Real world first impression of "smart contract" on the blockchain

The fun part is that she had to pay three fees

  • Ethereum Tx fees
  • Fee to the smartcontract company
  • General fee for every inflationary cryptocurrency

:stuck_out_tongue:

7 Likes

I’m thinking they need to improve the user experience and that whole cost/benefit ratio. The more you need to download and configure in order to use something the less useful it is.

5 Likes

Also she didn’t pay a fee to her coworker for using his computer.

Well, in this particular case nothing can beat YouTube offering a setting that automatically creates a refund (or not) based on the number of views.

It’s a great video, it shows just how nonsensical most of these ideas that people throw around are.
Does a clown want smart contracts on the SAFE network? Of course he does, as long as he doesn’t pay for its creation or execution.
Does a clown want (someone) to migrate everything on the SAFE network? Of course he wants, as long as he doesn’t have to pay for it.
Well, comrades, sooner or later the devs run out of their own or other people’s money. A nonsense “solution” is a nonsense solution.

In reality most of such ideas by the freeloading clowns are rubbish and it’s great to see these videos that demonstrate that (be it bitcoin, InTheoreum or any other crypto).

5 Likes

This sounds really quite harsh. While I understand the sentiment behind the “freeloading society” that we have created I can’t agree with the content here.

Sure, not everyone is going to want to use ethereum, but the masses aren’t meant to. Just like the masses aren’t meant to use bitcoin straight. Ethereum is a platform to be built on. People should never know they are using Ethereum. It should be in the background making whatever project it powers do something that couldn’t be done before possible now. Check out Augur. Thats what you should be seeing, not the ethereum backend that the end user cares nothing about.

I’ve said it several times about MaidSafe as well. We can not push “maidsafe” as the end product. People don’t give a rats arse about it. They do care about more secure facebook where people on the backend can’t spy on their data or instant internet cash payments. Push apps, not platforms.

TL;DR: You can’t look at a platform and say “this will never work its hard” because platforms are made to be built on top of. If the platform enables awesome apps that couldn’t be made before, push those apps, because that’s what people care about.

10 Likes

:grin::thumbsup:

Exactly!!!

1 Like

Translation: “Model T’s aren’t Land Rovers, therefore let’s walk.”

Better statement: “Smart contracts aren’t ready for prime time, and may never be in a lot of cases. We shall see in due course.”

Remember, this is the person who wrote that stupid article about David Irvine betraying everybody’s trust by having protective patents on MaidSafe breakthroughs.

The description “going off half-cocked” comes to mind.

7 Likes

This same thing could be said to the entire cryptospace, all of the open source field, the entirety of the software security scene, and anyone who has ever uttered the word “linux”. In fact, if one finds anyone who vaguely looks like sqawnly white guy who codes, that person should consider it their ethical duty to take the replied to post, mold it into a bat, and bust that guy’s face with it until he stops being so selectively stupid.

Do you even know how smart contracts function and why augur is a terrible idea and concept?

You have literally said "look at this consensus mechanism that is the blockchain. Now lets completely ignore this shit , i want to centralize the consensus mechanism , i wanna create a consensus mechanism that is entirely controlled by a small chunk of people who own a single currency incentivizing them to accumulate more of the currency while also giving incentive to cheat the network , because obviously humans are better than maths.

Smart contracts should be called dumb contracts, ANYTHING that needs to be reported that cannot be confirmed by the blockchain require consensus from flawed , stupid humans . Thats the idea of reputation in augur , people report the results, you tell the smart contract as a group of people what happened , what the smart contract needs to do, because it is impossible for the contract to determine this by itself. It requires a centralized , flawed consensus outside of the blockchain

Augur requires people to report the right result , which can take MONTHS to fulfill properly , hmmm this sportsbook pays me instantly after a bet, or should i use augur and wait months on end before i see my winnings from a bet?

Augur give incentive to cheat the network , the network will be controlled a decided by 51% majority , People who report earn fee’s and rep off those who report the “wrong” result, a small group of people coould report the wrong result on purpose , see an increase of 100% in their fee’s earned and steal reputation off of everyone else that reported honestly .

With blockchain tech with smart contracts , if you need to confirm anything that is outside of the blockchain you have to require consensus from a centralized flawed source that is 10-100 times less secure than the blockchain. can be lied, cheated and stolen from by reporting false information that can easily trick the “smart contract”

Yes, that was my point too. Not everything can be made to work with/on crypto/blockchains and a large part of what can, should not.

Freeloaders sure exist and threaten the survival of every platform which accommodates them.
There’s been a number of senseless requests for SAFE as well. Luckily there aren’t enough resources to entertain them (for now).

You know you skipped right over the guy’s argument because you didn’t like the example he used, right?

How so?

smart contract based on blockchain technology take away the consensus from the blockchain when anything outside the blockchain needs to be reported, turning the consensus mechanism into something centralized . It entirely defeats the idea of decentralization , it makes it more complex and is completely redundant

His argument is “people are not meant to see how mathematically and economically flawed it is and hugely centralized the technology is, they are just suppose to use it without even knowing they are using it”

Aside from @neverending_manga 's fact (because I was not arguing that augur is great [which it is, i’ll get to that in a minute]) I was saying they did a good job of separating the platform, ethereum, from their product, augur. You have no idea that augur uses ethereum, but they use it to make something previously impossible (decentralize, un-shutdownable prediction market outside the reach of government) possible. You ignored that and bashed augur.

As for Augur itself…

When you can make the smart contract itself answer completely arbitrary questions posed by any person in any language then you will have a valid point. AI may indeed replace how augur works. Would be great if AI could be built into the platform to take out the human element. Until then, keep bashing because I haven’t seen a better solution and you haven’t proposed one. Just “use the blockchain smart contract itself! Its that simple! You’re making it hard!”… Then make it. Replace augur. I’ll use it if you do it well. Until then, I’ll use the best implemented solution to date thank you.

My whole point was : If something is flawed at the core, then your “nobody knows so who cares” excuse is pointless.

If maidsafe was working at 30% data loss , Would it be the same case? well it doesn’t matter for the end user! they don’t need to understand maidsafe isn’t actually working as intended and doesn’t work properly for the function it was created.

Augur is centralized , just like any sportsbook or betting website , the contracts they run can be manipulated lied to cheated just like a centralized service. They have to be trusted like every other service but are completely brand new

I don’t need to make an alternative service, there already exists thousands , www.betfair.com there you go already found a better one, here you wont wait 2 months for your winnings

[quote=“gohan00760, post:13, topic:8270”]
My whole point was : If something is flawed at the core, then your “nobody knows so who cares” excuse is pointless.
[/quote].
You have yet to explain how its flawed or centralized. A contract gets put on the blockchain. Its a public contract, anyone can see exactly how its “worded”. Money is payed into that contract. At the expiration of the contract, votes are cast and programatically evaluated for “truth”. Again, all math based with human input. If there is a discrepancy it goes to a vote of entirely new people. Its not a “no one know so who cares” its an “everyone knows so everyone cares”. Complete opposite. If your argument is based around the website, download the whole ethereum blockchain and push the data in yourself. The website is a nice helper, but not needed. I’m sure there will be others implemented by people who don’t like the existing one.

There are reasons for the wait time. The wait time doesn’t even matter as you can always trade out of a position anyway. People like me will gladly trade into your position for you and earn guaranteed interest on the position.

A smart contract that requires a certain event to take place outside of the blockchain requires consensus on those events outside of the blockchain . This in augur is done by having reputation . In lisk this is done by using 101 delegates , they decide on the events that took place .

If there is a football match and manchester united win 2-1 to man city. the contract doesn’t have a clue what happened, the mathematical security and consensus of the blockchain doesn’t allow it to know. So people have to report this , some one has to report what actually happened to the contract.

so the consensus mechanism is people reporting what happened, telling the smart contract what it needs to do, who does it pay? where are funds sent to?

This removes and seperates the consensus , it brings smart contracts built on a secure consensus blockchain and requires a consensus outside of that blockchain , the people, or the 101 delegates.

This is why it is centralized , with almost all currencies , all crypto tokens , the majority is held by the few , they are the deciding factor of what happens , so the consensus mechanism and the mathematics behind the blockchain that secure all transactions is now gone over, and the deciding factor of this smart contract is no longer mathematically securely , no longer machines in charge of what the hell happens , no it’s a small amount of people that decide on what happens , they are reporting what the contract see’s as “truth”

This is being centralized .

This is flawed in many different ways .

The reporting of events is financially incentivized , lets ignore the fact that this is a case of the rich get richer , the few people holding the largest % of coins are gaining far more incentive that the smaller holders so more inclined to vote and report , giving them even more voting strength

If 10 people happened to own 51% of say for example augur , they could report the previous football match as man city winning , they vote and report man city won. The smart contract now believes man city won and pays out when finalized fee’s to that 51% that voted wrong, this is almost 100% more than they would of gotten for reporting the right result because if they reported the right result they would of had to share with the other 49% , plus now people who are reporting honestly are losing their reputation for “falsely reporting” and those same people cheating the system are rewarded by gaining an even higher % share of total reputation increasing voting power.

Now i agree this is an extreme example , and would require shorting and destroying the system because breaking the system would destroy any financial holdings they have making them worthless.

But conceptually this is what smart contracts have to deal with , they need a way to report said results , and the reporting of said results is centralized . that centralized “trusted” source of reporting can easily fake report and lie and cheat for financial gain , some smart contracts don’t even need 51% of an entire crypto currency they just require 1 source of information , the reporter of the contract who sets it as such.

This isn’t blockchain security/consensus , this is , i am the consensus and whatever i say happens

That means someone is forced to either bet on augur, maybe not even get better odds , then if they want instant profit , sell their position to get less winnings , or wait a month or so for full payout , this is still not even close to being the best solution.

I am not trying to bash augur here , i am invested. i am using it as an example of smart contract that functions specifically on the blockchain. because its one of the most known projects to have written contracts and easy to understand functional contracts, this is inherent and core problems with smart contracts i am trying to point out , the way they get their reporting , to then function and either correctly or incorrectly pay someone out or fulfill said contract

1 Like

Pretty sure you just described decentralization. No one person controls it. It requires many people to make anything happen. It really sounds like what you want is programatically autonomous. Just because people are involved doesn’t mean it isn’t decentralized.

The more rep you hold you also have more responsibility. You are required to vote in proportion to the amount you hold. You also LOSE in proportion to the amount you hold if you’re caught cheating. If you cheat are caught (very likely even if you held 51% of the rep, there is a blog post on the system they use with all the math included as well as the recently added ‘backstop’ for if there is a discrepancy [new reporters, added bounty, etc]) you lose big time. Is it worth it to cheat even once if your chance of getting caught really very high, and if you do get caught, you lose any chance of ever being able to do it again? Its a lose lose.

Described above how they work around this. They will lose It will be reported as a false report, a bounty (rather large most likely) will be posted, it will be voted on again (by new and larger group of people) and the 51% will lose a large chunk of their holdings.

I assume we’re talking about smart contracts here in general and not augur specifically. If so, the contract was written wrong. If you’re talking about a car payment contract you would not set it up so the lender reports if the payment was made and the car can start. I mean you could but it would be a disaster as you describe. You would set it up so payment went TO the contract, then the lender so the contract knows for sure the car should be started on the next attempt, and every one thereafter for the next month. Please correct me if I misunderstood this one.

It is if you want to bet on something that is illegal in your country and want to bet anonymously. In the US we can’t bet on who will be the next US president through any “legit” gambling institution. If I want to, I’d have to use augur. No “legit” EU site will let me gamble with them. I can go to some sketchy underground site where I have to trust one single person to actually pay me, or I can use augur where I can trust that “the masses” can get right which of these jokers running to be my president actually won…

1 Like

If 1% controls 99% of the power , i’m afraid it’s centralized . You can debate just how many people it takes to become fully decentralized but a few people owning the majority of power and that power is centralized to those few people they have all the power. they have the control

How is this cheating caught? Is it someone who can control a kill switch and punish users at will , without any oversight , like a central authority?

If not it can be manipulated in exactly the same way as false reporting , flag report as false, vote by a large chunk that you didn’t vote with

If everyone votes on the events , who is voting on this new report? if 90% report on events , who are these new reporters? the 10% left?

This is one of the very few examples of a smart contract not needing any consensus outside of the blockchain , the smart contract can read the payment itselfs from the blockchain, report that the payment has been recieved and send it out as designed, this isn’t about smart contract that exist and can function perfectly within the blockchain ledger, this is the only place it doesn’t need consensus of people and can use the usual blockchain consensus

www.directbet.eu there you go, that wont even work in my own country but for some reason when i use US proxies it works fine . should be fine for use inside the US . If not , instead of using augur you could get a 1 click download of a simple proxy service and use their services there are tons of no account needed betting sites with tens of thousands of potential bets

You are not trusting the masses, you have put your trust in most likely 1% who controls 80%+ of the currency.

I am pointlessly attacking augur at this point and will stop with the pointing out holes in the working of smart contracts using augur as an example , refering to my pervious statement i made which you didn’t want to quote

“Now i agree this is an extreme example , and would require shorting and destroying the system because breaking the system would destroy any financial holdings they have making them worthless.”

The main point of the matter is , for confirmation /reporting of the events of a smart contract that requires consensus or data that is outside of the blockchain , they must require consensus from people in a centralized manner , having to place their trusted in centralized reporting or confirming , so that the contract will be fulfilled correctly . which compared to the consensus of the blockchain is much more insecure.

Centralization is the control, the power, the wealth being collected in a small minority who control and owns most of it . 101 delegates with a blockchain with 201 users might look deceetralized at first but if it was to scale to 1 billion , then it would be 0.00001% reporting the events for the other 99.9999% who have to place their trust and who control the majority of the wealth creation and are rewarded the majority of money and have the majority of power . This is centralized

Who says this is the case? Did I miss something? If so, then I believe you have a case, but I’ve seen nothing to show me this is the case.

Please look into how reporting will be done. Each person reports on a subset of all the markets in proportion to your rep %. No person is reporting on 90% of the markets, not by a long shot. There should always be a pool of people to re-report on any given market that didn’t report on it the first time… So even if you’re a big holder, if you’re not in BOTH pools (you’d have to have enough rep to sway BOTH pools to the wrong answer, AND hope you get INTO both pools) you’re hosed.

Just did a quick review and couldn’t find who decides these markets? The one guys that runs the site? Some type of consensus mechanism? Besides reputation for actually paying out, how do I know they will? What happens if the bet is resolved wrong? These are all questions solved by a distributed smart contract.

I think the basis of what @gohan00760 is saying is that yes, you can put these contracts on the blockchain, but because there are other factors involved in verifying and reporting information about the contract, the blockchain is essentially an unnecessary novelty at this point and not something that makes the service better.

It is sort of a “we did it because we could” thing…which isn’t always the best option…kind of like doing cartwheels instead of walking as the video noted…it may get to a point where the blockchain does have significant value added to the current process but at this point…I don’t think it is quite there…

4 Likes

Using this same logic you could say that the SAFE Network with regards to the resources provided is also centralised since if you scale the system up to billions of users, 1% might be the farmers.

Similarly, 10% is the redistribution of wealth going to the central entity: Maidsafe. For developing the infrastructure on a continuous basis. The point is though that there is ‘decentralisation’ in terms of people, governments, real world structures and there is decentralisation in terms of tech. They are not the same in the sense that one is mathematically verifiable and is used in the programming world to denote something very specific - a decentralised system, which the Ethereum blockchain is. When dirvine says that it is a centralised data structure, I believe what he means (he can reply to this if I am wrong) is that the blockchain itself is inherently centralised in the sense that those machines running full nodes hold the blockchain whereas in Maidsafe the network provides decentralisation without depending on some shared structure.

1 Like