Blockchain beliefs
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
raddevus wrote:
how buggy software is?
True, but computers only do what they are told to do. They never, ever break the law. They can't. They can't think or decide. They simply execute code and do exactly what they are told to do. Even when there is a "bug" the computer did exactly what it was told to do.
-
raddevus wrote:
how buggy software is?
True, but computers only do what they are told to do. They never, ever break the law. They can't. They can't think or decide. They simply execute code and do exactly what they are told to do. Even when there is a "bug" the computer did exactly what it was told to do.
BabyYoda wrote:
True, but computers only do what they are told to do. They never, ever break the law. They can't. They can't think or decide. They simply execute code and do exactly what they are told to do. Even when there is a "bug" the computer did exactly what it was told to do.
But life ain't like that is it. BabyYoda <talking to bank clerk> Why all my savings is gone from my account? Bank clerk: The computer has operated correctly sir. Now, I have other people to help. Please step aside or I'll have the nice bank guard pistol whip you. Have a nice day. :laugh:
-
BabyYoda wrote:
True, but computers only do what they are told to do. They never, ever break the law. They can't. They can't think or decide. They simply execute code and do exactly what they are told to do. Even when there is a "bug" the computer did exactly what it was told to do.
But life ain't like that is it. BabyYoda <talking to bank clerk> Why all my savings is gone from my account? Bank clerk: The computer has operated correctly sir. Now, I have other people to help. Please step aside or I'll have the nice bank guard pistol whip you. Have a nice day. :laugh:
-
raddevus wrote:
The computer has operated correctly sir
I didn't say correctly. But the computer only did what it was told to. A computer can't do anything but what it is told to do. It's impossible.
BabyYoda wrote:
A computer can't do anything but what it is told to do. It's impossible.
I know what you mean, but this isn't as true as you would like to believe any more. To discuss it further you would have to read the entire book, The Creativity Code by (mathematician and professor) Marcus du Sautoy[^] That sounds a bit arrogant, but it's not intended to be. That book explains that there are now algorithms that are continually updated by AI which make decisions which humans no longer have a way to track. The really interesting example is where the Go (ancient game) algorithm made a Go move while playing the best Go player in the world. The commentators noted that the move was not intelligent. But then that move caused the algorithm to beat the human player. Now that move is a standard move at the stage of a game of Go but the move was "created" by an algorithm and no one can explain why the computer chose that particular move. There are many other things where it is now becoming impossible to point to source code where the decision came from. quite interesting. Read the book and see if it starts to change your mind on these things. It's really fascinating.
-
BabyYoda wrote:
A computer can't do anything but what it is told to do. It's impossible.
I know what you mean, but this isn't as true as you would like to believe any more. To discuss it further you would have to read the entire book, The Creativity Code by (mathematician and professor) Marcus du Sautoy[^] That sounds a bit arrogant, but it's not intended to be. That book explains that there are now algorithms that are continually updated by AI which make decisions which humans no longer have a way to track. The really interesting example is where the Go (ancient game) algorithm made a Go move while playing the best Go player in the world. The commentators noted that the move was not intelligent. But then that move caused the algorithm to beat the human player. Now that move is a standard move at the stage of a game of Go but the move was "created" by an algorithm and no one can explain why the computer chose that particular move. There are many other things where it is now becoming impossible to point to source code where the decision came from. quite interesting. Read the book and see if it starts to change your mind on these things. It's really fascinating.
-
raddevus wrote:
becoming impossible to point to source code where the decision came from.
Using your bank analogy, can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved? :laugh: :doh:
BabyYoda wrote:
Using your bank analogy, can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved?
:laugh: :laugh: Yeah, they'll just tell the customer, "well the computer decided and we know computers do things correctly". :laugh: :laugh:
-
BabyYoda wrote:
Using your bank analogy, can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved?
:laugh: :laugh: Yeah, they'll just tell the customer, "well the computer decided and we know computers do things correctly". :laugh: :laugh:
It seems the real question that should be asked is not if "code is the law" and buggy and all that. The code needs to be interpreted and the interpreter can be not only buggy, itself, but even deliberately designed to be corrupt. Thus, those making this 'contract' are having involvement (with neither their knowledge nor consent) by a third party. The entire concept falls apart.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
raddevus wrote:
becoming impossible to point to source code where the decision came from.
Using your bank analogy, can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved? :laugh: :doh:
BabyYoda wrote:
can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved? :laugh:
I thought we already had it... see 2008.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
computers make very precise errors, very fast.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
-
It seems the real question that should be asked is not if "code is the law" and buggy and all that. The code needs to be interpreted and the interpreter can be not only buggy, itself, but even deliberately designed to be corrupt. Thus, those making this 'contract' are having involvement (with neither their knowledge nor consent) by a third party. The entire concept falls apart.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Yes, the beauty of the system is that there is no central authority. However, that is also the problem that could destroy the system also. It seems as if the people who are for blockchain smart contracts are saying, "oh, it'll all work out, just fine". :suss:
-
computers make very precise errors, very fast.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
theoldfool wrote:
computers make very precise errors, very fast.
Exactly! :) Bank teller: <explaining why all your money gone> Well, it looks as if the computer only deducted $0.05, so no big deal. Customer: Yes, isn't that lovely. Only $0.05...But it deducted it 4 trillion times!!! :wtf: :laugh: :laugh:
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
"Mostly Harmless"
Five years from now. PiebaldConsult: <on phone with bank> What do you mean my account has a negative balance!?! AI Banker : It is the will of the code. :laugh:
This is the way.
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
Report: Blockchain-related hacks have declined in 2020[^] Yes, Blockchain hacks have declined, meaning they exist. I remember reading about hacked Bitcoin wallets so not even Blockchain is 100%, despite what they say. The decline may be attributed to the fact Blockchain isn't as hot and happening as in 2019. In fact, this post of yours may be the first I see of it in 2020 :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
computers make very precise errors, very fast.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
To err is human but to really foul up requires a computer.
Check out my blog at http://msdev.pro/
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
raddevus wrote:
The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion.
"Trustless" Yes, I know what it means. Still, it'll look scary to ordinary people.. ;P
We won't sit down. We won't shut up. We won't go quietly away. YouTube, and My Mu[sic], Films and Windows Programs, etc. and FB
-
I'm reading this book, Building Blockchain Apps (Addison-Wesley Professional)[^] and I came across the following which explains Smart Contracts:
Quote:
In Code We Trust The smart contracts can often closely resemble legal contracts in the real world. For example, the transaction parties might enter an escrow agreement that the fund will be paid out only when certain conditions are met. It is now up to network validators and maintainers to assert whether such conditions are met and how the transaction should be executed when new blocks are appended to the blockchain. However, unlike legal contracts that are enforced by the centralized government power, the smart contracts can automatically apply collaboration rules on the blockchain. The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion. Because of that, we consider smart contract code the “law” in blockchain networks. The code is executed as written. Even if the code contains bugs or side effects unexpected by its author, it is still trusted as a source of truth and enforced as the law.
So smart contracts are going to enforce rules for transactions which become "law" (the system will not break the "law" (code), no matter how fouled up the "law" may be"). Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is? :rolleyes: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. :laugh:
It is scary to an extent. In fairness, human contracts and laws can be ambiguous and have loop holes too. Many people sign contracts without actually reading them. Some of them get burned badly because of that. I think smart contracts have their place, but the technology is just a little too new yet.
-
raddevus wrote:
The rules are written in code and checked by trustless participants of the network to prevent corruption or collusion.
"Trustless" Yes, I know what it means. Still, it'll look scary to ordinary people.. ;P
We won't sit down. We won't shut up. We won't go quietly away. YouTube, and My Mu[sic], Films and Windows Programs, etc. and FB
-
raddevus wrote:
how buggy software is?
True, but computers only do what they are told to do. They never, ever break the law. They can't. They can't think or decide. They simply execute code and do exactly what they are told to do. Even when there is a "bug" the computer did exactly what it was told to do.
-
BabyYoda wrote:
Using your bank analogy, can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved?
:laugh: :laugh: Yeah, they'll just tell the customer, "well the computer decided and we know computers do things correctly". :laugh: :laugh:
"...just tell the customer, 'well the computer decided and we know computers do things correctly'. "
This is exactly what they do today! If it came out of a computer or cash register display the teller/cashier/branchmanager is dumbfounded that anyone would question it! Thinking is so old-school.
