News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by simias on Friday July 21, 2017 @10:10AM (#14820652)
I never understood this argument about how the blockchain would be magically "completely set in stone". It's a bit insane that such a new technology carries so much mythology and cargo culting, to the point where some things are considered sacred.

No Other Coins Before Me

Thou Shalt Not Attempt To Mutate The Blockchain

The blockchain has always been about consensus first and foremost. If a clear majority of the economic power decides to change something then that thing will change. There's nothing magical in the blockchain to prevent that. You can always decide that it's wrong and remain on the "classic" version, but if you don't convince anybody else to follow you there won't be any value.

More generally, I don't see how any coder would take the "code is law" thing seriously. All code has its share of bugs. Even if you formally verify it you may still have a bug in your verification code or your assumptions. The tiniest mistake can lead to catastrophe, as we've seen lately.

Code isn't law, law itself isn't law, it's how humans apply the law that's law. Removing the human factor from it isn't a feature, it's a terrifying totalitarian dystopia.

"Hello sir, the algorithm detected that $10 was missing from your utility bill 12 years ago, with the late fine, processing fees and interests you now owe us $1298.51. Please pay within a week."

"I can't pay this and I need to take care of my family. I'll have to mortgage the house!"

"I'm sorry sir, code is law. Beep boop."

Judge Dredd: blockchain edition.

Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by fatbird on Friday July 21, 2017 @03:30PM (#14823216)
It's taken seriously because "code is law" is (was) the premise of Ethereum's value. The blockchain isn't about consensus, it's about the use of mathematical (rather than political) consensus to maintain immutability. By removing all the messy human factors and defining it all in terms of cryptographically secure mathematical consensus, it was supposed to be this superior platform, and that's a big part of what drew the techno-libertarian digital nomads to it: the promise of a clean, unambiguous financial system outside human control.

Except then they hard forked, proving that political consensus still rules. The benefits of crypto-secured mathematical consensus are still subject to politics and messy human institutions. "Code is law" is a lie.

The funny thing is, this is a corner they painted themselves into. If they'd planted their flag only on decentralization, automation and trustlessness, and ignored "code is law", they wouldn't be having this problem today. Ethereum would be a technological advance on what we already accept: human economics.