Stellar Smart Contracts • Hacker News Board

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#111

Post by theptip » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

danielvf wrote: post #62

If I'm reading the docs right, the Stellar smart contracts are extremely different from Ethereum smart contracts - in fact, it almost feels like a stretch to call them the same name. Like "animals" vs "plants". Ethereum smart contract are actual virtual machines. They are tiny computers that run whatever bytecode you want. You could calculate pi to a million decimal places in a smart contract, if you had the money fo…

The explicit design decision here is that most of the logic that in Ethereum would be executed in the EVM, can instead be computed off-chain, with the results encoded in the Stellar ledger. This precludes some of the loftier use-cases that have been proposed for Ethereum like DAOs and trustless prediction markets, but makes it much easier and faster to move money around.

(Put differently, Ethereum is a distributed computer, not a payment rail; Stellar is a payment rail, not a distributed computer).

If you want to implement a gambling site in a jurisdiction where that is illegal, Stellar won't help you, and Ethereum might. However if you're an existing business that is incorporated in the US, then you are probably fine with asking customers to trust you; this is what all companies currently do, under perjury of prosecution.

Another key benefit to Stellar is that if you just want a token / ICO, then this is built into the protocol; Stellar has the concept of an Asset, which you can issue with a couple of API calls. This replaces the need for implementing and testing your own ERC20, which is a major headache, particularly for existing non-crypto oriented enterprises.

There are obviously some open questions on exactly which use-cases Stellar would be useful for, but an example would be in-app purchase tokens like Kin; there's no reason to implement that as an ERC20 and incur the risk involved with the EVM when you're just moving tokens around.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#112

Post by keymone » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:02 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #109

keymone wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only product of spending the energy is a proof that the energy was spent yes, and if that proof has value - then it's not a waste ! > there is no relationship between the absolute energy spent and the utility of the network of course there is - security of the blockchain is proportional top energy spent mining it. > higher the difficulty the more energy wasted in order to maintain the status quo you got this ba…

Using electricity as a proof of investment is still a waste of electricity. Proof of work is to establish that money is being spent. A less wasteful system wouldn't convert money into electricity to feed into computations to prove that. Proving that you lit heaps of cash on fire would be less wasteful. Just because a process is wasteful doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Air freight is wasteful but is also valuable.

> Proof of work is to establish that money is being spent

nope. it's a proof that energy was consumed. money is human concept, energy is universal absolute.

> Just because a process is wasteful doesn't mean it isn't valuable

energy consumption is inherently wasteful activity (as in there is some amount of "waste" in the world produced for the energy to become consumable). by this definition literally everything is wasteful and the label loses it's meaning.

but labels are useful and i (and the official definition) prefer using the term wasteful for something that is intentionally or unnecessarily inefficient.

bitcoin is neither - every joule spent mining bitcoins is necessary to provide the level of security demanded by the market. you can't spend less energy to provide same level of security, because in bitcoin they are pretty much the same.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#113

Post by crassblaster » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

decentralised wrote: post #28

Nursie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The oracle problem is not a problem Yes, it really is, where human motivations to pollute input data exist at all it's a huge problem. All of the above require external, trusted systems, or fuzzy, imprecise arguments based around the honest, enlightened economic self-interest of actors who, throughout history, have shown themselves to unenlightened, dishonest and not to act in economically rational ways.

It really isn't a problem. You have to take the use case of the smart-contract / app and see what is the incentive to pollute input data. Then you can use mechanism design to motivates users to input high quality data and have trustless curated list of the best data sources. Just in case you are not familiar with cryptoeconomics and game theory, here's an example of mechanism design I used at an interview I gave a fe…

> You have to take the use case of the smart-contract / app and see what is the incentive to pollute input data. Then you can use mechanism design to motivates users to input high quality data and have trustless curated list of the best data sources.

You have literally just described a very shit version of Chainlink.

Let me elaborate. Chainlink will make any API feed availible to trigger a smart contract. The problem is not trusting the API, its trusting the data returned from the API/Data source has not been tampered with before it triggers a smart contract.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#114

Post by tinco » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #99

tinco wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just that something is effective doesn't mean it's efficient. For years the lightbulb was the most effective way of producing light, and we took for granted that it cost a lot of energy. But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. Bitcoin mining is wasteful, it literally produces waste, and there is no proof at all that it is an optimal way if achieving s…

> But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. you're missing the fact that bitcoin difficulty adjusts. ultimately bitcoin mining is an activity that converts energy into blockchain security. market establishes the required level of security by assigning value to bitcoin. if you replace bitcoin algorithm to anything more "efficient" - it will simply mean t…

I'm not missing any facts, and you're just ignoring my argument. What's your game?

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#115

Post by crassblaster » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

decentralised wrote: post #24

Nursie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Really? As far as I'm aware the oracle problem still exists, the problems of having to get data onto the blockchain from external, trusted sources. In real-world contracts the problems don't arise over the simple execution of contract, they arise when intent is muddied or missed by words, when terms are unfair, overly onerous or legally unenforceable. Given this, there are very, very few situations in which sm…

Yes it is, really. The oracle problem is not a problem. The data quality is not a concern of the blockchain protocol, only what happens to it once it enters the state trie. Cases where the external data that must be "truthful" can be done trustlessly with prediction markets for instance or Token Curated Registries among other cryptoeconomic primitives. For cases where the data feed needs an extra layer of validation…

You are not thinking outside of the box enough for smart contracts. For highly volatile data like stock prices, interest rates, crypto prices etc etc ... you wont be using Token Curated Registries or prediction markets. APIs will feed into a decentralized network of oracles running on secure enclaves with full collateralization... aka Chainlink.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#116

Post by crassblaster » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

vntok wrote: post #12

Nursie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Really? As far as I'm aware the oracle problem still exists, the problems of having to get data onto the blockchain from external, trusted sources. In real-world contracts the problems don't arise over the simple execution of contract, they arise when intent is muddied or missed by words, when terms are unfair, overly onerous or legally unenforceable. Given this, there are very, very few situations in which sm…

It is, yes. Most transactions that occur daily across the whole world involve trivial amounts of money. If I want to sell you a 300€ dishwasher, for example, I can either require cash, ask for a check/bank transfer and pray it doesnt bounce, or involve a 3rd party whom i trust in which case I will have to forego a % fee for their escrow service, maybe 30€. With a smart contract, I can now be sure the buyer's funds ex…

>Most transactions that occur daily across the whole world involve trivial amounts of money.

Derivatives contracts dwarf this market. Not aiming high enough lads.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-deri...

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#117

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #98

root_axis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waste is the security mechanism. Since the hash results are wasted it is risky to mount an attack on the network; if the hash results were not wasted then the cost of mounting an attack would be mitigated by the value inherent in useful work produced by the algorithm. Your rebuttal actually supports this conclusion because "useful work" would become the "common denominator" cost built into securing the network thus b…

> Waste is the security mechanism not really, consumption of energy is. and even if we accepted this weak statement, how does it follow that PoW is therefore wasteful? waste isn't the product of PoW, valid blocks are.

[deleted]

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#118

Post by keymone » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

tinco wrote: post #114

keymone wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. you're missing the fact that bitcoin difficulty adjusts. ultimately bitcoin mining is an activity that converts energy into blockchain security. market establishes the required level of security by assigning value to bitcoin. if you replace bitcoin algorithm to anything more "efficient" - it will simply mean t…

I'm not missing any facts, and you're just ignoring my argument. What's your game?

Your argument is invalid exactly because you’re missing the fact that difficulty adjusts. Lightbulb produces light by consuming energy just like bitcoin miner produces hashes by consuming energy, but hashes aren’t the product we’re after, the valid block signature is. If difficulty was static we could be arguing that there is more efficient way to convert energy into valid blocks, but since difficulty adjusts - energy efficiency doesn’t matter, market says X amount of energy should be spent and so it will be spent no matter which hashing algorithm or how efficient the hardware is.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#119

Post by tinco » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:20 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #118

tinco wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not missing any facts, and you're just ignoring my argument. What's your game?

Your argument is invalid exactly because you’re missing the fact that difficulty adjusts. Lightbulb produces light by consuming energy just like bitcoin miner produces hashes by consuming energy, but hashes aren’t the product we’re after, the valid block signature is. If difficulty was static we could be arguing that there is more efficient way to convert energy into valid blocks, but since difficulty adjusts - energ…

Lightbulbs produce light and waste. Bitcoin produces block security and waste. It varies the amount of waste it produces with the value that's being secured, and in practice that just means it produces more waste when there's more value. That the amount is adjusted according to market demand does not matter, because the market is not interested in minimizing waste, it is interested in maximizing value.

My metaphor was intended to show you that with innovation we might find better alternatives that have similar or better value, at lower cost. It could be that we can get the same or similar security Bitcoin offers, but without the cost of the enormous energy expenditure.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#120

Post by decentralised » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

crassblaster wrote: post #113

decentralised wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn't a problem. You have to take the use case of the smart-contract / app and see what is the incentive to pollute input data. Then you can use mechanism design to motivates users to input high quality data and have trustless curated list of the best data sources. Just in case you are not familiar with cryptoeconomics and game theory, here's an example of mechanism design I used at an interview I gave a fe…

> You have to take the use case of the smart-contract / app and see what is the incentive to pollute input data. Then you can use mechanism design to motivates users to input high quality data and have trustless curated list of the best data sources. You have literally just described a very shit version of Chainlink. Let me elaborate. Chainlink will make any API feed availible to trigger a smart contract. The problem…

I'm familiar with Chainlink, it's really good!

I think my description might failed to capture how interesting I find TCRs and cryptoeconomics in general but I obviously disagree with you here.

Are you familiar with Town Crier? It offers a solution to the trusted data source problem you mention: http://www.town-crier.org/what-is-tc.html