3 ms·

Smart contracts only need to be audited once, traditional accounts need to be audited continuously. Amortized over enough time, that's a much lower surface area

Smart contracts only need to be audited once, traditional accounts need to be audited continuously. Amortized over enough time, that's a much lower surface area for error. Smart contracts can be audited by any member of the public with the technical know-how, so there are typically a lot of eyes on the most important cogs - similar in some ways to the OSS security model. Traditional accounts typically cannot be directly and reliably audited by members of the public.

ForHackernews 4y ago
> similar in some ways to the OSS security model The OSS security model is honestly poor. This very fundamental bug in Debian (one of the most popular Linux distros) sat unnoticed (and exploited?) for two years: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number... How many eyes are on Debian vs memecoin-smart-contract-22112?
- everfree 4y ago
  > How many eyes are on Debian vs memecoin-smart-contract-22112? To be perfectly honest, the memecoin contract probably has more. A smart contract's code base is much, much smaller and changes less often, and a greater number of people are much more strongly financially incentivized to find bugs. Plus, they often do a thorough third-party code audit up-front at the time they publish the code, which would be impractical to do with OS code since it needs to be constantly updated due to its threat model. I would trust the Shiba Inu token code to have less critical bugs in it than the Debian code.