Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by ZephyrBlu on Sunday May 16, 2021 @05:37PM
(#27177222)
It's called a "smart contract" because it's programmable (Smart) and can be executed based on specific conditions (Contract).
I've seen/read somewhere that Vitalik regrets naming them "smart contracts" though.
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by varjag on Sunday May 16, 2021 @05:44PM
(#27177277)
They are database triggers, but that's not enough grandeur for cryptoheads.
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by lazide on Sunday May 16, 2021 @05:29PM
(#27177173)
Looking at the various issues that have come up with these ‘smart contracts’ (aka the ethereum DAO issues up until now), I think anyone who wants to write one should be automatically excluded from being allowed to do so.
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by astrange on Sunday May 16, 2021 @07:55PM
(#27178460)
They should maybe be forced to learn what a dependent type system is so they can regret that their smart contracts are written in a language with no safety features.
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by Paradigma11 on Monday May 17, 2021 @06:43AM
(#27182031)
https://juvix.org/ is looking rather nice but is still beta.
If we describe these code-as-law thingys as 'dumb contracts' it is crystal clear that 'YES' this is a dumb contract and any sane judge presented with one may well decide to give the participants exactly what they deserve, just like paper-based 'dumb contracts.'
The key innovation here is that we've gone to the remedy residing in programmer malpractice, rather than attorney malpractice. Which in turn, when it becomes obvious to all involved, hopefully will have a chilling effect on any smart programmer asked to write a 'dumb contract.'