Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO • Hacker News Board

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#11

Post by jsprogrammer » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #10

wolfgke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Contract language is also meant as a manifestation of intent. I challenge you to create a formalization of the intent and create a better programming language for smart contracts that includes intent. I could imagine quite well that intent could be formalized to some kind of "firewall" or "sandbox" rules for the smart contract, i.e. that if the execution of the smart contract violates these rules, it will, for exam…

I would counter with the concept that any valid interpretation of intent must come from one with cultural understanding. Machines do not have cultural understanding. They cannot identify language/intent clearly in violation of cultural norms. Before attempting the intent code, I'd first need to see a machine capable of understanding why Shylock's pound of flesh was an illegal contract.

Machines don't understand. They simply compute. It is up to the programmer to have them perform the appropriate computations.

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#12

Post by Aelinsaar » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

Just from reading commentators here at HN, it doesn't seem like these issues were unforeseen. Rather, it seemed that whatever intense optimism exists around cryptocurrencies is capable of overwhelming investor sense in return for the promise of some ideological "win".

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#13

Post by tdaltonc » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #2

How many of the TheDAO Curator members are lawyers? Contracts are agreements that are meant to be legally enforceable. The enforcer has always been the King, a local governmental authority and a third party. The very concept of a contract assumes the neutral third party. That third party is to interpret the contract, identify potential scoundrels, nullify illegal contracts and generally make sure everyone isn't playi…

I'll make a prediction about where this is going longterm. Smart contracts will take off despite their rigidity but we will start writing them to include common law arbitration protocols. The arbiters will initially be 1 or more human but as the block chain begins to evolve it's own common law(s), fuzzy machine arbiters will emerge to fill the "incompleteness".

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#14

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #6

alttab wrote: post #4

Simple contracts then are only as scalable, reliable, and secure as the code that runs off the blockchain. Arguably, that defeats the whole purpose because it is then who controls the code (since it is no longer decentralized), controls the contract. If I'm reading this right (I'm not 100% sure of that), this is the equivalent almost of not running a blockchain at all (if the idea is taken to its finality). Storing t…

What is supposed to give us the impression the problem of contract execution hasn't been solved? A huge majority of contracts are never disputed, carried out to completion or ran as a going concern without any issues. Contracts are routinely renegotiated when one or both parties have a change in circumstances, or at specific time intervals. Only a very tiny fraction of contracts are ever disputed, and fewer of those…

>> I don't understand the problem trying to be solved here.

Lawyers. They want to get rid of the lawyers.

It's a common desire. Like politicians, you want to get rid of them up until the day you actually need one. That day may have come for smart contracts. Does anyone here doubt TheDAO are now seeking legal advice on this matter?

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#15

Post by arcticfox » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #2

How many of the TheDAO Curator members are lawyers? Contracts are agreements that are meant to be legally enforceable. The enforcer has always been the King, a local governmental authority and a third party. The very concept of a contract assumes the neutral third party. That third party is to interpret the contract, identify potential scoundrels, nullify illegal contracts and generally make sure everyone isn't playi…

It seems simple enough to include a fallback mechanism to human judgment in times of extreme error. Maybe requiring 90+% consensus from members, or something like that. Obviously, TheDAO didn't have that, and explicitly precludes any fallback to traditional systems in its documentation.

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#16

Post by alistproducer2 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

Aelinsaar wrote: post #12

Just from reading commentators here at HN, it doesn't seem like these issues were unforeseen. Rather, it seemed that whatever intense optimism exists around cryptocurrencies is capable of overwhelming investor sense in return for the promise of some ideological "win".

I used to run an Ethereum meetup and I was pretty much the only skeptic in the whole group. Everyone I encountered were "true believers."

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#17

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

nzoschke wrote: post #8

nzoschke wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like honoring contracts is unsolved. Bookies have been doing it forever with questionable effectiveness. PayPal offers arbitration on stranger to stranger sales. Again with questionable fairness in tough cases. Kickstarter et al are doing a pretty good job as arbitrators and collecting money and issuing refunds more or less fairly.

I do see room for improvement in efficiency. Kickstarter and PayPal surely have large teams working on arbitration, review and fraud that could be delegated back to the involved parties vote with some rules. And law suits can be very inefficient. This absolutely could be solved without a block chain.

This absolutely could be solved without a block chain.

I fail to see how, because a blockchain is just a continuously-growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision[1].

A blockchain can't compel nor force me to action or inaction, nor enforce any legal penalty for inappropriate action or inaction.

The courts exist as an attempt to resolve differences between peoples interpretation of right and wrong, "slap a blockchain on it" won't change that.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database)

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#18

Post by wyager » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #2

How many of the TheDAO Curator members are lawyers? Contracts are agreements that are meant to be legally enforceable. The enforcer has always been the King, a local governmental authority and a third party. The very concept of a contract assumes the neutral third party. That third party is to interpret the contract, identify potential scoundrels, nullify illegal contracts and generally make sure everyone isn't playi…

Nothing wrong in principle with having a mechanical third party. You just have to actually write your contracts correctly.

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#19

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

tdaltonc wrote: post #13

sandworm101 wrote: post #2

How many of the TheDAO Curator members are lawyers? Contracts are agreements that are meant to be legally enforceable. The enforcer has always been the King, a local governmental authority and a third party. The very concept of a contract assumes the neutral third party. That third party is to interpret the contract, identify potential scoundrels, nullify illegal contracts and generally make sure everyone isn't playi…

I'll make a prediction about where this is going longterm. Smart contracts will take off despite their rigidity but we will start writing them to include common law arbitration protocols. The arbiters will initially be 1 or more human but as the block chain begins to evolve it's own common law(s), fuzzy machine arbiters will emerge to fill the "incompleteness".

>>... to include common law arbitration protocols.

That's a great example of the sort of ambiguity that an arbitrator must deal with. Do you mean to refer to "the common law" as in the body of law descending from the brits, or do you mean the common law principals of precedent and authority? Or do you mean only the concept of precedent by which past decisions under similar fact patterns are used to inform decisions regarding new fact patterns. I have some assumptions based on your choice of language and my best guesses as to your cultural background, but good luck finding a machine capable of such understanding. If we crack that, then much of our culture is moot and the robots can be left to run things.

Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

#20

Post by cyrillic » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

If the contract code can be upgraded by the majority of involved parties, it would be simple to buy 51% of the voting power and change the code to pay out everything else. Each takeover would double your wallet. Am I missing something here?