|
|
|
|
|
|
by shepherdjerred
1306 days ago
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused. What you said is factually correct, but you're coming off as though you disagree with it. The first thing I was ever taught in my formal CS education is that the computer is (nearly) always right -- if there's a bug it's the programmer's fault. How is that not the case with a smart contract? How is that not the case in the real-world when there are loopholes in laws and contracts? Obviously you can always ask the courts for remediation in the real-world, but let me please point you to many examples where courts make an incorrect/unreasonable decision. |
|
|
It is factually correct, and I also have an issue with it, yes. “There can be no bug in a smart contract by definition” is at the same time true and ridiculous. My problem is using this as contracts, which are agreements between two faillible human beings. In reality, mistakes are everywhere and we have fairly robust ways of dealing with mistakes in contracts. In contrast, what would be a bug in any other situation becomes the truth, with no recourse. This is typical of 2 fallacies in some tech circles: every problem has a purely technological solution, and we don’t need those old fashioned real-world institutions.
Smart contracts are a very fancy hammer when we’d need a screwdriver.
OTOH, I don’t have anything against willing participants having fun with smart contracts.