4 ms·
Certainly not with Ethereum :) Of course what I just said is kind of comical at first glance, but in all honesty, and to absolutely agree with and add to your
by mangeletti 10y ago
Certainly not with Ethereum :)
Of course what I just said is kind of comical at first glance, but in all honesty, and to absolutely agree with and add to your point, the exploits related to Ethereum are great examples of how something seemingly infallible that is set in stone can easily turn out to be an Achilles' heel, which then, just like in the case of Ethereum, requires human intervention, bringing it back full circle.
Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653
- dogma1138 10y ago>Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases. Yes but these are going to be "fixed" biases, where a judge's ones are not. A judge can be argued with, it can be presented with the case in a different manner, it can be given precedents which might be relevant for this case because of it's unique circumstances. Overall a system that has a fixed set of "biases" is still "impartial" it's just utterly static, it would have it's penal code and some large list of if this then that's in regards to how to execute it's judgment. So while it might have if (crime.type = theft && crime.subject = food && crime.offender = parent.single) { return show.sympathy(); } you won't be able to change that by arguing for or against it and that's what our legal system is based on. This is why we have defense and prosecution rather than simply running the crime through some flow chart to figure out if you are guilty and if so what the punishment should be.