3 ms·

> Because dapps are publicly audit-able [...] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that auditing a Dapp is far from trivial. Only the bytecode is stored in t

by ghgr 9y ago

> Because dapps are publicly audit-able [...] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that auditing a Dapp is far from trivial. Only the bytecode is stored in the blockchain, and even if the source code is published, it's hard to see if it corresponds to the published bytecode (and even then, FOSS still have bugs, remember OpenSSH and its latest security bugs). From [1]: > Q: How can I verify that a contract on the blockchain matches the source code? > A: AFAIK the best way to do this at the moment is to compile the source code again with the exact same compiler version the author used (so this is something that needs to be disclosed) and to compare the bytecode. (Thomas Bertani @ StackExchange) In addition, in the source code itself a contract programmer could implement "contractual" backdoors... ahem.. loopholes. And you'll have no recourse. [1] https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/195/how-can-i-verify-that-a-contract-on-the-blockchain-matches-the-source-code https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/195/how-can-i-v...

johnhenry 9y ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong [...] I agree, this is not trivial, but as you point out, since only the bytecode is stored in the blockchain, examining it must be only way to know what a contract does. > In addition, in the source code [...] Yes, the programmer could implement backdoors, no matter what the language is. As such, the end user should not rely on specific properties of a language to make guarantees as to whether or not it the contract does what they expect. It can help, but it's not foolproof. My point is that if you invest in a smart contract, it is unreasonable rely on outside entities -- either the person who created the contract or the contract language itself --- to ensure that it will work as expected. As hard as it may be to do, if you can't reasonably understand what's going to happen when you enter into a contract, you shouldn't.

by ghgr 9y ago

johnhenry 9y ago

> Correct me if I'm wrong [...] I agree, this is not trivial, but as you point out, since only the bytecode is stored in the blockchain, examining it must be only way to know what a contract does. > In addition, in the source code [...] Yes, the programmer could implement backdoors, no matter what the language is. As such, the end user should not rely on specific properties of a language to make guarantees as to whether or not it the contract does what they expect. It can help, but it's not foolproof. My point is that if you invest in a smart contract, it is unreasonable rely on outside entities -- either the person who created the contract or the contract language itself --- to ensure that it will work as expected. As hard as it may be to do, if you can't reasonably understand what's going to happen when you enter into a contract, you shouldn't.