4 ms·

Smart contracts are a bet on our ability to write code that is free from flaws. History suggests that the odds of that are not good. I'd rather trust a bank and

• spookthesunset 8y ago
  > History suggests that the odds of that are not good. I'd rather trust a bank and the legal system Which is the silly part about "smart contracts" in the first place. Any smart contract dispute will just "devolve" back into the meatspace legal system. Anything that isn't a dispute because it is just "routine execution" (eg: moving money from account A to account B automatically) can simply be called "business automation" that consist of a bunch of "business rules"--basic terminology that has existed since the dawn of computers. Smart contracts do nothing but add overhead to any transaction.
• decentralised 8y ago
  The code that runs on your bank and "legal system" was written by people who make mistakes as well. Writing smart-contracts isn't easy (and I author and audit them for a living...) but it's doable. Your trust on a new technology grows as you get used to it. Anecdotally, I remember how hard it was to get OS virtualisation accepted in corporate environments just a decade ago and my last enterprise customers where already using all form of virtualisation (net, storage, os, etc)..
  • gerikson 8y ago
    > The code that runs on your bank and "legal system" was written by people who make mistakes as well. And the results the code produces is constantly audited, both internally and externally.
    • decentralised 8y ago
      That is true of many cryptocurrency companies, platforms and libraries. There are live businesses using them today, and I'm not just talking of UNICEF and Axa...