3 ms·
The irony of course being that you would have to fully trust the programmer who reviews your contract.
by pengwing 5y ago
The irony of course being that you would have to fully trust the programmer who reviews your contract.
- onion2k 5y agoYou don't have to trust a single developer if you pay multiple independent reviewers though. If you paid a bonus for finding problems you could even incentivize their honesty.
- Jyaif 5y agoNote that if the bonus is less than what the reviewers would gain from using the exploit, then they are not fully incentivised to be honest.
- js4ever 5y agoEven if you trust the programmer, and even if he is competent he might still miss a very complex edge case ... and since there is no court / jury to take a human decision, you can be totally screwed.
- biztos 5y agoEven worse (better?) no sane programmer is going to sign a real-world contract guaranteeing the code is bug-free, and if you trust the wrong programmer to work on your complex blockchain program they might put in a sufficiently complex exploitable code path, and be first in line to (anonymously) exploit it.
- ahussain 5y agoHmm, we already trust programmers enough to design our cryptography (hash functions and such)
- laserbeam 5y agoWith millions of dollars being stolen from various smart contracts every other week... No, I don't trust those programmers. Designing hash/crypto functions is a very different story than implementing contracts. You would need to know basically 0 of the math that would be needed to implement a hash function.
- soulofmischief 5y agoWould you trust them if programmers you did trust trusted them? A developer web of trust? An example of this would be followers/stars/forks on GitHub. Maybe there is room for a distributed service which specifically enables this trust you're looking for?
- tomp 5y agoNow you have to trust the lawyer that created your contract, as well as the court that might enforce it.