[kergonath]

> I'm a bit confused. What you said is factually correct, but you're coming off as though you disagree with it.

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.