4 ms·
This might be seen as picking a nit, but I think the distinction is important. Ethereum falters not because you can't do much with a purely digital contract, b
by greggyb 8y ago
This might be seen as picking a nit, but I think the distinction is important.
Ethereum falters not because you can't do much with a purely digital contract, but because people typically want the guarantees of a digital contract except when they don't. There is so much value (if only from inertia), of being able to fall back onto negotiation, or in a more negative circumstance litigation, around an existing contract.
The digital contract is too rigid for how contracts are typically executed in the real world.
- chrisco255 8y agoIt only falters because the current implementation doesn't scale and the scaling solutions are 1-2 years out. Otherwise running a VM on a block chain is a brilliant idea and has already produced thousands of projects. "Smart contracts" aren't necessarily analagous to actual contracts. They can also be programmed with configurability.
- posterboy 8y agoI read the parent implying the opposite. The cases where the eth contracts are secure, because they only rely on actions captured in and only in the network, are very few.
- reidjs 8y agoWhat about things like games with very well defined rules?
- Kiro 8y ago"Smart contracts" have nothing to do with normal contracts. "Distributed script" is a much better name. Basically deterministic scripts you run on multiple computers.