4 ms·

Because "code as law" also requires you to accept "bug as law" or even worse "exploit as law". That's OK for now as the _real_ money being put into crypto-curr

Because "code as law" also requires you to accept "bug as law" or even worse "exploit as law". That's OK for now as the _real_ money being put into crypto-currency is understood to be a speculative thrill-ride. People who put actual _real_ money into this stuff know it could vaporize at any time for completely insane reasons. Its basically a bunch of people playing with funny money and having loud arguments about absurdly complex rules. If, somehow, this stuff is to make it into the real world and start interacting with money, institutions, courts and the livelihoods of regular people, it will have to be VERY different from what it is now. That means you can't have smug, over-confident programmers writing clever shit-code and proclaiming it to be "law" and the "final authority".

shanusmagnus 9y ago
> If, somehow, this stuff is to make it into the real world [...] it will have to be VERY different from what it is now. Either that, or the nature of expectations in the real world will have to change, kind of like they did in the 90s when, after a few technological iterations, real people decided that shopping online was not so batshit crazy after all; or like people did in the late aughts when they decided that sharing every damn thing they were doing, and taking pictures of their tacos, was how one conducted oneself socially.
tboyd47 9y ago
A lot of people are talking like the hacking risk applies equally to all forms of cryptocurrency, but I really don't think that's the case. Smart contracts in Ethereum have a much larger attack surface than, say, a simple Bitcoin purchase to cold storage.
scottlamb 9y ago
> Because "code as law" also requires you to accept "bug as law" or even worse "exploit as law". You're not answering adrianN's question. You're saying why one wouldn't want the contract to be the final authority. But adrianN pointed out that we already have contracts which aren't the final authority. They're asking why the code-based ones are better, given that you still don't want them to be the final authority. (I'm with adrianN; I don't see the point.)

shanusmagnus 9y ago

> If, somehow, this stuff is to make it into the real world [...] it will have to be VERY different from what it is now. Either that, or the nature of expectations in the real world will have to change, kind of like they did in the 90s when, after a few technological iterations, real people decided that shopping online was not so batshit crazy after all; or like people did in the late aughts when they decided that sharing every damn thing they were doing, and taking pictures of their tacos, was how one conducted oneself socially.

tboyd47 9y ago

A lot of people are talking like the hacking risk applies equally to all forms of cryptocurrency, but I really don't think that's the case. Smart contracts in Ethereum have a much larger attack surface than, say, a simple Bitcoin purchase to cold storage.

scottlamb 9y ago

> Because "code as law" also requires you to accept "bug as law" or even worse "exploit as law". You're not answering adrianN's question. You're saying why one wouldn't want the contract to be the final authority. But adrianN pointed out that we already have contracts which aren't the final authority. They're asking why the code-based ones are better, given that you still don't want them to be the final authority. (I'm with adrianN; I don't see the point.)