[mannykannot]

The point is that in Ethereum's case, the extent of the problem is vastly underestimated by almost all of the participants. In most other cases, it is a risk that can be mitigated or accepted, but in Ethereum's case, it undermines the fundamental premise ('trustless' contracts.)

[mbrock]

I think Ethereum users will mostly converge on a limited set of useful cookie cutter contracts and simple combinations thereof. New types of contracts will hopefully be received with skepticism, as "The DAO" should have been. So the premise isn't really undermined. It's just that the focus on writing custom contracts in a programming language will diminish as the basic framework matures.

[mannykannot]

That is not the vision Ethereum was sold on.

[mbrock]

There was always a pretty limited range of basic use cases for smart contracts: crowdsales, auctions, debt registries, currency tokens, multisig wallets, etc.

As people begin to use Ethereum for real-world organizations, they will of course prefer to use popular, tested, verified implementations of these basic contract types.

I'm not sure what vision you refer to, but anyway, original visions aren't binding!

[mannykannot]

>they will of course prefer to use popular, tested, verified implementations of these basic contract types.

That worked out so well with the DAO. There was, of course, at least one person who did take the trouble to do his own investigation of its security ;-)

Perhaps you could point us to some verified implementations of these basic contract types (together with the arguments for their veracity, of course.)

[aminok]

It's something that will change with experience.

[mannykannot]

It certainly will - people will realize that the fanciful dreams are not feasible.

[aminok]

And others will realise the possibilities opened up by Turing Complete contracting.

[mannykannot]

Unless Ethereum can solve its verification problem, its biggest opportunities will be for scammers.

[aminok]

I think it's unlikely that scamming will be the biggest opportunity in the long run, given how unsustainable it is. Mutually beneficial uses will predominate over time because that's the only way to get repeat users.

[mannykannot]

Unless an effective defense is developed, scamming can be continued as long as attempts at legitimate use are being made. Whenever activity ticks up, scammers will be attracted by it.