4 ms·

> ”Does this sentence actually mean anything?” In more traditional software engineering language, it means “you can run stored procedures on an incredibly slow

by pavlov 6y ago

> ”Does this sentence actually mean anything?” In more traditional software engineering language, it means “you can run stored procedures on an incredibly slow and limited distributed database.” Also those stored procedures are immutable, written in a language with more holes than Swiss cheese, and you have to use a scammy cryptocurrency to pay for the privilege of running these unsafe programs. The adherents call this “web 3.0” in some kind of ironic joke because it’s nothing like the web.

louwrentius 6y ago
Hmm, this reads like something I do understand, thank you.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  You clearly aren't interested in learning anything, just on "dunking" on cryptocurrencies.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    Hmm, where would you get that idea from? https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-society.html https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      So your response is to post your blogpost dunking on Crypto and reinforcing my point?
The_Colonel 6y ago
> Also those stored procedures are immutable, written in a language with more holes than Swiss cheese... You're probably referencing this fuck up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) The huge advantage of smart contracts is that they are supposed to be trustless - you don't need to necessarily trust your business partners because contract is set in stone ... code and will be executed exactly as agreed beforehand. In reality, you move your trust in your understanding of the code. But then when 18 000+ (probably highly technical) people investing $50 million don't spot the bug in the code, then it calls the whole "trustless" concept into question.
- joosters 6y ago
  You don't have to go back that far in time, 'hacks' and bugs in 'smart' contracts happen almost every day. Here's a recent $7M loss: https://cointelegraph.com/news/yield-generating-stablecoin-project-origin-dollar-exploited-for-7m https://cointelegraph.com/news/yield-generating-stablecoin-p... and here's a $89M loss less than a week ago: https://decrypt.co/49657/oracle-exploit-sees-100-million-liquidated-on-compound https://decrypt.co/49657/oracle-exploit-sees-100-million-liq... It's not even the first time that the 'Compound' smart contract has been 'hacked', but that doesn't stop fools from putting more money into it again. All these fuck ups are called 'hacks', but actually the code is working exactly as intended, it's just that there are so many ways to write smart contracts incorrectly that it's more than likely they all have hidden bugs, just waiting to be exploited.
  - pavlov 6y ago
    "I'd like my investment bank to be an immutable, unfixable piece of code that's a sitting duck target for hackers" -- nobody ever (except Ethereum ideologists)
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      Because no code in the financial sector has ever screwed up. Oh wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash Oh Oops... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Capital_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Capital_Group
      - pavlov 6y ago
        Exactly. Now imagine how bad it would be if the code handling this kind of money was on Ethereum where bugs are forever and failures irrevocable.
        Karunamon 6y ago
        Now compare financial loss from bugs/hackers in smart contracts to financial loss from deception on the part of bankers, brokers, company execs, etc - the exact kind of fraud that's much harder to perpetrate with smart contracts. I'd wager the second number is and always will be orders of magnitude larger. Enron alone was responsible for ~$74bn of loss.

by pavlov 6y ago

louwrentius 6y ago

Hmm, this reads like something I do understand, thank you.

deeeeplearning 6y ago
You clearly aren't interested in learning anything, just on "dunking" on cryptocurrencies.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  Hmm, where would you get that idea from? https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-society.html https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    So your response is to post your blogpost dunking on Crypto and reinforcing my point?

The_Colonel 6y ago

> Also those stored procedures are immutable, written in a language with more holes than Swiss cheese... You're probably referencing this fuck up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) The huge advantage of smart contracts is that they are supposed to be trustless - you don't need to necessarily trust your business partners because contract is set in stone ... code and will be executed exactly as agreed beforehand. In reality, you move your trust in your understanding of the code. But then when 18 000+ (probably highly technical) people investing $50 million don't spot the bug in the code, then it calls the whole "trustless" concept into question.

joosters 6y ago
You don't have to go back that far in time, 'hacks' and bugs in 'smart' contracts happen almost every day. Here's a recent $7M loss: https://cointelegraph.com/news/yield-generating-stablecoin-project-origin-dollar-exploited-for-7m https://cointelegraph.com/news/yield-generating-stablecoin-p... and here's a $89M loss less than a week ago: https://decrypt.co/49657/oracle-exploit-sees-100-million-liquidated-on-compound https://decrypt.co/49657/oracle-exploit-sees-100-million-liq... It's not even the first time that the 'Compound' smart contract has been 'hacked', but that doesn't stop fools from putting more money into it again. All these fuck ups are called 'hacks', but actually the code is working exactly as intended, it's just that there are so many ways to write smart contracts incorrectly that it's more than likely they all have hidden bugs, just waiting to be exploited.
- pavlov 6y ago
  "I'd like my investment bank to be an immutable, unfixable piece of code that's a sitting duck target for hackers" -- nobody ever (except Ethereum ideologists)
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    Because no code in the financial sector has ever screwed up. Oh wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash Oh Oops... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Capital_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Capital_Group
    - pavlov 6y ago
      Exactly. Now imagine how bad it would be if the code handling this kind of money was on Ethereum where bugs are forever and failures irrevocable.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        Now compare financial loss from bugs/hackers in smart contracts to financial loss from deception on the part of bankers, brokers, company execs, etc - the exact kind of fraud that's much harder to perpetrate with smart contracts. I'd wager the second number is and always will be orders of magnitude larger. Enron alone was responsible for ~$74bn of loss.