Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
blog.blockstack.org
Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#2How 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 playing games. Smart contracts seek to sidestep that ancient structure by replacing the neutral third party with an inflexible machine. Good luck with that.
Contract language is also meant as a manifestation of intent. Smart contracts seek a perfect manifestation, dismissing all notions of imperfect knowledge or misunderstanding. Typos rarely matter in real contracts. Intent can trump language where appropriate. But in smart contracts typos are everything. Good luck with that too.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#3As a software engineer everything here rings true to me.
Use as simple of tools as possible when programming and offer many ways for mere humans to change code and review correctness and review, approve and roll back critical transactions.
But this sounds effectively like the status quo with credit cards and Kickstarter.
So I'm not sure what a blockchain adds other than a different platform and maintainers than the existing financial and group purchasing corporations.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#4Simple 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 the who and the what of contracts has never really been the issue, its been the execution and the honoring of the contract that man has not yet solved.
But centralizing the code that runs the contracts, and taking it off the blockchain doesn't sound like the way to do it.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#5Simple 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…
It's not like honoring contracts is unsolved.
Bookies have been doing it forever with questionable effectiveness.
PayPal offers arbitration on stranger to stranger sales. Again with questionable fairness in tough cases.
Kickstarter et al are doing a pretty good job as arbitrators and collecting money and issuing refunds more or less fairly.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#6Simple 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…
What is supposed to give us the impression the problem of contract execution hasn't been solved?
A huge majority of contracts are never disputed, carried out to completion or ran as a going concern without any issues. Contracts are routinely renegotiated when one or both parties have a change in circumstances, or at specific time intervals. Only a very tiny fraction of contracts are ever disputed, and fewer of those reach the courts.
I don't understand the problem trying to be solved here.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#7Simple 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 and honours a dozen contracts in a typical day.)
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#8Simple 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…
It's not like honoring contracts is unsolved. Bookies have been doing it forever with questionable effectiveness. PayPal offers arbitration on stranger to stranger sales. Again with questionable fairness in tough cases. Kickstarter et al are doing a pretty good job as arbitrators and collecting money and issuing refunds more or less fairly.
I do see room for improvement in efficiency.
Kickstarter and PayPal surely have large teams working on arbitration, review and fraud that could be delegated back to the involved parties vote with some rules.
And law suits can be very inefficient.
This absolutely could be solved without a block chain.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#9How 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…
> 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 example, be canceled by the system.
Re: Simple Contracts are Better Contracts: the Meltdown of the DAO
#10How 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…
> 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.