Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO

blog.blockstack.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

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

#41

Post by School-Cotton »

sandworm101 wrote: post #32
hammock wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has 50 versions, not 1

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

#43

Post by leetbulb »

brbsix wrote: post #39

The 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.

Easy solution: just hide all of the paper in some other universe :) On a serious note, well said.

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

#44

Post by tdaltonc »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #38
tdaltonc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Business wants a reliable and predictable legal system. They don't care that the judge has a pulse. If the machine looses it and starts making terrible decisions, people would just start using a different arbitration group. You could probably even update old (well written) contracts to accommodate that.

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

#45

Post by draw_down »

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".

Yes, I agree with that. This was pretty clearly a bad idea from the start. But, to say so was being a "hater" and so forth.

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

#46

Post by sandworm101 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #41
sandworm101 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

The US has 50 versions, not 1

It;s actually much more than the 50 states. There are the territories and the feds. Then there is the precedent used by various boards and committees such as the NLRB. Canada and the UK have similar splits (ie scotland) but the biggest and most relevant divide is that between nations.

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

#47

Post by sandworm101 »

tdaltonc wrote: post #44
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Business wants a reliable and predictable legal system. They don't care that the judge has a pulse. If the machine looses it and starts making terrible decisions, people would just start using a different arbitration group. You could probably even update old (well written) contracts to accommodate that.

Business wants a just and fair legal system.

Reliability and predictability are extraordinarily easy. For example: he who pays the most to the judge wins. That's very reliable, very predictable. It can be automated. Decisions can be taken instantaneously with absolute and perfect certainty as to who should be the victor. But it isn't just or fair, nor is it friendly to business.

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

#48

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

109129831023 wrote: post #37
louprado wrote: post #21

"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.

Most Competent Marketers

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

#49

Post by gamblor956 »

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…

Typos rarely matter in real contracts. Intent can trump language where appropriate. But in smart contracts typos are everything. Good luck with that too.

The City of Cleveland and Frank McCourt would like to have a word with you about your novel theory. In real contracts, typos--like an errant comma--can be significant and completely change the meaning of the language. Cleveland lost the original Browns because of a typo; McCourt lost the Dodgers in part because of a typo.

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

#50

Post by brbsix »

cyrillic wrote: post #20

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?

51% attacks are a known issue. A sustained 51% attack is pretty much an existential threat to any blockchain. So I doubt the issue gets any better when dealing with individual contracts.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/15/long-range-attacks-the-...

http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/544

Post reply on HN