> Code is opaque to people as well, most SWEs struggle to understand distributed systems that are using consensus protocols much simpler than byzantine fault to

> Code is opaque to people as well, most SWEs struggle to understand distributed systems that are using consensus protocols much simpler than byzantine fault tolerance, or programming on environment are non-adversarial, unlike solidity. You can't just learn solidity and then trust smart contracts, it takes a lot of knowledge to avoid vulnerabilities. It's open source vs closed source arguments again. I have personally never looked at the Linux Kernel or Ubuntu source code, but I trust it more than I trust Windows because I know many thousands of people have looked at it before me and said it's secure. > "Code" is being used in crypto-currencies for corruption all the time, and there is no inherent property of computers that protects you against malice, theft and vice. I'm sure it is, code can also be used to create viruses and malware but that doesn't mean Linux is insecure. It's about the transparency of the code and systems you use. More transparency = more trust = better outcomes. I'd rather live in a transparent, fair world, than one where those with more power and money get to set the rules and hide the internal workings from everyone else.