Blockchain beliefs
-
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.
-
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:
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:
What could possibly go wrong? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ['$300m in cryptocurrency' accidentally lost forever due to bug](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/cryptocurrency-300m-dollars-stolen-bug-ether)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
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.
-
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:
-
"...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.
Pete Kelley wrote:
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.
Agree 100%!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
-
raddevus wrote:
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:
What could possibly go wrong? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ['$300m in cryptocurrency' accidentally lost forever due to bug](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/cryptocurrency-300m-dollars-stolen-bug-ether)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
Wow! From the article...
Quote:
“We are analysing the situation and will release an update with further details shortly,” Parity told users. Hard fork Some are pushing for a “hard fork” of Ethereum, which would undo the damage by effectively asking 51% of the currency’s users to agree to pretend that it had never happened in the first place.
Wonder if they ever resolved it? After reading the first 3 chapters of this book I mentioned I at least understand what the "hard fork" solution means. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
-
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.
"Nits" Re. the books example, the computer did do exactly what it was told to do, ( probably ), just not anything expected. ( It was programmed to ( probably a not quite correct description ) follow a set of rules with weighted random selection and some added randomness, and tweek weights depending on the results. So the unexpected IS expected. ) BUT, computers don't only do what they are told, hardware failure that doesn't result in fatal errors is rare, but can happen.
