If simple contracts, where much of the code is off chain, are to be the way of things it begs the question, why do we even need Turing complete contacts in the first place. A blockchain could be created which has a few fixed rules which enable the basics of a DAO with much lower risk.
Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
31–40 of 105 posts
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>... 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 r…
Pretty clear to me that he's talking about creating/evolving new common law, in the vein of the living body of common law descending from the Brits
>> in the vein of the living body of common law descending from the Brits.
Does the speaker recognize the various forks of that body of law? The US/Canada/Australia and others split many years ago and are now developing their own versions. I assume the OP is speaking of them collectively, but try asking an American whether Canadian cases should be relevant to US decisions.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#33Just 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".
This is what it looks like to me. They couldn't see the problem happening because culture blinded them from thinking of things in such a way that would allow them to see this coming.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 r…
I mean a "concept of precedent by which past decisions under similar fact patterns are used to inform decisions regarding new fact patterns." Without the need for territorial jurisdiction there will be many competing (but still distinct) common law groups. Signatories would pick a lineage at signing (npm install JAMS).
We'll start with human only arbiters, (panel of three from JAMS for example) then moved to mixed panels, then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#35Earlier 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.
If the machine knows Asimov's three laws of robotics then it will know that Shylock's pound of flesh cannot be had.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
For example: either party to this contract submit a signed request for arbitration within the escrow period of this contacts then 1) a panel of 3 arbiters from the New Atlantis Common Law Arbitration Group will be selected at random. 2) 50-ETH will be set aside for court fees. 3) The panel can execute any 1 of 5 events by submitting 2 of 3 signed tokens. If the panel cannot arrive at a consensus, one token will execu…
If the panel cannot arrive at a consensus, one token will execute at random.
Hang on, this isn't the casino. Contracts don't usually have a 'random outcome' clause, do they?
I think we better take this to the courts.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#37"Simple Contracts are Better Contracts" has always been the mantra of the Ethereum and DAO team. Most times when a security question was raised, "simple contracts" was their defacto answer [1]. This exploit suggests that the most competent developers in this space, who always preached simple contracts, are not yet able to consistently write secure contracts. Also, the OP states the importance of being able to update…
"Most competent developers"? There are probably thousands of better informed developers/researchers who would not attempt to set up such a company before they have stronger formal guarantees.
Of course, if you want to be first-to-market, none of that seems to matter.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>... 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 r…
I mean a "concept of precedent by which past decisions under similar fact patterns are used to inform decisions regarding new fact patterns." Without the need for territorial jurisdiction there will be many competing (but still distinct) common law groups. Signatories would pick a lineage at signing (npm install JAMS). We'll start with human only arbiters, (panel of three from JAMS for example) then moved to mixed pa…
then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.
I'm not seeing it. Who's going to enforce the outcomes of machine dispute resolution? I mean, who's going to even want to sign up to the machine dispute resolution? Not me, no way, that's the freaky dystopian future we're supposed to be trying to avoid.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#39The AI equivalent to a recursive call bug are self-replicating Von Neumann probe paperclip maximixers that consume the entire universe. We're going to be in a world of hurt if we aren't able to sort this out. It's pretty essential that machines are able to discern our intent or the spirit of our contracts one way or another.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example: either party to this contract submit a signed request for arbitration within the escrow period of this contacts then 1) a panel of 3 arbiters from the New Atlantis Common Law Arbitration Group will be selected at random. 2) 50-ETH will be set aside for court fees. 3) The panel can execute any 1 of 5 events by submitting 2 of 3 signed tokens. If the panel cannot arrive at a consensus, one token will execu…
If the panel cannot arrive at a consensus, one token will execute at random. Hang on, this isn't the casino. Contracts don't usually have a 'random outcome' clause, do they? I think we better take this to the courts.
>> Contracts don't usually have a 'random outcome' clause, do they?
Like in a betting shop? When I lay my chip on "red" then I am entering into a contract with the casino. A random event can be a term in a contract, but you are correct in stating that in the case of a dispute we do not allow a coin flip on the "who is right" question.