> I'm personally waiting on an ETH successor with non-Turing-complete, verifiable code.
Absolutely! My premise is that with turing completeness comes more chances for shooting in the foot.
> Im not as upset about the hardfork as many people, though. Social constructs should be changable by politics, not indelible and absolute. That's not what they were selling, but all the same, what they were selling was dystopian nonsense where humans are chained to machines, not their masters. It's a feature not bug of social constructs to be changeable through politics. What matters is the political process to do so.
This is great insight. I think for me, personally, the problem I have is that it seems like there isn't much politics involved at all... a completely centralized and small group made a decision and the great majority of users followed right along (as we would expect them to).
This is not quite how it is (or was anyway) sold to people as a concept.
98% of all bytes and blackbytes will be distributed to
current Bitcoin holders who bother to prove their
Bitcoin balances during at least one of distribution
rounds.
Then the number of bytes and blackbytes you receive in
each round will be proportional to the balance of your
Bitcoin address in the snapshot block of that round.
Similarly, Id want a proof-checked VM for the currency, which ETH is pretty far from supporting.
So verified-ETH would be a larger, more bug-prone project than starting from first principles, developing a language and VM in parallel. (Also, starting a new project gives a chance to change the economics and/or technology used; depending on your views, this might be a benefit.)
https://medium.com/@pirapira/ethereum-virtual-machine-for-co...
I either missed it or it didn't exist last time I looked in to ETH. (About a year ago, pre-DAO.)
Either way, this is a major component of what I'd like to see in smart contracts! (The other two major pieces being a verified VM that supports that spec, and a developer library of "standard" contract pieces -- I don't recall being impressed by directly coding for the EVM, and easy-to-use contracts require a library of "standard legalese".)
Glad to see ETH is putting in the effort.
My priority is on keeping the formal definition in sync with the Yellow Paper and the implementations.
This is a very valid concern, in my opinion. Although some people seem to be working on that, it looks like still in its infancy: https://medium.com/@pirapira/1-000-ether-bounty-on-a-proven-...
I'm also afraid that 'smart contract' is sort of a misnomer. Where regular "social" contracts between people and entities define all sorts of relationships, the contracts that are put on a blockchain-serialized VM can only express relationships in terms of value transfers.
There's no reason that smart contracts require Turing completeness (no real world program requires it, for that matter), and software theorem proving will be required for me to take smart contracts seriously. We need to be able to prove things about the contract execution for it to be safe to trust "code as contract".
Im not as upset about the hardfork as many people, though. Social constructs should be changable by politics, not indelible and absolute. That's not what they were selling, but all the same, what they were selling was dystopian nonsense where humans are chained to machines, not their masters. It's a feature not bug of social constructs to be changeable through politics. What matters is the political process to do so.