6 ms·

This is why smart contracts aren't nearly as good as people make them out to be.

• TomMarius 8y ago
  What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?
  • dx87 8y ago
    No, because as has happened before, the developers just go "oops, we made a mistake in the smart contract" and nullify the gains of anybody who profited off of it.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).
      • bearjaws 8y ago
        "non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself
  • rocqua 8y ago
    Yes, smart contracts give no recourse when there is an error. Whether or not that is good here, in general it is an issue. That is a large reason why we have courts.
    • TomMarius 8y ago
      You can program space for mistakes into your smart contract, though (e.g. no payout without final approval). Everyone would know exactly what is going to happen when.
      • sincerely 8y ago
        In that case what’s the point of the smart contract in the first place?
        • TomMarius 8y ago
          Explicit and final agreement about the whole deal.
          • thecatspaw 8y ago
            like an actual legal contract?
            • TomMarius 8y ago
              It was said that court decides, legal contract is thus ambiguous.
              • jackvalentine 8y ago
                But inserting a human final approval... courts will end up deciding.
                • TomMarius 8y ago
                  Yes, but this time, it'd be explicit, including details - who decides, how quickly, etc.
                  • jackvalentine 8y ago
                    You mean like a legal contract? I'm genuinely unsure of what you're getting at here.
                    • TomMarius 8y ago
                      A legal contract is not explicit. There usually aren't any details about any court and its procedures, any dates regarding the court, nothing. A legal contract is implicit - relies on the legal system (that is complex and changes often). Making a truly explicit legal contract is way harder than it should be - and impossible in most countries.
  • 6nf 8y ago
    Yea that's the problem. Let's say the smart contract accidentally burns the money instead of paying it out due to a bug in the contract code. No recourse.
• OG_BME 8y ago
  I disagree. In an ideal Dapp, pricing is determined by the open market or with a strong oracle - nothing novel here. If the contract was audited and deemed secure, then a pricing error shouldn't be possible. Payouts would be automatic and instant, as determined by the contract or set of contracts. Therefore, even if there was an error, the platform itself couldn't refuse to pay out a bet because they don't have a say in it. Can't be evil > Don't be evil. Edit: to add, if users saw unresolved bugs in the platform, the contract could be forked and improved or users could just leave. If code is law, and that code is deployed publicly for everyone to see, then nothing is left to the discretion of "owners" because the "owners" don't have discretion to begin with.
• stanleydrew 8y ago
  I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that because there can be errors or misunderstandings in all contracts, the non-smart variety is preferable since they allow for human intervention when there's a dispute?
  • emodendroket 8y ago
    Yes, that's the usual argument against "smart" contracts.