Re:Did I just lose half a million dollars?
by shkkmo on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:10AM
(#30137323)
"Smart Contracts" are neither "smart" nor "contracts"... so it really is a poor term.
Re:Did I just lose half a million dollars?
by lottin on Sunday January 30, 2022 @10:31AM
(#30137979)
"Dumb procedures" is more descriptive IMO.
Re:Did I just lose half a million dollars?
by SilasX on Sunday January 30, 2022 @12:08PM
(#30138868)
>Smart contracts are code and there is no fallback mechanism in case of mistakes.
Well, there is, but it's hard to pull off -- you can get the entire network to hard-fork to reverse it, like in the DAO hack response.
https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/the-dao-the-hack-...
Re:Did I just lose half a million dollars?
by Earw0rm on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:13AM
(#30135931)
This works because of legal precedent.
The equivalent in code is pre-existing libraries, and miles of them. But the law has highly developed ways of ridding itself of cruft and tech debt over time, in a way that lib dependencies really don't.
Re:Did I just lose half a million dollars?
by shkkmo on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:15AM
(#30137365)
Legal precedent is a method for defining laws, not a requirement of a legal system. It is absolutely not essential to solve issues of incomplete, ambiguous, or invalid contracts.
The key factor is: human judgment
Smart contracts are code and there is no fallback mechanism in case of mistakes.
They probably have to be way more complicated than non-smart contracts?