[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.