2 ms·
No, because to everyone's _complete shock_, it turns out it's actually pretty hard to write code that doesn't have bugs in it, and in the case of a "contract",
by saghm 2y ago
No, because to everyone's _complete shock_, it turns out it's actually pretty hard to write code that doesn't have bugs in it, and in the case of a "contract", that makes the mistaken behavior binding (except of course if you have everyone with a stake collectively vote to decide that something never happened, which means that any group that owns a combined 51% stake effectively owns the entire 100%).
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to criticize in the legal system(s) that are currently used in society, but having disputes resolved via a human-based mechanism rather than a technical one isn't one of them. Smart contracts aren't even just the usual "trying and failing to apply a technical solution to a social problem", they're a failed technical solution to an _entirely invented_ new problem that no one had before.
- qqqult 2y agoIt's true, smart contract security is a tough problem, but the reality is that with formal verification, security audits and big bug bounties many have gotten it right. There are many protocols that have held billions in stablecoins for years with no issues. Some examples: https://defillama.com/ https://defillama.com/ Smart contract hacks are really not as common as they were 5 years ago when security practices were an afterthought. Regarding your seconds point on blockchain rollbacks, although technically possible on proof of stake networks with a 66% consensus it's simply not something that happens in reality as it goes against the goal of blockchains. The last time it happened was the 2016 DAO hack in Ethereum, 2 years after ethereuum mainnet launched, which was so controversial that the network split in two. "Ethereuum Classic" still exists to this day