Why are smart contracts/DAOs a bad idea?

TenjouUtena · 27分前

Smart Contracts haven't ever solved the 'Oracle' problem. Let's say you and a buddy make a bet on the final NCAA championship game. You could try and put this into a Smart Contract, but what if your buddy says he won when he really lost? Who do you trust to give you this information? It's not like it's on the blockchain anywhere. Even excluding malicious intent, people are going to make mistakes.

Also if you look at the Lightning Network / payment channels stuff, there's still a lot of built in trust in the system.

x99x · 18分前

Because the real world is a messy place where not everything is black and white. Things like smart contracts, decentralized ledgers and any other existing systems with bitcoin/blockchain stamped on them are just not needed. Mankind has been able to accurately record documents like contracts and deeds for hundreds of years. No blockchain needed - it literally adds nothing to the process.

Bitcoiners talk about decentralization and using blockchains to replace people they view as unnecessary middle-men. The absurd autonomous organization idea is an extension of that concept. Bitcoiners mistakenly believe that most disputes revolve around inaccurately recorded information and somehow having a secure ledger to record transaction/contract details would solve most problems - as if having an immutable digital copy of a document implies the underlying meaning could never be wrong or disputed. This is laughable.

The interesting question is - what type of person would believe the world could operate in such a static, sterile, impersonal and transactional way? Would this person find it easy to fit into society? Would they have difficulty understanding how the larger world works? Would they get frustrated and latch onto far-fetched ideas like bitcoin which could 'revolutionize the world and end all wars'?

butterNcois · 17分前

Nothing serious has been built on with ethereum's smart contracts so far despite of all the praise they've been receiving. I doubt that anything other than trustless ponzi schemes will receive much use.

This boils down to three simple things:

Trustlessness isn't doesn't equal adoption for models that haven't had any issues being trust based for centuries

In other words, no smart contract will replace your bank or lawyer, and your they don't need to use them either.

Smart Contracts are fucking dumb

You can't put "If band doesn't produce 4 albums, don't pay them" into code.

Cryoptocurrency is still hard to understand and use, Ethereum just makes things worse

tweq · 12分前

They're not inherently a bad idea, I just don't think they have many real world uses.

Contracts that are simple enough to be expressed and verified with code are usually not the type of contract that would need to be automated in a cryptographically verified way. But real world contracts are usually much more complicated and rely on subjective judgments.

Real world contracts also rely on information and understanding that simply doesn't exist within a cryptographic system. The only solution are "oracles", external services that provide inputs to the smart contract. But those services don't have any of the touted properties of smart contracts, so it ends up being nothing more than overly complicated escrow.

Smart contracts can be used for simple things like asset ownership (arguably every bitcoin transaction is a smart contract), but in the real world these things are just as well solved with cryptographic signatures and centralized databases, rather than burning a small country worth of energy or building some sort of horrifically inefficient global distributed computing system as cryptocurrencies do.

Of course there's also one major threat with every custom smart contract: if there's a bug, you're permanently screwed.

Buttcoin

調停者