3

> As a reminder, smart contracts are created using code. Code can contain bugs or may not perform as intended. Be sure to analyze and agree upon all possible edge cases when coming up with the conditions and outcomes of the smart contract. Predicting all possible edge cases of a piece of software has been proven to be very hard in the past (there have been software bugs that literally killed people). Why would I ever…

Smart contracts aren't for enforcing law, they're for making notary and escrow work cheaper and more automatic. The current costs for this are ridiculous.

That said, nobody actually cares for doing anything useful with blockchain in 2018. The verbiage is just a smokescreen for good old pump-and-dump speculation.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#53
I recently started moving our token from Ethereum to stellar for the simple reason that I came to the conclusion that Ethereum is too far from being production ready to be of use in an application that has actual users that generate any kind of sizable amount of transactions. Ethereum is cute until you have use cases and uses that require it to actually process transactions. The Ethereum ecosystem is a big mess right now.

All the proper solutions for this are years out from being production ready and widely used. I'm talking about sharding, proof of stake, etc. It's going to take several hard ethereum forks to get there. I think Vitalik is thinking 2020/2021 type time frames currently for this. I would not be surprised if that shifts some more. This stuff is hard. Until then, smart contracts on ethereum are only useful for very limited volumes of transaction that, so far, have been mostly about ICOs for shit coins. Essentially all of the transaction volume on Ethereum is trading in these coins. So, unless you are doing an ICO to raise funding, Ethereum has no practical value whatsoever. And given the scams happening there, it is not a great place for that either.

Some people use side chains to work around this, i.e. a centrally run private blockchain. There are several proof of stake based platforms with smart contracts in the works (e.g. hashgraph, IOTA). Mostly that stuff is really immature (or not ready at all) and lacking the broad user base that bitcoin and ethereum have. Bitcoin is nice but useless for custom tokens. There are not a lot of options here that are usable now, scalable, and reasonably widely used (critical if you are going to lock up millions $ in value in it).

Stellar may not be perfect but it works right now and it scales and it is reasonably widely used. They have built a few things into stellar that largely remove the need for centralized things like exchanges or convoluted smart contracts that need auditing. This is why it is gaining a lot of traction lately.

Specifically: - any stellar account can issue tokens - any stellar account that trusts (this is stored in stellar) those tokens can receive those tokens - any account can create offers to buy/sell any tokens (that they trust) on stellar - when offers are matched by a counter offers, the trade happens.

There are no websites where you need to go to get your token listed, no middlemen to bribe/deal with, no transaction fees (beyond the 1/10^5th of an XLM), no smart contracts to write. This stuff works out of the box. You can be up and running in minutes if you know what you need to do.

If you want to issue a token on stellar the process is as follows: - create an issuing account with a minimal XLM balance - create distribution account - make your distribution account trust your FOO coin issued by the issuing account - pay some FOO from the issuing account to the distribution account. This creates the token. Paying it back to the issuing account destroys it. - write a stellar.toml file with some meta data and put it on your domain foo.com in the .well-known directory. This tells your users and exchanges what your coin is, who issued it, etc. - set foo.com as the home domain on the issuing account - fiddle with the issuing account options to further control things (multi sig, preventing more tokens from being issued, etc.)

Done. They have lots of other stuff built in that is highly useful like federated accounts, a compliance protocol for people to pre-clear transactions, etc. If you start reading the documentation, it becomes very clear that this was developed by people who deeply understand the needs of those that develop complex financial products.

To trade tokens, you simply create offers and counter offers on stellar. This works right away. The recently launched Stellarx.com is just a pretty UI around the built in functionality.

To get listed on stellarx, you need some positive evidence of trading happening with your token. I think this currently means evidence of a (small) trading volume and a minimum number of accounts that hold your token. Other than that there are no bribes, listing fees, etc. I imagine that over time the requirements for this will change and there will be competing websites getting involved as well.

People making the point that stellar is a centralized system are of course somewhat right. However, it is a system that can be used right now and you can easily scale it to meaningful numbers of transactions. The shared database of transactions that stellar produces can be validated by anyone and if you run a full node, that's exactly what it does. So, it's not as black and white as this being 'controlled' by a single entity. In practice the companies that are active on stellar end up running their own nodes and validators. Many people do.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#55
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of consensus protocols that don't waste energy but I think it's important to understand why PoW relies on an unproductive algorithm. Mining fulfils two roles: - identity management: To identify who is a trustworthy block producer in an anonymous and trustless network, mining introduces a cost to the block generation process and we use a game theory assumption that it serves as a barrier for attackers…

PoW isn't wasting anything. PoS is not cheaper that PoW. this myth just won't die..

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

PoW is wasteful in that the vast majority of the product of it's algorithm (hashes) is discarded. This means that block producers can be trusted because they wouldn't be spending energy / electric power to produce blocks for any reason other than gaining the block rewards, which they can only get if the block is valid.

If PoW did some sort of useful work (gene folding, seti, etc) then there would be no reason to trust block producers since all of their blocks are useful and therefore they can be "mining" for reasons other than obtaining the block reward.

Hope that helps.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#56
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoW isn't wasting anything. PoS is not cheaper that PoW. this myth just won't die..

I don't think you understood what I wrote. PoW is wasteful in that the vast majority of the product of it's algorithm (hashes) is discarded. This means that block producers can be trusted because they wouldn't be spending energy / electric power to produce blocks for any reason other than gaining the block rewards, which they can only get if the block is valid. If PoW did some sort of useful work (gene folding, seti,…

i don't think you understand the technology at all..

> PoW is wasteful in that the vast majority of the product of it's algorithm (hashes) is discarded

do you know what "PoW" means? it's 3 words: proof, of, work. what you consider "discarded" and "waste" is the Work in PoW.

miners convert energy into blockchain security and every block signature is the proof that certain amount of energy was spent to find it.

if there was another "useful" activity (gene folding, seti, etc) it would have created additional "value" for miners, making mining more valuable, creating incentive for more miners to mine and subsequently raising the difficulty to mine matching the additional "value" from "useful" activity.

it's trivial econ and i really do hope it helps you better understand what you're arguing about.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#57
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Stellar probably doesn't count as a real "blockchain." It's also why Stellar is potentially a lot more useful than blockchain. You don't have to do proof of work, which is wasteful of resources by design. Note that the cryptocurrency people use the word "decentralized" differently from the rest of the world. They use it specifically to mean that the mechanism for determining consensus is perfectly distrib…

There are plenty of consensus protocols that don't waste energy but I think it's important to understand why PoW relies on an unproductive algorithm. Mining fulfils two roles: - identity management: To identify who is a trustworthy block producer in an anonymous and trustless network, mining introduces a cost to the block generation process and we use a game theory assumption that it serves as a barrier for attackers…

> There are plenty of consensus protocols that don't waste energy but I think it's important to understand why PoW relies on an unproductive algorithm.

DPoS consensus used by Bitshares/STEEM & EOS seems to the most advanced among the models and they also have the highest TPS

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#58
post #30

Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency, aside from the hype train, doesn't appear to have percolated into the collective mainstream or even geek consciousness yet.

http://arewedecentralizedyet.com/ 95% centralized

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#59
post #44

Both of the examples (2-Party Multisignature Escrow Account with Time Lock & Recovery, and Joint-Entity Crowdfunding) have been possible with Bitcoin for some time.

also possible on STEEM blockchain along with Bitshares

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same could be said for online banking and deposits. There are efficiency gains to be had by taking additional risk.

The FDIC insures deposits up to a limit, whether or not one uses online banking.

And eventually there will be smart contracts that are insured.
Post reply on HN