3 ms·
Why not just have a version 1 smart contract, that inside of it has an amount check that, if passed, rewrites the smart contract (or issues a new one) - version
by armatav 5y ago
Why not just have a version 1 smart contract, that inside of it has an amount check that, if passed, rewrites the smart contract (or issues a new one) - version 2 - that rectifies the problem?
So people who "agree" with the change can just insta-exchange their cash, and those who don't can keep their cash on version 1. Then you don't have bugs like this as easily anymore.
This whole thing will no go very far without something like an update system. The old C programmers would laugh their ass of at a code-once-and-hope mentality.
EDIT: And by rewrite I mean like how OTA updates "rewrite" things, have a coin-bootloader or something that takes care of it.
- nlitened 5y agoWhat is the point of a smart contract that its owner might update on a whim? Just deploy an HTTP server.
- armatav 5y agoI think the whole point of the post is that you can move your coins to the new protocol through an exchange mechanism, or stay put. Unlike a deployed server.
- knownjorbist 5y agoAny major smart contract updates over time, but in some cases they back themselves into a corner with a bug.
- armatav 5y agoThat makes sense, like a bug too scuffed to allow a recovery.