0x8D3A

3 ms·

1.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
If you're doing stock ownership "in contracts", why not just have the company manage it? Obviously you trust them if you're investing in them, what's to gain by doing it "autonomously"? A centralized versi
2.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
It boils down the point that you don't actually want to be doing computation at that level anyway. There's a very good reason that Bitcoin Script should be simplistic, why the hell would you want to be doing any sort of detailed c
3.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
> If not, why are you complaining about people unconnected to you trying these new ideas out as an experiment? No, I take issue with them selling broken shit to people for tens of millions of dollars.
4.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
ShellingCoin has pretty hand wavy economic justifications and won't see real world use (or if it does, it'll see use until it loses people lots of money due to faulty incentives).
5.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
Even in cases where it might be possible the end result to a human is often completely unusable. You might hate the Uber taxi cartel or whatever, but at least using them you have some degree of privacy (with "smart contracts" your
6.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
Some of your examples need oracles to deliver information into the script, which is (oh no!) your counter party so you're back to square one again. It doesn't work in any other way due to the realities of distributed consensus. Th
7.
by 0x8D3A 11y ago
Scammers isn't the least of it. The system they have designed and executed is ludicrously insecure and falls to even the most basic of flaws. It's unlikely that it will ever be able to achieve consensus given the endless stream of