News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack. Parent comment

Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by grandalf on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @07:13PM (#14808806)
> It is possible to have trusted contracts, iff their logic is (mathematically) proven.

Suppose a non-Turing-complete language were used instead. Now, imagine a contract that is highly complex. If a layperson decides to trust that contract without reading the code, does it matter whether the language used to implement the contract was Turing-complete or not?

I'd argue that trust of contracts is pragmatically more of a social concept than a computational concept, since at scale the vast majority of contract users would make their trust decision about a contract based on non-technical factors.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by Blackthorn on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @10:26PM (#14809636)
> If a layperson decides to trust that contract without reading the code, does it matter whether the language used to implement the contract was Turing-complete or not?

Um, yes? Literally the point of weaker languages in this context is that they can be statically provable.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:153k Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack by inimino on Thursday July 20, 2017 @07:29AM (#14811514)
As would the same program written in a Turing-complete language. The Turing-completeness here is a total red herring.
[ Parent | on HN ]