301–310 of 629 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I'd say the fact that he has to publicly ask for exchanges to stop the trades, and can't simply press a button or send out an order, shows the decentralization. Decentralization doesn't prevent coordination.
> and can't simply press a button or send out an order And the governmental powers-that-be can press a button and prevent citizens from exchanging cash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what a typo is? "Oh, that contact for 1000 dollars is really 10 dollars because they 'missed' a decimal place. You still have to uphold your part though." Corruption of judges can be a problem in that space and that is in part what this is attempting to solve. A lofty goal, maybe even impossible, but certainly worth the time to try.
There are relatively few cases where $1000 and $10 are both reasonable numbers. It should be pretty obvious to both parties from context which is the 'correct' interpretation.
I certainly distrust the American legal system enough to use something like this in the future.
A good thread is evolving about this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4oibqw/ding_dong_the_d...
This is what concerns me about contract programming. With human contract law, if there's a minor typo or loophole, participants can generally see the spirit and intent, and at worst go to a judge who will usually enforce the intent. But with software contracts, only the characters matter and there's no intent anywhere: either you get paid or you don't. ETH is advising, "Contract authors should ... be very careful abo…
Unlike traditional contracts, the idea was that smart contracts were going to eliminate the need for enforcement or dispute resolution. So that law is enshrined in code. But this incident has set a precedent, at least within Ethereum, that the project leadership will intervene to enforce the spirit of a smart contract. So what now are the benefits of Ethereum smart contracts over the traditional legal system? The way…
Personally I hate the term "smart contracts" because of the confusion they create on what they actually are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that when they say it's a suggestion, it's truly a suggestion. If a majority of the miners refuse to accept the update, then what anyone at the Ethereum foundation wants them to do is irrelevant. There is definitely a lot of social pressure to consider here, but there is still no central switch. I'm generally not a huge fan of cryptocurrency (as currencies that is, I love the tech), but I fail to understand…
Rubbish, this is as centralised as you can get. Of course it will go through, because the alternative will cause forks and chaos. Miners have little to no choice but accept this decision from on high.
This is what concerns me about contract programming. With human contract law, if there's a minor typo or loophole, participants can generally see the spirit and intent, and at worst go to a judge who will usually enforce the intent. But with software contracts, only the characters matter and there's no intent anywhere: either you get paid or you don't. ETH is advising, "Contract authors should ... be very careful abo…
I'm mostly an ethereum skeptic, but maybe this doesn't actually indicate that all smart contracts are doomed? Maybe all it means is that bespoke ethereum contracts are risky, and people will have to use boilerplate contracts that have proven robust in the past. I sort of assumed this DAO thing was intended in this spirit, as an experimental stab on the path to robust contracts.
With millions of dollars in prizes if you could exploit it?
This is what concerns me about contract programming. With human contract law, if there's a minor typo or loophole, participants can generally see the spirit and intent, and at worst go to a judge who will usually enforce the intent. But with software contracts, only the characters matter and there's no intent anywhere: either you get paid or you don't. ETH is advising, "Contract authors should ... be very careful abo…
I'm mostly an ethereum skeptic, but maybe this doesn't actually indicate that all smart contracts are doomed? Maybe all it means is that bespoke ethereum contracts are risky, and people will have to use boilerplate contracts that have proven robust in the past. I sort of assumed this DAO thing was intended in this spirit, as an experimental stab on the path to robust contracts.
Why would it be any different for "bespoke ethereum contracts"?
This is what concerns me about contract programming. With human contract law, if there's a minor typo or loophole, participants can generally see the spirit and intent, and at worst go to a judge who will usually enforce the intent. But with software contracts, only the characters matter and there's no intent anywhere: either you get paid or you don't. ETH is advising, "Contract authors should ... be very careful abo…
I don't know much about Ethereum, but why aren't the contracts declarative? Surely, it would be much easier to see the logic behind the contract and avoid the impossible task of a bug free turing complete language.
This is what concerns me about contract programming. With human contract law, if there's a minor typo or loophole, participants can generally see the spirit and intent, and at worst go to a judge who will usually enforce the intent. But with software contracts, only the characters matter and there's no intent anywhere: either you get paid or you don't. ETH is advising, "Contract authors should ... be very careful abo…