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

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by naasking »

jrpt wrote: post #71
sandworm101 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but that is a flesh-and-blood arbitrator. We are talking about coding the arbitration process into a machine. Being pedantic is exactly what happens when one tries to express cultural norms in the exact terms used by mechanisms.

If you could capture the entire logic in code, it wouldn't be arbitration, it'd just be a feature of the smart contract. The way you'd encode an arbitration clause into a smart contract is making the arbitrator an oracle. That makes it a part of the smart contract, but it's still resolved by an external arbitrator.

Right, the point is that the arbiter can evolve independently of the contract logic (via establishing new precedent). The contract would just specify a unique, unforgeable designator for the arbiter to use.

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

#92

Post by naasking »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #11
sandworm101 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that machines don't understand doesn't entail they can't understand given a suitable model for what constitutes "understanding". We simply lack such a model.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

drcode wrote: post #60
Animats wrote: post #56

There are two fundamental problems with Etherium contracts. 1. They're executable programs. They could have been a set of declarative rules listed in priority order, but no, the designers went overboard and made them general programs with loops and recursion. There are straightforward ways to analyze sets of rules; they're usually amenable to case analysis. It's hard to analyze programs. Writing a declarative contrac…

To be fair, ethereum has bytecode at its base- almost certainly someone will wrote a more declarative language on top of it now to help minimize the chance that unexpected calling trees can lead to unexpected behavior. Also, the existing solidity language is pretty well designed, it's just a hard problem and an even better design may be needed.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by naasking »

drcode wrote: post #60
Animats wrote: post #56

There are two fundamental problems with Etherium contracts. 1. They're executable programs. They could have been a set of declarative rules listed in priority order, but no, the designers went overboard and made them general programs with loops and recursion. There are straightforward ways to analyze sets of rules; they're usually amenable to case analysis. It's hard to analyze programs. Writing a declarative contrac…

To be fair, ethereum has bytecode at its base- almost certainly someone will wrote a more declarative language on top of it now to help minimize the chance that unexpected calling trees can lead to unexpected behavior. Also, the existing solidity language is pretty well designed, it's just a hard problem and an even better design may be needed.

> To be fair, ethereum has bytecode at its base- almost certainly someone will wrote a more declarative language on top of it now to help minimize the chance that unexpected calling trees can lead to unexpected behavior.

The mismatch between executable code and high-level language is a known attack vector called the "full abstraction" problem. This has already been used to subvert the CLR and the JVM. If your bytecode is not inherently secure, and you permit executing arbitrary bytecode, then any language running on top that builds more sophisticated invariants that aren't enforceable via the bytecode are very likely vulnerable.

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

#95

Post by sandworm101 »

kolinko wrote: post #90
sandworm101 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those cases the court found the intent manifest in the language. These were sophisticated parties with legal advice. Even if they court didn't see intent, it is within the courts' power to force such persons to follow the language if for nothing else than to serve as example to other negligent contract drafters. A court will only grant that which is asked for. So for a typo to matter, one of the two parties before…

There are also cases of people selling cars (and other stuff) ultra cheap on ebay, because they misplaced a comma when specifying a price. It was obvious that the price was supposed to be $20k, not $20.000, and yet the seller lost.

Prices for the sale of consumer goods are subject to some special rules, mostly to prevent bait-and-switch advertising. But actual typos happen all the time and are corrected. There are a great many instances of airline websites getting prices horribly wrong. These contracts are not normally honoured and wouldn't be enforced by a court (40,000$ tickets for 50$ sort of things). Much depends on the specific facts and whether the price is obviously a mistake.

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

#96

Post by internaut »

sandworm101 wrote: post #7
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…

>>its been the execution and the honoring of the contract that man has not yet solved. I think we've worked it out. Billions of contracts are executed and honoured between flesh-and-blood persons every day. 99.999999% work without issue. A few wind up in courts, but I'd still call that a very good track record. (Yes I said billions, read up on all the various forms of contracts. Anyone reading this likely enters into…

> Billions of contracts are executed and honoured between flesh-and-blood persons every day. 99.999999% work without issue.

It's a great point about volume. However a huge number of legal cases + contracts never get started in the first place because of cost. So those would be absent from your success rate.

To put it bluntly there is no point in writing a contract for a $200 dollar job. Countless little guys get screwed over every day because of this. Ultimately they work by handshake deals or through family businesses because working with larger corps is a headache. My father for example had to pay 200 euros for a large firm he worked for to process some paperwork they also invented. That is; a firm that he works for, he has to pay them money, in order to be hired by them in the future. This is probably illegal but this is what happens when you can't risk finding out whether this is a breach of contract. That seems like a failure to me.

That's where I see digital contracts making a real difference. Making the legal system comprehensible and inexpensive for the working poor.

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

#97

Post by sandworm101 »

internaut wrote: post #96
sandworm101 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>its been the execution and the honoring of the contract that man has not yet solved. I think we've worked it out. Billions of contracts are executed and honoured between flesh-and-blood persons every day. 99.999999% work without issue. A few wind up in courts, but I'd still call that a very good track record. (Yes I said billions, read up on all the various forms of contracts. Anyone reading this likely enters into…

> Billions of contracts are executed and honoured between flesh-and-blood persons every day. 99.999999% work without issue. It's a great point about volume. However a huge number of legal cases + contracts never get started in the first place because of cost. So those would be absent from your success rate. To put it bluntly there is no point in writing a contract for a $200 dollar job. Countless little guys get scre…

>> ... there is no point in writing a contract for a $200 dollar job.

You don't need to "write" a contract for a contract to be in place. Contracts can exist between people who are illiterate, even those who cannot express themselves. A contract is a state-sanctioned and enforced relationship. The document is just one form of evidence useful in defining that relationship.

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

#98

Post by speeder »

sandworm101 wrote: post #47
tdaltonc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am from Brazil.

You are right, and wrong.

Your second paragraph is right.

Your first, depends. The tiny businessman will claim he wants fair courts, but the big business love the predictable and reliable courts, because they save time and money when making decisions with legal repercussions, and are great for those with money.

Brazil economy tanked recently in part BECAUSE courts suddenly become actually fair, sending several corrupted companies, and their thousands of (mostly innocent) employees to their doom, and making rich people wary of investing, because now they are unsure about their own future, and the corrupt ones fear for their future.

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

#99

Post by plttn »

dredmorbius wrote: post #74
plttn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this might be a semi-unpopular opinion, but frankly I'm getting tired of the idea that a blockchain is the solution to every single problem the human race faces. There's this almost religious level of looking the other way whenever there's some sort of failure in a blockchain system, and they always say "that was a one-off situation"

I'm also finding the "blockchain all the things" concept ... perplexing. I really don't understand the mechanism or dynamics. It seems I'm not the only one. There's a growing set of evidence of breakdown among institutions founded on or around Blockchain: Bitcoin, MtGox, Ethereum, others. And a profound failure to either understand or acknowledge (and I'm not sure which of the two it is predominantly, or how much it…

I'm not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination, and I actually got lost in the weeds when trying to read The DAO's website and what exactly it does and how it works.

(which is a hilariously confusing thing to name a brand; "Which DAO are you talking about?" "The DAO" "Yes but which one")

There's situations where blockchains are a good idea, but there's many cases where they aren't.

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

#100

Post by jsprogrammer »

naasking wrote: post #92
jsprogrammer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The fact that machines don't understand doesn't entail they can't understand given a suitable model for what constitutes "understanding". We simply lack such a model.

We can define words to mean whatever we want. The machines under consideration are algorithmic, defined by simple logical rules that allow the next state to be derived from the previous. Any understanding within a model comes from the algorithm, not the machine.
Post reply on HN