161–170 of 577 posts
These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.
Would an "upgradeable" crypto-coin solve that flaw?
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
I honestly don't understand why this coin even makes the news. At $250K it was less than a microcap penny token. It's insignificant and not worth a print.
How is there no discussion about FRAX, Maker's DAI, USDC, CRV's 3pool token, Liquity's LUSD, and so many other interesting projects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna be honest I don't know what the audience is for a product where you risk losing your entire life savings because you typed a wrong word in a smart contract rather than paying a middleman a fraction of a percent. It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.
Doing illegal things, mostly. If you are working a w2 job and paying taxes and paying your mortgage / auto loan... crypto doesn't really help you. Blackmail? Awesome. Buying illegal substances? Awesome. Gambling? You got it...
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
Much of the world literally does run algorithmically. Literally every day you trust your life, privacy and money to algorithms that make decisions without human intervention. The financial system trades trillions of dollars in automated systems that make split-second decisions in a way that precludes human supervision. Hedge funds and banks already trust algorithms that if broken could lose billions. The existence of…
It also doesn't mean that it is economically feasible to make 100% reliable or trustworthy software.
> If you’ll never trust your money to a smart contract no matter how vetted, then I’d recommend you never fly a plane or store personal data in the cloud.
Isn't vetting of contracts the opposite of having a no human touch algorithmically run world?
And who does the vetting of the code? Who does the vetting of the people the vet the code? Who does the vetting of the people that run the code?
To have your money in smart contracts right now is tantamount to seeing those 737 max plane crashes in the past, then plugging your ears with your fingers and saying I can't wait to fly on a 737 max tomorrow. It's kind of a mess out there right now [1].
[1] https://cryptoslate.com/binance-smart-chain-sounds-alarm-ove...
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
I'm gonna be honest I don't know what the audience is for a product where you risk losing your entire life savings because you typed a wrong word in a smart contract rather than paying a middleman a fraction of a percent. It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.
I honestly don't understand why this coin even makes the news. At $250K it was less than a microcap penny token. It's insignificant and not worth a print.
A point that most crypto heads miss is that the world does not run algorithmically. Legal contracts do not work like a software program and that characteristic is a feature not a bug. Not being able to reverse transactions that were part of an exploit is in infact a bug. Businesses need that tolerance for error. You need an oracle in your system. The oracle can maintain transparency of the attestations carried out if…
Think of smart contracts rather as vending machines for financial transactions. For example: You enter some crypto coins, maybe select an option and the machine returns a receipt for redeeming your investment plus some interest later.
If the machine is well designed it will forever do the same thing and, hence, be reliable and convenient. Of course, bugs can happen. But like with vending machines, you test and audit its code before deploying it everywhere.
These incidents really illustrate the main flaw of smart contracts: a single bug in your code can lead to incredible losses. I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts.
> I simply don't think it's possible for human beings to write good enough software for smart contracts. I agree, but think it's fixable. I believe we have missed a natural platform in between binary notation and computer languages. I believe there is a 2-D dimensional binary. Simply using a grid (with an array of cells forming a line, and lines stacked on top of each other—a spreadsheet basically), we can drop *all*…