211–220 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but this time, it'd be explicit, including details - who decides, how quickly, etc.
You mean like a legal contract? I'm genuinely unsure of what you're getting at here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read the Welsh being described as loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls, but I cannot confirm its truth or otherwise.
Please don't post troll comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like a legal contract? I'm genuinely unsure of what you're getting at here.
A legal contract is not explicit. There usually aren't any details about any court and its procedures, any dates regarding the court, nothing. A legal contract is implicit - relies on the legal system (that is complex and changes often). Making a truly explicit legal contract is way harder than it should be - and impossible in most countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A legal contract is not explicit. There usually aren't any details about any court and its procedures, any dates regarding the court, nothing. A legal contract is implicit - relies on the legal system (that is complex and changes often). Making a truly explicit legal contract is way harder than it should be - and impossible in most countries.
How does a smart contract with a human stage fix that?
>>> industry practice, which specifically address such obvious pricing errors. I am in two minds here. Firstly this is a "contract" - honour it. Secondly, I understand the industry practise, but Indont think it is in line with society needs - that is a human bookmaker would never have given 750-1 with the team leading and minutes to go. So either you write software that won't do that and take the risk, or you stop us…
Well put. Finance has seen its fair share of this. As an example, I was ashamed to see the difference in reactions between when it was Knight Capital [0] vs Goldman Sachs [1]. For Knight Capital, the entire company floundered after a trading glitch, and they closed shortly after. When it was Goldman who suffered a glitch, many of their trades "qualified for cancellation". Co-author of the Black Scholes formula even s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a smart contract with a human stage fix that?
There can be varying degrees of human involvement. The smart contract could say "a human decides" - and a human decides. But the contract could describe bounds that the human has, limits on how much time he has, etc. The point of smart contract is that if it really is "a human decides", it's explicit - and I wouldn't enter such contract. Instead I'd ask the other party to be more specific and integrate better escrow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's within their power to improve their automated system to not offer stupid bets So then it's also within your power to never write bugs. Have you ever written any? How did that happen? It was within your power not to do so, right?
It is very typical for contracts between businesses to include monetary penalties for bugs that are service or uptime impacting, so yes many other companies are required to pay for their major bugs, why not a betting company?
That's why. What's the impact here? The guy didn't lose anything; he got his hopes up and was disappointed, that's all. People here are acting like the degree of severity/impact doesn't matter, but of course it does.