4 ms·

>I do control which smart contracts I interact with No, you don't. This is egregiously wrong and is a blatant misunderstanding of distributed systems. In a typ

>I do control which smart contracts I interact with No, you don't. This is egregiously wrong and is a blatant misunderstanding of distributed systems. In a typical cryptocurrency blockchain, it's the miners that have control over which smart contracts you interact with. >if you want that product (and don't want the control) This is also a bad assumption. I actually do want this product and the control. However cryptocurrency and defi can never actually provide it because the entire concept and marketing of it is flawed from the beginning. Yes, it's that bad. That's why it's so disappointing to me to see finance people get caught up with it. There is a comment below about "people are trying to figure out what works" when the reality is that it will never work. You fundamentally can't do these things with a distributed system built this way.

Daviey 5y ago
Yes, the more I learn the more I learn I don't know. However, I've worked in infrastructure, security and finance (institutional & retail banking, funds and insurance) for the majority of career. I'm also currently doing a doctoral thesis focussed on smart contract security, so I do know a bit about this. The whole premise of blockchain is execution of intent, in an untrusted environment. The threat you are concerned about is collusion, and the best control against this is further decentralization and scale. Proof-of-Stake (and many DAO's), do provide more assurance against malicious actors by validators risking their own stake if they try malicious activity. Ultimately, I am confident that the "dark forest" will give us much more security and transparency than the current closed/centralised system. You seem quite entrenched in your view, but I'd like to ask. What would it take to change your view? If the answer is nothing, can you really claim to be thinking about this critically?
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  >I'm also currently doing a doctoral thesis focussed on smart contract security, so I do know a bit about this. That to me is another really awful thing about blockchains. They're like candy for academics. It's very easy to get sucked into the illusion as well because if you take it at face value there are a lot of things to study and write about, the algorithms seem complicated and interesting. And they are, if you ignore the rest of the effects. I'm sure you could write 100 doctoral theses on smart contracts. I'm sure companies would pay you to do a lot of things with them. They are still an extremely bad and broken concept. Edit: I'm at the point where academics have sent me so many papers on blockchains. I would go as far as to say the entire point of the "defi industry" is not to produce useful products, but to produce research papers. But I don't even know if I could say that because a lot of the papers aren't even good! It's so common for a blockchain paper to launch into a lot of math and algorithms without even trying to make a problem statement or explain what purpose it actually has. Please don't let your thesis be like this. If all you're writing about is how existing users of smart contracts are avoiding getting hacked then you've been dragged into the same trap. >The whole premise of blockchain is execution of intent, in an untrusted environment. The issue here is that this is a completely nonsense premise. There is no such thing as finance in an "untrusted environment". If you aren't planning to live alone in a bunker, then somewhere along the line you need to have trusted intermediaries. Decentralization does not and cannot ever fulfill this premise, it actually increases the amount of trusted intermediaries you need to deal with. >The threat you are concerned about is collusion, and the best control against this is further decentralization and scale. No, this is also incredibly wrong. When it comes to market manipulation, further decentralization does nothing to reduce collusion. It is already hard enough to track the source of bad behavior in the market without people intentionally designing algorithms to do that, we don't need to make it even harder. >Proof-of-Stake (and many DAO's), do provide more assurance against malicious actors by validators risking their own stake if they try malicious activity This conversation again is veering into territory where it has nothing to do with blockchains or smart contracts at all. You can rephrase this as "people are less likely to engage in bad behavior when they are invested and hold stake in something". >Ultimately, I am confident that the "dark forest" will give us much more security and transparency than the current closed/centralised system. As someone who has been doing open source for the last 20 years, I am not. Much like the Linux desktop mentioned in a parent comment, pretty much every blockchain is just a random open source project that is accountable to nobody. People remain interested as long as there is profit and hype in it, when that dries up they will disappear and any illusion of security and transparency will fade away. This doesn't change because it was applied to finance instead of OS kernels or whatever. >What would it take to change your view? If the answer is nothing, can you really claim to be thinking about this critically? Actually my view is the result of thinking about this critically for the last 10 years. I was like you at one point and I would have made the exact same comments that you're making now. But sometimes a spade is just a spade and we gain nothing from pretending it's not. If you want to change my view, it would help to think about how to bring smart contracts into traditional banking systems. Look at all the reasons why it won't work. Then go forwards from there instead of working backwards from blockchains and "decentralization" because those are held as some kind of panacea.
miracle2k 5y ago
> No, you don't. This is egregiously wrong and is a blatant misunderstanding of distributed systems. In a typical cryptocurrency blockchain, it's the miners that have control over which smart contracts you interact with. The match your rhetoric, this is a best an outrageous slight of hand playing with semantics, at worst you are the one not understanding how they work. /I/ have control which smart contracts I interact with - no one else. Number one, the miners cannot force me to interact with anything. It is a common source of confusion - miners cannot force invalid transactions, not even if 100% of them work together. The users of the chain (and their delegates, i.e. exchanges) make the rules, not the miners. The miners have a single job, for which they get paid: to order transactions. And with that job comes the the power to /not/ pick a transaction. Miners could possible /prevent/ me from interacting with a smart contract. A large point of blockchain design is to ensure that this will not happen in practice, i.e. the censoring miners are in the minority.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  >this is a best an outrageous slight of hand playing with semantics, at worst you are the one not understanding how they work. It's neither. Sorry. This is literally how a distributed system works. There are always other people along the line that hold responsibility to keep the system running. That's the whole point of it being distributed. Nothing about this changes if you decide you want to run code on that system or use it to manage your finances. I don't want to talk about semantics either, this is usually the point where someone starts nit picking about the meaning of "distributed" versus "decentralized" or something like that. I don't care what term it is, use whichever you want. The limits are still the same. >/I/ have control which smart contracts I interact with - no one else. No, you don't. Again this is absurdly wrong. The blockchain controls which smart contracts you interact with, and the blockchain is controlled by its miners and its whales. >Number one, the miners cannot force me to interact with anything >miners cannot force invalid transactions, not even if 100% of them work together Actually they can, by blackmailing you and threatening to remove your transactions from the blockchain. You don't seem to understand what the point here is. If bad actors are intent on doing this they won't care if you lose other money in the process or if you have to destroy your keys to stop them. In some ways this type of distributed system is actually more vulnerable to these attacks than other systems. And of course there is always the classic $5 wrench attack, which no amount of blockchain engineering can stop: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ You're making the same mistake that a lot of system designers make. If you look at the system in a vacuum then yes those claims are true. In practice, they aren't true at all. >A large point of blockchain design is to ensure that this will not happen in practice No it isn't. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this would continue to be the case, any more than you would expect a bank to do the same. The answer always comes back to the same thing.

Daviey 5y ago

Yes, the more I learn the more I learn I don't know. However, I've worked in infrastructure, security and finance (institutional & retail banking, funds and insurance) for the majority of career. I'm also currently doing a doctoral thesis focussed on smart contract security, so I do know a bit about this. The whole premise of blockchain is execution of intent, in an untrusted environment. The threat you are concerned about is collusion, and the best control against this is further decentralization and scale. Proof-of-Stake (and many DAO's), do provide more assurance against malicious actors by validators risking their own stake if they try malicious activity. Ultimately, I am confident that the "dark forest" will give us much more security and transparency than the current closed/centralised system. You seem quite entrenched in your view, but I'd like to ask. What would it take to change your view? If the answer is nothing, can you really claim to be thinking about this critically?

throwaway82652 5y ago
>I'm also currently doing a doctoral thesis focussed on smart contract security, so I do know a bit about this. That to me is another really awful thing about blockchains. They're like candy for academics. It's very easy to get sucked into the illusion as well because if you take it at face value there are a lot of things to study and write about, the algorithms seem complicated and interesting. And they are, if you ignore the rest of the effects. I'm sure you could write 100 doctoral theses on smart contracts. I'm sure companies would pay you to do a lot of things with them. They are still an extremely bad and broken concept. Edit: I'm at the point where academics have sent me so many papers on blockchains. I would go as far as to say the entire point of the "defi industry" is not to produce useful products, but to produce research papers. But I don't even know if I could say that because a lot of the papers aren't even good! It's so common for a blockchain paper to launch into a lot of math and algorithms without even trying to make a problem statement or explain what purpose it actually has. Please don't let your thesis be like this. If all you're writing about is how existing users of smart contracts are avoiding getting hacked then you've been dragged into the same trap. >The whole premise of blockchain is execution of intent, in an untrusted environment. The issue here is that this is a completely nonsense premise. There is no such thing as finance in an "untrusted environment". If you aren't planning to live alone in a bunker, then somewhere along the line you need to have trusted intermediaries. Decentralization does not and cannot ever fulfill this premise, it actually increases the amount of trusted intermediaries you need to deal with. >The threat you are concerned about is collusion, and the best control against this is further decentralization and scale. No, this is also incredibly wrong. When it comes to market manipulation, further decentralization does nothing to reduce collusion. It is already hard enough to track the source of bad behavior in the market without people intentionally designing algorithms to do that, we don't need to make it even harder. >Proof-of-Stake (and many DAO's), do provide more assurance against malicious actors by validators risking their own stake if they try malicious activity This conversation again is veering into territory where it has nothing to do with blockchains or smart contracts at all. You can rephrase this as "people are less likely to engage in bad behavior when they are invested and hold stake in something". >Ultimately, I am confident that the "dark forest" will give us much more security and transparency than the current closed/centralised system. As someone who has been doing open source for the last 20 years, I am not. Much like the Linux desktop mentioned in a parent comment, pretty much every blockchain is just a random open source project that is accountable to nobody. People remain interested as long as there is profit and hype in it, when that dries up they will disappear and any illusion of security and transparency will fade away. This doesn't change because it was applied to finance instead of OS kernels or whatever. >What would it take to change your view? If the answer is nothing, can you really claim to be thinking about this critically? Actually my view is the result of thinking about this critically for the last 10 years. I was like you at one point and I would have made the exact same comments that you're making now. But sometimes a spade is just a spade and we gain nothing from pretending it's not. If you want to change my view, it would help to think about how to bring smart contracts into traditional banking systems. Look at all the reasons why it won't work. Then go forwards from there instead of working backwards from blockchains and "decentralization" because those are held as some kind of panacea.

miracle2k 5y ago

> No, you don't. This is egregiously wrong and is a blatant misunderstanding of distributed systems. In a typical cryptocurrency blockchain, it's the miners that have control over which smart contracts you interact with. The match your rhetoric, this is a best an outrageous slight of hand playing with semantics, at worst you are the one not understanding how they work. /I/ have control which smart contracts I interact with - no one else. Number one, the miners cannot force me to interact with anything. It is a common source of confusion - miners cannot force invalid transactions, not even if 100% of them work together. The users of the chain (and their delegates, i.e. exchanges) make the rules, not the miners. The miners have a single job, for which they get paid: to order transactions. And with that job comes the the power to /not/ pick a transaction. Miners could possible /prevent/ me from interacting with a smart contract. A large point of blockchain design is to ensure that this will not happen in practice, i.e. the censoring miners are in the minority.

throwaway82652 5y ago
>this is a best an outrageous slight of hand playing with semantics, at worst you are the one not understanding how they work. It's neither. Sorry. This is literally how a distributed system works. There are always other people along the line that hold responsibility to keep the system running. That's the whole point of it being distributed. Nothing about this changes if you decide you want to run code on that system or use it to manage your finances. I don't want to talk about semantics either, this is usually the point where someone starts nit picking about the meaning of "distributed" versus "decentralized" or something like that. I don't care what term it is, use whichever you want. The limits are still the same. >/I/ have control which smart contracts I interact with - no one else. No, you don't. Again this is absurdly wrong. The blockchain controls which smart contracts you interact with, and the blockchain is controlled by its miners and its whales. >Number one, the miners cannot force me to interact with anything >miners cannot force invalid transactions, not even if 100% of them work together Actually they can, by blackmailing you and threatening to remove your transactions from the blockchain. You don't seem to understand what the point here is. If bad actors are intent on doing this they won't care if you lose other money in the process or if you have to destroy your keys to stop them. In some ways this type of distributed system is actually more vulnerable to these attacks than other systems. And of course there is always the classic $5 wrench attack, which no amount of blockchain engineering can stop: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ You're making the same mistake that a lot of system designers make. If you look at the system in a vacuum then yes those claims are true. In practice, they aren't true at all. >A large point of blockchain design is to ensure that this will not happen in practice No it isn't. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this would continue to be the case, any more than you would expect a bank to do the same. The answer always comes back to the same thing.