What the fuck is a smart contract...

It’s like twitter but for street shitters

it's very close to a fart contract

this, also sumner is close

How? That doesn't sound right
Posted here since the very day biz board opened but I still have never seen a smart contract or If I have then I didn't know

nice bait

So this bit

pragma solidity ^0.4.24;
contract PriceOracleInterface {

/**
* @notice Gets the price of a given asset
* @dev fetches the price of a given asset
* @param asset Asset to get the price of
* @return the price scaled by 10**18, or zero if the price is not available
*/
function assetPrices(address asset) public view returns (uint);
}
contract ErrorReporter {

/**
* @dev `error` corresponds to enum Error; `info` corresponds to enum FailureInfo, and `detail` is an arbitrary
* contract-specific code that enables us to report opaque error codes from upgradeable contracts.
**/
event Failure(uint error, uint info, uint detail);

enum Error {
NO_ERROR,
OPAQUE_ERROR, // To be used when reporting errors from upgradeable contracts; the opaque code should be given as `detail` in the `Failure` event
UNAUTHORIZED,
INTEGER_OVERFLOW,
INTEGER_UNDERFLOW,
DIVISION_BY_ZERO,
BAD_INPUT,
TOKEN_INSUFFICIENT_ALLOWANCE,
TOKEN_INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE,
TOKEN_TRANSFER_FAILED,
MARKET_NOT_SUPPORTED,
SUPPLY_RATE_CALCULATION_FAILED,
BORROW_RATE_CALCULATION_FAILED,
TOKEN_INSUFFICIENT_CASH,
TOKEN_TRANSFER_OUT_FAILED,
INSUFFICIENT_LIQUIDITY,
INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE,
INVALID_COLLATERAL_RATIO,
MISSING_ASSET_PRICE,
EQUITY_INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE,
INVALID_CLOSE_AMOUNT_REQUESTED,
ASSET_NOT_PRICED,
INVALID_LIQUIDATION_DISCOUNT,
INVALID_COMBINED_RISK_PARAMETERS,
ZERO_ORACLE_ADDRESS,
CONTRACT_PAUSED
}

/*
* Note: FailureInfo (but not Error) is kept in alphabetical order
* This is because FailureInfo grows significantly faster, and
* the order of Error has some meaning, while the order of FailureInfo
* is

Is the smart contract?

a smart contract is just code that deals with money

Not baiting at all

Explain some things this smart contract can do

yeah that and the other 2600 lines of code

Yeah but char limit. Ok. So what can a smart contract be used for other than shitcoins

So when I slap your mom's ass and it jiggles that's kind of like a smart contract. I don't have to trust anything, I know that ass will jiggle. The laws of physics, the ETHER around us, we know how things behave, we have the math and our senses that tell us. You can't tamper with the laws of physics, and you can't tamper with blockchain consensus and code, so contracts can be written to be executed in a trustless manner.

arbitrary computation.

Here ya go nub
github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-solidity/blob/master/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol

Thats just some erc20 shitcoin
Give me a real working smart contract

Nothing. You would need a trustless bridge to outside data but unfortunately such a thing is impossible because of physics. It's tokens all the way down.

Ah I see

Uhmm well I have you a simple example because your brain can’t google its way out of a hole

Here’s a working example of a contract that’s let’s you trade on margin like bitmex github.com/dydxprotocol/protocol/blob/master/contracts/margin/Margin.sol

So it's just tokens?

the door is that way

>the door is that way

Attached: 15051659340.jpg (198x254, 8K)

Doesn't look very smart to me

You're better off with RenderToken. No one uses Blender besides poorfags.

>this program doesn't satisfy my arbitrary ideas that I never explicitly stated
brainlet alarm going off

guts.tickets/nl/ makes use of ETH smart-contract to sell tickets. They have sold tens of thousand already that way.

Looks like a DumbContract

>What the fuck is a smart contract?

I've been on Jow Forums since 2017 and I have no fucking idea! Made money though!

frens. i met an attorney in her 30s that's never heard of bitcoin. i feel we may still be early adopters.

my girlfriend was purchasing something on a website and saw that they accepted bitcoin and was asking me if i think we can trust them, maybe they are scammers etc because they accept bitcoin, we are still VERY early fren

OP you’re not going to get many intelligent answers from the moonbois here on Jow Forums. Couple good examples so far but it’s true there’s not a whole lot of ACTUALLY useful or interesting stuff you can do with smart contracts yet....Crypto as a whole is basically still barely out of the womb, even as far as being a fkn simple payment system goes (just look at the brain-numbing circlejerk between block sizes and how the principal argument seems to converge to “muh lower fees”), so this is where you have to use your imagination a little.

My favorite example of a smart contract to date? Probably gotta be FOMO3D:
exitscam.me
(unironically)

It’s too long to explain how it works in detail but if you haven’t heard of it basically it came out in like May of last year, spawned out of the POWH3D game by the same devs, and every player starts by buying “keys” with their ETH to hold throughout the game. All that ETH gets locked up in the smart contract, continuously funneling into a big-ass jackpot. There’s a 24-hour timer at the top of the page that continually counts down. (this is built into the smart contract). Last person to have bought a key, when the timer hits 0, wins the entire jackpot.

The thing is though with each key bought, it adds like 30 seconds back to the timer, as well as raises the price of keys ever-higher for future participants. Why then, would anyone want to buy early on? you ask. Because the other half of the profitability factor is the almighty dividends: a small % of the ETH from all the keys being bought doesn’t actually go into the jackpot, it gets distributed evenly to each key that’s currently being held by someone. So it can be insanely profitable to just ignore the jackpot, and instead buy a fuck ton of keys early in the game, and as long as a bunch of cucks FOMO in after you, you’ll sit back and watch the divvies roll in as you quickly hit ROI on your initial investment multiple times over.

anything that can be done with data. at the end it's literally just numbers on the screen. you could have code that deletes coins that are sent to a wallet and that'll be a smart contract

i remember it being spammed yes but thanks for clearing up some things.
what are some interesting things that can be done then?

it’s a game yeah, basically gambling, it’s not saving the world or anything but it was really a freakin genius concept when it started. First game went like a few months if I remember correctly. I saw how crazy it could potentially get and put in like $15 of ETH at the time, and ended up with $200 of dividends by the time it ended.

Anyway that’s something that could just never be done without smart contracts so I always thought of that as my go-to example when explaining what makes them so fuckin neato. Of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg; if/when chainlink ever gets its mainnet working and working well the way everyone imagines it, that’ll quite literally open the floodgates to the official era of smart contracts. We’re talking not just gambling apps for Jow Forums neets but serious products for businesses, mainstay consumer products relying on multi-gorillion dollar smart contracts; and automating away entire swaths of the law industry in general, with undoubtedly tons of other industries to follow. But make no mistake that’s more than enough to earn it a designation of a historical innovation among the likes of the steam engine, fucking agriculture etc.

Since you seem like less of a tard than the usual fare here I’ll indulge you, what’s your interest in it? what’s your background, are you a developer, or what

think of any process that can be automated and you pay crypto to use it. the code that processes your transaction and executes whatever has to be done is the smart contract.

collateralized loans without KYC bullshit
provably fair gambling
time vaults
proof of ownership
authentification (technically signed messages are enough)
stablecoins
private medical records
decentralized credit score
savings accounts
trustless p2p deals (using game theory and burns)
DAOs
secure voting in general
money games with arbitrary rulesets
...
blockchains are consensus engines, ethereum is programmable money. areas where trust is important can potentially benefit from trustlessness, although it's a case-by-case basis

also half of the replies are very obviously chainlink holders, who need to believe smart contracts are useless without decentralized oracles. in truth, none of the applications i listed require oracles

Holy shit, I never knew how FOMO3D worked but immediately assumed it was a scam and wasn't bothered. That's interesting.

>We've got a turd in the punch bowl folks
Look kid, no one really knows what the fuck any of this shit is useful for. Just STFU and let us make our money by selling to the greater idiots.

augur uses smart contracts, I made a super bowl bet on it and it paid out automatically

Is Augur hard to use? Does it use metamask?

> collateralized loans without KYC bullshit
How is this done? If I borrow 1.7k from you and I put 10 ETH (current ETH price) as collateral

if I say you scammed me and you didn't give me $1700 (it was fake bills for example), who decides if you actually gave me 1.7k?

If it was ETH to ETH loan and I have to put ETH up for collateral for the full amount, why would I make a loan in the first place?

> time vaults
Can be done on bitcoin via SCRIPT. Believe it or not, bitcoin has smart contracts but they limit what operations are available because bitcoin devs think letting anyone run whatever code they want on the blockchain has huge security implications and it's highly inefficient.

> proof of ownership
Cannot happen without a 3rd party. Any physical object has issues with that. If you buy a house and you died, does that house also "die" with you? It can't be sold or have anyone else own it ever. If you get your keys stolen (do you even hold your own private keys for ETH?), are you going to move out of your house?

>authentification (technically signed messages are enough)

Yep

> private medical records
Doesn't need to be on the block chain. If you want something to be private you generally don't broadcast that to the world and store it forever in a blockchain

> decentralized credit score
For that to happen, it needs to see all your purchases, loans, assets etc. Again, in the house example above, IRL assets are hard to lock to a virtual token. It removes trust but at the same time it removes privacy.

>savings accounts
According to ETH's website:
Ether is to be treated as "crypto-fuel", a token whose purpose is to pay for computation, and is not intended to be used as or considered a currency, asset, share or anything else.

>trustless p2p deals (using game theory and burns)
see above examples

Every single erc token you see is a smart contract you brainlet

ya man I’m telling you. Fucking. Genius. That’s the kind of stuff that we SHOULD have more of as crypto users, not trying to outdo the newest platform by making an even newer one with MOAR FEATURES or OMG it supports regular shitty legacy programming languages, look at this stupid gambling dapp or cryptokitties clone or !!!! The technology is basically here. we have the chance to literally redefine how Money works... just gotta think outside of the box

part 2 -

To be honest, "smart" contracts is a stupid idea in a sense that you let anyone put code on the blockchain. There have been various instances of fuck ups and people have their ETH locked forever or stolen. From a security perspective, it's very dumb. It's like letting anyone come in and use your computer and do whatever they want on it.

To tie a virtual token to a real world asset has huge problems.
1) If you die, does that physical asset die with you? If you own a house, that house can no longer have a future owner?
2) If you lose your private keys (do you even hold your own ETH keys?), do you start moving out because you lost your house and the thief can move in right in front of your face and laugh at you?

In the "smart" contract world where you try to make a "trustless" system means you have to

- learn how to code on the blockchain (however many there would be), for each, you need to understand every technical aspect and fluent in every language. Otherwise, you cannot verify the contract doesn't fuck you in the ass or some unintended bug

- write code that is bug proof (if you've ever done any software development, it is very difficult to do), or else you fuck someone else over.

- Even if you buy an apple, you'll need to review (for example, walmart's smart contract or target's smart contract). You'll need to do this for every item you buy. Otherwise, some walmart coder will steal all your money.

- You'll need to protect private keys with your life, literally. Otherwise you lose everything. If there's any blockchain that tries to do "identity" or "state", if you lose private keys, whoever stole it can say you're dead

- many other scenarios to consider.

The ETH full blockchain is 2.2 TB+ already (and it's younger than bitcoin, where bitcoin's blockchain is only around 200 GB). Something simple like crypto kitties grounded the entire blockchain to a halt.

part 3 -

There's a reason why ETH's website describes ETH as

There's a reason why on ETH's website, ETH is described as

Ether is to be treated as "crypto-fuel", a token whose purpose is to pay for computation, and is not intended to be used as or considered a currency, asset, share or anything else.

Is your purpose of holding ETH to pay for "computation" on a distributed system? If not, you should reconsider. That's true for all the coins that tries to build around "smart" contracts that let you input arbitrary code into the blockchain.

What are you working on

Nothing blockchain related but I've been coding for awhile. I can at least see the technical boundaries of crypto.

- If anyone tries to tie physical property (say, an apple, a house, a car), with a virtual token, it's bullshit. See part 2 of my post.

- If the devs say "run whatever code you want" it's "programmable money!" it'll have a lot of security holes and the blockchain will be huge. It's extremely inefficient too because you can't edit the code to improve it. This is why ETH's full blockchain is already 2.2 TB and that is not sustainable for it to be a "decentralized" block chain.

- If blockchain aims to reduce transaction fees or eliminate it AND have a decentralized blockchain, it is not monetarily feasible. The cost of storing information forever in a decentralized manner has a cost, and it's greater than 0. That blockchain will eventually become centralized or they'll eventually increase the transaction fee.

- PoS will not work. The rich will get richer. It does not reward innovation in securing the blockchain whereas PoW does. External elements can attack a PoS chain at a much smaller cost vs PoW. For example, if you want to attack bitcoin you need to buy as much as rate protecting the network right now +1 for a 51% attack. Even when that attack happens, all you can do is prevent a transaction from going into a block (a ddos on a transaction). At that point, this attacker must sustain the attack and at max, he can only stop the transaction for 2 weeks because bitcoin difficulty algorithm will adjust making it twice as hard to mine a block. Therefore, to keep a transaction off the blockchain, this person must buy 2x the miners AGAIN after 2 weeks. This race becomes impossible to win in the long run, hence why PoW and difficulty adjustment is a good way to protect a network. With PoS, the person doesn't have to spend any money on miners or electricity for those miners.

>Nothing blockchain related
Don't believe you but thanks for the posts anyway, made me think

Every erc20 token is a smart contract. Eat a dick troll

>It's extremely inefficient too because you can't edit the code to improve it
Clueless, verbose schizo detected

More on PoS: if you want to do a 51% on a PoS chain, the rich will have full control of all transactions. Suppose a group of people own 51% of the coins. They can stop any transaction, forever, at no additional cost.

You won't need to buy 2x the miners and 2x the electricity every 2 weeks to sustain the attack but you'll need to do that on bitcoin. Even if you hold 51% of bitcoin you cannot do this attack unless you decide to burn all your money and you can maybe stop a transaction for a month or two.

For the long term, maybe 5-10 years (or even longer), I see bitcoin as the best investment so far. It doesn't make silly promises and has a very grounded view on feasibility (technological and monetary) to achieve decentralization.

t. nigger brains
sick meme thread faggot

Refute what he said then..

>Go to betdice.one
>gamble your savings away
>congratulations, you just lost your money in a completely fair and transparent way and it's now etched into history until the end of time

What I mean is you write a smart contract, aka code, but you can't edit it. If you could, then you can change smart contracts arbitrarily.

So for example, if I write a 2.6k line smart contract, and I want to make change, just one variable... I would need to put another ~2.6k line smart contract on the blockchain. Therefore, the blockchain would have a total of 5.2k lines even though I just wanted to change a few lines.

If I want to use someone else's smart contract that they made but change some variables, I'd have to push a very similar contract to the blockchain. I bet you'll find smart contracts on the blockchain that's the same because people copy and paste.

You can edit EOS smart contracts by default and can optionally make them immutable.

That's true, and that's the fundamental BENEFIT of on-chain executable code. That some IT miser cna't just come in and change the program that people already started to use. The inefficiencies don't stem from optimizing the code, but from the consensus process.

> That some IT miser cna't just come in and change the program that people already started to use.
This limits its use cases to very simple contracts that are unlikely to contain bugs. You could never write a decentralized twitter on an immutable contract, or any other complex software. Immutability is beneficial in some cases, but it should be optional. More often than not, you're already putting your trust in the people who own the contract by way of investment. ie. for all the ICO's with erc-20 token contracts they don't need to be able to edit the contract to exit scam and run away with your money.

The real benefit of having contracts on a blockchain is knowing that the history can never be erased or changed, knowing that it's cryptographically verifiable, and knowing that it can't be censored.

So you'd use a system where someone can arbitrarily change a smart contract?

The definition of a contract is:

a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

You would agree to something then have someone change it? If you sell your house for 300k, we both agree, then I change the contract to say you're selling it for 30k you're ok with this? Not sure if you can even call it a contract.

Letting people arbitrary change a contract is nonsense. Making them immutable is a requirement, it shouldn't be an option. When it becomes immutable and you want to put it on the blockchain, you'll run into the problems described in You have immutability at a high cost. You lose mainly lose storage and bandwidth because people that aren't using a particular smart contract have to store it and they have to transmit it (requirement for a decentralized blockchain).

When that smart contract is no longer used or it's been upgraded, the old full smart contract is still in the system and will stay there forever. If you decide to remove / prune unused smart contracts (aka optimize the blockchain), then the blockchain is not immutable.

For you to have immutability and it to be efficient (smart contract wise), you need to code something that make sure it has no mistakes, it will need no improvements or additional features, until the end of time. Every single smart contract writer needs to do this, every time, without fail, for every smart contract. Also remember that anyone can publish to the blockchain.

For it to be trust less, you'll need to be true as well, which is really difficult to impossible in the real world. Can you imagine spending 3 hours reviewing a smart contract from walmart just to buy an apple so they don't steal all your money (assuming you're even capable of reviewing it)? You'll need to do that for everything you buy. It's non-sense.

>This limits its use cases to very simple contracts
No. It's the same principle as writing code to operate a robot on mars.
The fact that the typical web app i pure spaghetti doesn't mean that it can't be written with error-resistance in mind. The benefits that smart contracts give are too unique and great to pass on them.

>decentralized twitter

Attached: 1552805144.jpg (547x410, 40K)

>So you'd use a system where someone can arbitrarily change a smart contract?
Depends on the use case and what was at risk. If I just want to post something on twitter and not worry about it being censored by my government, then yes.

>You would agree to something then have someone change it? If you sell your house for 300k, we both agree, then I change the contract to say you're selling it for 30k you're ok with this? Not sure if you can even call it a contract.
That's not how blockchains work. The transaction that has the original agreed to price is still there for everyone to see. Changing the contract doesn't retroactively change all transactions that went through it.

>No. It's the same principle as writing code to operate a robot on mars.
So in order to write smart contracts on Ethereum, you should be as skilled and vigorous as a team of NASA engineers? I mean, good luck with that? You've obviously never been involved in software development. You can define "smart contracts" however you want. The rest of the world who wants actual functioning products don't care about your blockchain religion.

Standard practice for any code is error-resistance. However, in the real world there's plenty of bugs. On a permission-less smart contract blockchain means that anyone can push code to that blockchain.

Therefore, it is very likely that the blockchain will contain smart contracts that are buggy and will always do so if you want to claim that the blockchain is immutable.

In a truly decentralized, permission-less, immutable smart contract based block chain:

1) everyone can push code to it (permission-less)
2) anyone can run whatever code they want on the systems with the smart contract (smart contract but huge security hole)
3) every participant must keep a copy of the contract (decentralized)
4) every contract cannot be removed (immutable)

Hopefully you can at least see it's not efficient and maybe you see the security implications of it.

To be honest, if you really want to do smart contracts, you would do it on L2 or L3, not on L1.

People don't understand smart contracts or coding in general, so they will need to trust someone (either to review it on their behalf or the coder that made the contract). Even then, mistakes could happen because the reviewer makes a mistake or the coder since they're human. On L2 or L3, the entire network doesn't need to know about your contract. Your contract would be known just the relevant parties and signing is proven with a N/N multisig, where N is the # of people in the contract (kind of what lightening is doing on bitcoin).

Doing it on L2 or L3 would mitigate a lot of the problems I described above but then if you do that, you literally just end up with bitcoin (and bitcoin has other benefits as well) so it's hard to get investors to invest in your "blockchain" tech.

> That's not how blockchains work. The transaction that has the original agreed to price is still there for everyone to see. Changing the contract doesn't retroactively change all transactions that went through it.

I'm not really familiar with EOS and how smart contracts can be modified. Can you give me an example of changing a smart contract and still claim the blockchain is immutable?

By modifying a contract, I assumed you remove the old code and replace with a new one, as I was discussing the efficiency aspect of storage.

An example of this is If I open up a word document, I can edit and save it (replacing the old document). I don't mean open the document, edit it, save as a new document. In the 2nd scenario, I have an old copy I don't need, hence it's storage inefficient. In a blockchain scenario, people would have to store the old copy (including me).

If the first scenario is true, then the block chain is not immutable. If the second scenario is true, then it is not efficient and potentially dangerous due to bad code.

> So in order to write smart contracts on Ethereum, you should be as skilled and vigorous as a team of NASA engineers? I mean, good luck with that? You've obviously never been involved in software development. You can define "smart contracts" however you want. The rest of the world who wants actual functioning products don't care about your blockchain religion.

Right, dummies will push their code on the blockchain and with bad code comes with a shit ton of holes that every node participating in the network will have to execute. To me, that's a security disaster.

>I'm not really familiar with EOS and how smart contracts can be modified. Can you give me an example of changing a smart contract and still claim the blockchain is immutable?
>By modifying a contract, I assumed you remove the old code and replace with a new one, as I was discussing the efficiency aspect of storage.
When you upload a new version of the contract, the old version isn't over-written. It's still there on the chain forever, because the byte code for the contract is stored in a transaction which obviously cannot be overwritten. But the newest version is used for execution.

>Right, dummies will push their code on the blockchain and with bad code comes with a shit ton of holes that every node participating in the network will have to execute. To me, that's a security disaster.
This is a problem regardless of whether contracts are immutable or not. You can't stop people from uploading pajeet tier contracts on Ethereum. At least if they're immutable they can be fixed. I mean there have already been blockchain breaking contracts pushed to Ethereum. I'm not sure what your argument is.

> When you upload a new version of the contract, the old version isn't over-written. It's still there on the chain forever, because the byte code for the contract is stored in a transaction which obviously cannot be overwritten. But the newest version is used for execution.

Ok, so is correct. You have large inefficiencies in storage (storing unused code), bandwidth (transmitting unused code).

Not sure why you quoted me and say you can edit EOS contracts to contract the claim.

> This is a problem regardless of whether contracts are immutable or not. You can't stop people from uploading pajeet tier contracts on Ethereum. At least if they're immutable they can be fixed. I mean there have already been blockchain breaking contracts pushed to Ethereum. I'm not sure what your argument is.

Yeah, no shit. You can't stop it but it has implications aka consequences. I am discussing this consequences. Shit code, everyone has to have a copy, everyone has to propagate that copy on the network. This is just on the topic of efficiency and security. If you want to claim trust-less on top of that, also has to be true.

decentralized, permission-less, immutable, trust-less are all different claims on a smart contract based blockchain. Different conditions must be satisfied for each claim. If you claim all of that, then every condition must be satisfied.

>Right, dummies will push their code on the blockchain and with bad code comes with a shit ton of holes that every node participating in the network will have to execute. To me, that's a security disaster.
There is already lots of this

>Ok, so is correct. You have large inefficiencies in storage (storing unused code), bandwidth (transmitting unused code).
They aren't unused though. They're required to cryptographically validate all transactions that they executed. That's the whole point of a blockchain.

He's saying contracts with errors on are still stored on the blockchain
The old contracts with the errors will be unused but still have to be propagated

Yes, and I'm saying that they are used whenever you need to validate a transaction that they executed. If they weren't stored on-chain then you could never prove that the transactions they executed actually took place.

It's not used but it has to be stored and transmitted, which is the storage inefficiency i'm talking about. If it's permission-less anyone can dump code on it and force everyone to store and transmit it until the end of time.

the fact is, unused smart contract is stored on the blockchain and that's inefficient. To make it efficient (prune unused contracts) then it's not immutable. The only 2 options are not immutable or inefficient (storage and bandwidth wise).

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Think for a minute when blockchain "companies", "foundations", "organizations" promise you the world. "Programmable money!" "no transaction fees!" "permission-less!" "trust-less!"

You'll eventually see it simply can't be implemented in a way they're presenting it or in a way you think. See I understand most of you are just trying to make a buck which is fine. Trade all you want, but I hope some of you look beyond the shilling that happens on this board because if you believe the shilling long term, you'll be the one holding the bag when shit hits the fan.

To be honest, if you actually believe in permission-less, decentralized, immutable, trust-less, censorship resistant crypto that does what it says and doesn't make ridiculous promises, it's called bitcoin. If you just want money by trading / shilling, chose any "crypto" you want.

Yeah but I think he's saying that it satisfies immutability, but makes it inefficient etc

If you want efficiency, run things on punchcards, on fortran. Can't beat that.

All I see in your argument is:
>I can't write safe smart contracts, therefore nobody can.

>If it's permission-less anyone can dump code on it and force everyone to store and transmit it until the end of time.
It's not free. You have to pay for resources (RAM in EOS's case) to store every new version of your contract. It's no different than paying a cloud service for server space.

Anyone can write smart contracts, but not well
Think thats his point

>SHOW ME A SINGLE WORKING SMART CONTRACT
what dont u make us tough guy
you wanna see a smart contract? really?
i don't think u do. ur not ready to see one clearly.
you got a lotta thinkin to do bucko.
come back next week when you're ready to apologies.

Attached: 1551016188444.jpg (634x397, 67K)

The way ethereum is implementing PoS, if you attack the chain you get your staked ether wiped. With that change it becomes very secure on par if not more secure than PoW

Yes, centralized systems are much more efficient than decentralized systems. However, if you want decentralized systems to be successful, efficiency is important. Why? Because people need to run a full node so they can validate it themselves. When you just add block space (not optimizing block space) or let people dump huge amounts of code on the blockchain, it becomes harder and harder for a full node to do so because cost rises. And when that happens, it leads to centralization.

No, I'm saying people will write shitty smart contracts or they want to update their contract. If you say your smart contract blockchain is decentralized & trustless, people will have to store and brodcast those shitty contracts or unused contracts. I am assuming people will write shitty contracts or want to update their contract. It will happen because it's permission-less. I'm not saying anything about me or my ability to write a good contract. Even if I write a good contract, I can never edit it or improve it with additional features.

Anyways, got to go.

Cya later m8
Cuck bin isn't ready for smart contracts

How does that work? Who decided that someone is attacking the network, and how does someone's staked ETH get wiped in a so called decentralized system?

So use well tested frameworks like openZeppelin.

>However, if you want decentralized systems to be successful, efficiency is important. Why? Because people need to run a full node so they can validate it themselves.
A normie running a full node for a smart contract platform that does 100+ transactions per second is not realistic no matter how efficient the system is.

>he doesn't own 10K corbyncoin
>he doesn't have his own copy of the labourchain
>he isn't running a rednode rite now

>However, if you want decentralized systems to be successful, efficiency is important
Don't look for efficiency in diddling with minutiae of code. The consensus algorithm is the bottleneck.

Eventually it might get to that point where that can happen, but is that now or anytime soon?
Give me the rundown on this, unironically

>spoonfeed me

Just wanted to stir up some shit

Attached: 1534876196.jpg (249x249, 16K)

>votes and services as smart contracts
>you poll red you get divvies and gibs when labour win
>you don't then you must buy corbyncoin on exchanges
>govt services bought in corbyncoin
>weekly votes on hot issues, network decides policies set

Attached: 1554664921707.jpg (1080x1350, 203K)

>govt services bought in corbyncoin

Attached: 151929956.jpg (259x194, 7K)