3 ms·
It doesn't seem their formal methods are all that good for verification, looking at all the smart contract exploiting going on? edit: It's ridiculous how you g
by sva_ 5y ago
It doesn't seem their formal methods are all that good for verification, looking at all the smart contract exploiting going on?
edit: It's ridiculous how you get downvoted for just asking a question in an unrelated thread. Just shows how rotten this whole space is.
- exdsq 5y agoYeah for sure, but the underlying chains are pretty solid, and some of the languages are particularly well formalized such as Plutus (which is led by SPJ’s son with a few of the original Haskell language team). But you can’t save people from bugs higher up the stack when it comes to turing complete contracts. It can definitely be better though.
- mbrodersen 5y agoYou are getting downvoted because your reasoning is flawed. Smart contract exploiting has nothing to do with whether formal reasoning works or not. It’s as incorrect as saying that cars doesn’t work because your car doesn’t work.
- DennisP 5y agoEven if formal methods could make your contracts bulletproof, they don't help at all when people don't use them. The barrier to entry in smart contract development is pretty low, and lots of people don't do everything they should to minimize risk. Two projects that did use formal methods are the beacon chain deposit contract, and (iirc) Uniswap, and both have been fine.
- exdsq 5y agoI know - I no longer care about Karma on HN because if you chat about crypto regularly it’s entirely based on which Pro vs Anti group has seen it more. +1 from me because the space needs good questions :)