[olalonde]

Sorry to be blunt, but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin. Miners are not "intermediaries" and it is possible to send/receive Bitcoin with any regular programming language.

The links you posted refer to Ethereum smart contracts which are indeed prone to programming errors. The tooling around them is improving (e.g. debuggers, verifiers) and there are a couple of multi-billion dollar smart contracts which have stood the test of time.

[Kbelicius]

> Sorry to be blunt, but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin.

Sorry to be blunt but you are demonstrating your poor reading skills.

> Miners are not "intermediaries"

I have some bitcoin. How do I send them to you without miners?

> it is possible to send/receive Bitcoin with any regular programming language.

dmitriid was talking about, what you called, "programmable money" and not about sending/receiving bitcoin. You don't need knowledge of any programming language to do that.

[olalonde]

Ah I see the confusion now. By intermediary I meant "trusted intermediary" (e.g. like PayPal, Visa, a bank, etc.).

[dmitriid]

Ah yes. Because with "programmable money" we now have untrusted intermediaries: programmers who code scammy contracts (at the very least you'll need those intermediaries).

And don't forget those who code the wallets, and the exchanges, and the people who will convert your tokens into actual money you can buy stuff with...

Ah, it's so good to finally get rid of these "trusted intermediaries like PayPal, Visa, a bank..."

Oh wait, my money is gone, how do I revert the transaction?...

[dmitriid]

> but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin.

No, we don't

> smart contracts which are indeed prone to programming errors.

Indeed. So. In the context of "potential to be a programmable money without government or central authority" you literally have to depend on an intermediary to write a smart contract and depen on that intermediary to write this contract correctly.

> The tooling around them is improving (e.g. debuggers, verifiers) and there are a couple of multi-billion dollar smart contracts which have stood the test of time.

Either all this is "too early" or "it has stood the test of time". You can't have both.

The fact that some contract exists, and handles "multiple billions" in no way, shape, or form disprove my original statement: "Programmable money" relies on intermediaries in the form of programmers writing unverifiable undebuggable code in esoteric languages

[landemva]

' Programmable CARS relies on intermediaries in the form of programmers writing unverifiable undebuggable code in esoteric languages. '

I am also skeptical of the current state of programming in autonomous cars. It's buggy and not perfect today. Even the code in anti-lock brakes is unverifiable and esoteric. /s

Maybe new technologies take time to develop?

[CRConrad]

There's not much speculation and Ponzi marketing hype about ABS brakes, though.

[dmitriid]

> Programmable CARS relies on intermediaries in the form of programmers

Yes. You do trust intermediaries in the form of cart manufacturers. So what's your point exactly?

[olalonde]

If you think those problems cannot be solved, I understand your skepticism. I don't share this pessimism however.

[dmitriid]

> I don't share this pessimism however.

Ah yes. The good old "you don't believe enough". There's literally no way to solve programmable money for everyone without intermediaries.