|
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? 
Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Do these Blockchain enthusiasts not understand how buggy software is?
Is that a rhetorical question or are you really asking?
raddevus wrote: Oh, no worries, when this all lands our AI Overlords will settle it all.
I am not worried that they will settle it all... (it is the most logical step)
I am worried that they will get to the position to settle it all... 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Is that a rhetorical question or are you really asking?
A little of both. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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". 
|
|
|
|
|
"...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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BabyYoda wrote: can you imagine a financial application that could not track down when and how money moved?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
That was due to deregulation of the financial industry. Yes, let business regulate itself. What matters more, safe food supplies or cheaper prices? So much for the environment and human well being.
|
|
|
|
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Just another example of how an AI decision can be reached without our ability to understand why:
There is a RadioLab episode where they talk about an AI that was able to sort out the relationship between several chemicals in a human body. Empirical testing after the fact confirmed the relationship. However, there isn't a single scientist that knows why the relationship exists.
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
That it what they said about #5!
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly when I read the comment!
|
|
|
|
|
theDrd2k1 wrote: That it what they said about #5!
What is #5?
|
|
|
|
|
|
MKJCP wrote: Same is true for guns
And everything else inanimate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
