Computer Science Prof Destroys /biz in 4 Slides

Sounds like a no coiner brainlet.

Regular contracts are subject to constant review, changes, interpretation etc. - law is fluid. Sometimes it ends up in court, as both parties disagree with each other. But in 90% of all cases, both parties agree on something without even consulting a lawyer, when something is not clear in a contract.

A smart contract is like a program. Shit goes in, shit comes out. And in this case, it is non-changable shit, which no lawyer and no appealing or outside agreement with the other party can discuss or enforce with a court.

the butthurt shines thru lol

seems like hes trolling for april fools

All of his faggot libtard points apply to fiat currency as well. So ban all forms of money? Hes definitely a faggot Marxist.

Maybe the POWH contracts that resulted in some programmer just taking all the ethereum for himself?

Virtue Signalling Mentally Unstable Society Blaming Cuckboy.

Attached: FuckMySides.png (639x353, 67K)

Clause in agreement can allow for settlement of disputes (eg. faulty data, misdelivery or whatever) in court. Smart contracts save man hours on contracts that don't need to be disputed.

berkley, cuck, suffers from mental illness, anti Trump

what a jolly fellow

You don't put more than 4 or 5 sentences on a slide, and never that long... I'd hate to be his student.
t. professorfag

He's not wrong but he's also not right

spoof trading wasn't banned until the 2010s

hard to take him seriously when he can't get facts right

I believe he means there is no way to patch smart contract in production, once deployed it is available for everyone to see and therefore an object of potential hacker attack and because bugs are inevitable it is only a matter of time when a critical exploit on some poorly written contract will be found and money will be stolen
See Parity extravaganza

An economist here. I couldn't care less about crypto_currencies_ -- but smart contracts are really something. I don't think he's doing any sort of justice to the concept. Even with my superficial exposure to contract theory and mechanism design I think they have a lot of potential.

>bought at 20k
>pic related

Attached: 1517947217151.jpg (601x601, 106K)

LOL just look at his face defeated & cuckolded

can never listen to such a person

>this guy is some sort of genious
he probably thinks people who trade or hold crypto don't know this stuff

How the fuck is this person a “professor”? He comes off as incompetent and ignorant. Computer science professor my ass.

he's spot on when taken verbatim. yes, crude, blatant, brainlet-level manipulation will be limited to unregulated markets (surprise, surprise). however, to then imply more insidious methods are not part of the financial system is fucking stupid (and if hes not implying that, then there's no point bringing this up to begin with. you'll be ripped off either way as a normie)

love how none of you gave a serious refutation to his points and are just name calling
makes you wonder if he's right after all

>>Every semester in my first lecture I make the point that I suffer from depression

Probably suffering from depression due to the fact he most likely knew about Bitcoin back in 2010 but didn't buy because "muh ponzi"

Of course he's fucking right, this ecosystem is rife with scams. It doesn't mean crypto is the problem. What's wrong with you?

>the town idiot is yelling about shit again, but nobody will refute him so he must have a point!

I bet that this Comp.Sci fragilista Nicholas Weaver don't even have skin in the game. If he truly believed this, he would always short Bitcoin.

Not nearly the majority of contractual changes are against the will of all participating parties, which is what many CS-people tend to forget.

Today, we sit with at least 4 people together, to deal with a contract. The parties with their corresponding lawyer. If they want, a simple call from one lawyer to the other can(!) be enough to change the content of the contract. Or sometimes even a verbal agreement between the parties with no lawyer present (can be the case in e.g. Germany, if you are an executive).

With smart contracts, we sit down with at least 6 people. The parties with their corresponding lawyer and their corresponding programmer.
A change, no matter how small, need all of them to need to come together and work on it.

The workload you save on the one side gets added on the other side, multiplied by ten.

But once you have made a standard contract, wouldn't it just require one people at either side to accept it in the future - I believe there are economies of scale involved.

>to then imply more insidious methods are not part of the financial system is fucking stupid
Which is not the point.
Is there manipulation in regular markets? Hell yeah.
Does this somehow justify to apply brainlet-level-manipulation to lure in the gullibles? No.

Also, please keep in mind, that he has only 5 minutes to deliver his message (found the tweet). Considering this, it is actually okay.

typical r/buttcoin poster

coiners btfo!! bitcoin on suicide watch

hey burger, making this liberal vs. conservative isn't useful here. sorry if that fucks with your self-identity.

Not in real business.

There, you have either standard contracts in between two parties that know each other. They might know each other for a long time and want to be more flexible, based on a call. Think about Party A, selling Cars in bulks to Party B for about 20 years now - they might not even care if the contract is based on paper at the time they make the deal, delivery or payment and just do it for paperwork later on. They trust each other.

Other cases require a single tailored contract, but both parties have a different degree of acceptance regarding the fault tollerance of contracts. Think about Party A selling to a friend of aforementioned Party B, lets call him Party C. A might accept a delay in payment which differes from the contract, because Party B vouches for him after the contract was made. If C does not pay, B migth end up with a obligation to pay instead, depending on how he vouched.

Law and business behaviour cannot be put into code. It is up for debate, which cannot be standardized.

The only thing that could be standardized, would be your average buy of a coffee.

LOL, YOU NIGGERS GOT BTFO

Attached: 1521253654544.gif (287x240, 3.96M)

ok, then go ahead and start gui trading against hft setups and lets see how that goes. Oh thats not manipulation? Neither were those other things until the norman lost a fuckton of money. The end effect is the same, if you have no idea what you are doing you shouldn't be actively participating in market micro structure. To point this out in some kind of presentation as a point against btc is fucking weak as fuck

finance guy here.
twitter is for faggots, that is all.

THE USELESSNESS OF ETH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Attached: 104864179-20150331-0014-1180.1910x1000.jpg (1910x1000, 141K)

>The only thing that could be standardized, would be your average buy of a coffee.

As someone in law school, I agree strongly with the idea of "law and business behavior cannot be put into code," but I think times are a-changin', and in the future, contracts/business will start to be more streamlined. You make a contract with x conditions, you're held to that contract. We're going to have the technology to make that a reality, and we never had that tech before.

So maybe people will at first use smart contracts very skeptically and carefully, but contracts may become more and more streamlined in the future, saving us cost of lawyers, etc. but at the cost of having to perform the contract in the exact terms originally specified. It sounds a lot more efficient that way, anyways, and efficiency is the driving force behind all of this.

This.

I bet he has an excuse about people being irrational and things with no value going up.

The degree and target is completely different. No regular guy does compete against high frequency or algo traders - and these trades usually do not cause relevant volatility, that would kick out Mr. Everyday out of his position or cause significant deviations from the true value of a stock (please do not start a fundamental discussion over my wordings here, I am sure you know what I mean).

Say, I'm a farmer and want to hedge my crops from bad weather, so I buy a futures contract that protects me from cold/rainy weather.

Wouldn't all this be standardized, where's the extensive need for lawyers, programmers and management?

investopedia.com/terms/w/weatherderivative.asp

(Suppose the blockchain has decentralized oracles interacting with weather stations for a given period.)

t. IQ 80

No. The horse and buggy will always be the reliable best mode of transportation and the internet will be trumped by the newspaper simply because the web is too slow.

Attached: 1513319777350.png (800x729, 48K)

just admit you are fucked. People are getting #woke.

As your studies progress - or at the latest, when you start to work afterwards - you will see that it is not possible to streamline law this way. It might seem this way, until you see the nuances that are actually the core of disputes in front of a court. If the questions that lead two parties would be solveable via simple lines of code, there would be no need to dispute anything in front of a court.

If you would streamline these nuances out of the law, we would still end up with what I wrote in The problem is not what is written in the law or what past rulings were. It is about debating if e.g. circumstances leading to a contract are valid ("Is party A able to enter a contract in the first place?"). It is debating and considering past behavior and possible future outcome, whcih cannot be put into code.

He agrees with you. Good luck in law school.

Attached: 1522561335606.png (817x443, 34K)

Btfo prof, there are million of use cases for smart contracts. Lets say your service provider guarantees 99,99% uptime. Why would an smart contract not be the ideal way to ensure such an thing?

Attached: 1521821908183.jpg (1053x671, 103K)

Can't you post new memes at least fuck.

What do you do, if the smart contract is somehow tampered with and you do not get paid, because all the ETH was sent not to you, but an unknown adress. What if this not only happened with you but also your neighbours and friends? One immaginable attack vector would be to influence the weather stations in question.

Wouldnt you want to sue?
If the answer is "yes", you dont need a blockchain, as you can rely on futures we have today.
If the answer is "no", you accept a plethora of attack vectors as a given, that could ruin your life if a single one of these is not closed.

youtube.com/watch?v=aG6-LMxtKrk

This fucking guy goes into this massive fucking rant. When you could have mined 200 bitcoin in a day. Why not do that and keep them just encase...

Attached: 1521831958672.jpg (1252x1252, 138K)

That wasn't me. Learn to read ID's, they exist for a reason.

I understand your point but I still think there's a use-case for smart contracts. To dismiss them completely because "people will disagree on things" is missing the point I think. We're like two boats passing in the night here with our points though because I agree with everything you're saying, and at the same time, still think smart contracts will catch on in some industries, post related

>>Every semester in my first lecture I make the point that I suffer from depression

>I'm a fat fucking slob who makes the most disgusting noises during a presentation.

But look how bad all these other people are....

Attached: 1522094901520.png (657x527, 51K)

My interpretation of a smart contract wasn't that it would be somehow irrevocable in the court of law, but just a standardized way of settling complicated transactions, saving trouble and manpower in the process. But I could be mistaken.

Say, if you have a weather insurance, you'd have to file a claim, someone would have to process it, and then only afterwards you'd get reimbursed for the damages. This all could take place instantaneously with smart contracts.
Now, if there's something fishy, like someone tampering with the weather station data (a highly unlikely scenario, but possible), you'd go through the old paper trail.

What comes to unknown addresses -- don't allow them.

>banned in the 1930s
Who believes it's not all still going on and they've come up with more ways to fuck us retail cucks over?

>if the smart contract is somehow tampered with
user, I...

Attached: 1507483926815.png (406x452, 30K)

Maybe and it would be in all of our interest if it would be this way. I just think the actual usecases are very small for smart contracts.

I btw just thought about a good example which actually happened, where smart contracts caused problems. Red Pulse had their ICO last year in October I think - the "Block 025-problem" caused a disagreement in the understanding of time between humans (analogue way of thinking) and the NEO blockchain (digital way of thinking). Debatable from a legal point of view, not debatable in code and not actually intended by any of the participants.

Probably the next biggest effect block chain will have is on payroll. Imagine automatic distrubutions and payments with complete records and immutability on a private company block chain.

FUD.
Not very true.

He's just a nocoiner that missed out right? That's all this is.

unironically this

Even if I appear to be shilling, give me your thoughts on this:

unibright.io/

Personally, I think it's the second ICO I am going to ever participate in, even amidst a bear market.

>"private company block chain"
aka a SQL database

You fucking brainlet
Of course smart contracts are not designed to replace complicated agreements like strategic partnerships or joint venture contracts. It’s made for simple contracts where there is a trust problem which makes them difficult and nasty for both parties. For example, insurances. Have you ever tried to actually get paid by an insurer? They will automatically assume fraud on your side and will do whatever is possible in order not to pay and you and currently it’s an absolute hassle. Won’t have that with smart contracts and a sensor which determines whether the insurance case occurred or not.

You mean in a purely technological way with all security measures still in place? Thinkable. But I doubt it would be as gamechanging as e.g. the internet. I can immagine that completely removing the trust in these processes is not intended, especially when we talk about formalities and the need for human trust in some processes (some which do not need a lawyer, but just the eye of a trained and sworn in person).

DAO
You are welcome.

You are retarded. Everyone hates that shit.

how exactly is a "private blockchain" better than a SQL database? Blockchain is only useful if you need a decentralized, permissionless system. Which a payroll system definitely is not. Why would anyone design an internal payroll system around a blockchain instead of a regular database?

>Also, please keep in mind, that he has only 5 minutes to deliver his message

He has been doing this for years now........ Apparently everyone who was in bitcoin was crazy and this thing would never take off.

This guy wins the retard of the year award imho.

Attached: R9WHaXap_400x400.jpg (400x400, 22K)

Mainly so they don't have to pay someone to run the database

For anyone wondering "if this tech is so great, why isnt industry using it already?"
This should show you how smart people can waste their smarts rationalising fundamentally incorrect beliefs

>investment strategy
lol you rate me too highly

It's safe to say that *very* few people a) understand technical/strategic areas of business to know why blockchain is useful, b) understand organisational theory enough to understand why blockchain is useful, and c) understand computer science enough to know why blockchain is useful.

You'll inevitably come across cuckboys like in OP who are experts in one of these, and can confidently say "Yes maybe you're an expert in settlement issues that occur with SWIFT, but tell me why an append-only database with trusted transactors isn't a better solution". Or alternatively, "Yes maybe you understand why blockchain consensus mechanisms are safer than centralised databases, but tell me why this is an issue for supply chain transparency in the buttplug industry when we already have SAP ERP integration across all functions blah blah blah". These are unanswerable questions because again, inevitably, not many people understand all sides of the coin.

Whenever anybody is questioning any technical advances with firm opinions, ask yourself if they're an expert in all the domains that it involves. They almost definitely are not. Their opinion is worthless.

this. At first I thought they don't get it, but I think they're being intentionally obtuse about it

Lmao. I mean, how can you write that second paragraph, with all those big words, and not realise how retarded it is?
Like, did you even think about it for a second before you clicked post?

Yes, I had some cases in my life, where I required my insurance to pay. I never had problems, sorry if this was the case for you.

Still not a good example - insurance papers are often standardized at the beginning, but start to consider single circumstances in case the money is needed. And there, we enter what I wrote above - disputes and discussions.

Is it tedious? Yes.
Is it long? Yes.
Do a lot of bad actors abuse these rules? Hell yeah. And I do not want to come to defend these actors.

But the non-reversibility shifts the danger to such a degree onto the company, that the risk premiums would be insane. I would be all for testing such trustless measures in this regard, but even then, all things need to be considered. And in the end, all what you call "hassle" would most likely still be there.

God DAMNIT lol,
You try running a redundant, secure, global database that sends and receives 1000s of entries a day

If you are drafting totally new contracts for every client you should be sacked

Haha, jesus.

no, they'd just have to pay people to run the nodes instead, which is the same fucking thing, only probably more expensive than a high efficiency database designed for high-speed transnational processing.

Hold up, isn't the entire first slide just
>the only problem with exchanges is that (((they))) either regulate them to death or outlaw them

And that's somehow supposed to be an argument /against/ crypto?

It look the internet 20 years before corporate adoption and it look 40 years for public adoption

Just like blockchain, the only people using the internet very early on were continuity of government entities

Might be because it is standard for me atm... change it to two (party A+B) and drop the lawyers, it changes nothing - because in the end, everyone needs someone who can code this shit.

easily done using regular database software. how, exactly, would using blockchain improve cost or efficiency?

Anti-depressants don't work, does he know this? He fell for the big pharma meme

Do you know how ungodly expensive it is to build / run a global network?
Or even how expensive local backups can be?

There is no way buying a few shitcoin to power your SQL database is more expensive than hiring an expert to run a turnkey system that you also payed for

It's not the same thing to accounts and for their financial strategies. Same reason companies piled onto cloud. Same reasons companies piled projects over to India. It lets them turn fixed costs into variable costs, which looks better for the immediate bottom line, even if it does end up costing more.

...

It really rustles my jimmies that people see the words smart contract, think "I know about contracts" and start spouting their retarded opinions.
Contract design is as revelant to smart contract design as phone design is to smart phone design ie. theyre basically two different things.
Pure dunning kruger.

> security is easy, just use database software
t.Jow Forums

Im glad installing software on my server now installs it on my servers in china, budapest, and down the street

This guy thinks he's really smart but he's actually dumb as dog shit.

I love how all these haters got absolutely beat the fuck out by time.

Attached: 080403d0145.jpg (534x800, 305K)