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

21

i posted this above in an edit before i saw a reply

“” 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 “”

The history of crypto and crypto currency exchanges and collections of power and how much of a % owns most currencies

I have said i will stop with the pointless throwing of crap towards augur , It’s one of the best systems in place for smart contracts i agree , but it is still a centralized solution that is almost exactly the same as any centralized authority right now , except it’s brand new, costs lots in fee’s , requires experimental slow and hard to use technology that is no where near as good as other centralized sources currently . Not everyone can create a system like augur has in place and should have to to control those few that control the power of the rest

In their current stage they are flawed and easier to manipulate removing the power and security of the blockchain and into the hands of a deciding few , the reason bitcoin was originally created to work against.

To say : It doesn’t matter about ethereum and all that lot , cos the end user wont be using it or need to understand it

completely falls apart when if ethereum and smart contracts are flawed and easy to manipulate and control , economically, technologically , restrained . centralized and much poorer that all other alternatives, the end user doesn’t exist in any large number

The market is controlled in a centralized manner , just like smart contracts that need consensus beyond the blockchain to confirm

The consensus mechanism is the same as smart contracts, he see’s the results he reports the results using centralized sources

They will be punished if they fail to pay out, they will take your small amount of money and lose trust with everyone else that uses their site, they will lose customers and long term business and likely have to close down, they will be “punished for reporting incorrectly”

Message them and it will be resolved , because if not they will be punished

22

You could very easily argue that the SAFE network could and is in its current form highly centralized and if companies like google and amazon decided to turn their unused hard drive space at safe controlling huge amounts of the data would be centralized.

This stuff won’t be known until the network is ready and functioning and has been running long enough

just like bitcoin was a decentralized idea and is now getting closer and closer to becoming centralized and is of huge concern to many

Maidsafe has plans to decentalize that central authority into a decentralized one which is a great way to go about it don’t you think?

There are different slight variations to what you apply it to , but still the wealth and power being controlled by a few is centralized, the ethereum blockchain is decentralized, just like bitcoin it could slowly become less and less decentralized , but thats for another debate, this isn’t about the ethereum blockchain itself, this is the way smart contracts built on the blockchain that require a consensus OUTSIDE of the blockchain to reach their own consensus and be fulfilled or executed , which is by a centralized means

23

You could argue that the SAFE network allows for centralisation to occur but I don’t think on technical grounds you could argue that the SAFE network is ‘highly centralised’ no. It doesn’t technologically promote centralisation, the entire purpose of the system is to decentralise resources. What companies choose to do in order to centralise the decentralised system is up to them, but the system itself is still a decentralised system and it would be best for those companies to use a centralised system if they want centralisation. Amazon wouldn’t try to control a system like maidsafe because centralised systems work best at being centralised, they have lower latencies and better performance.

Maidsafe have definitely tried to include the community in as much as I have seen and promote decentralisation on the business level, I definitely think thats a great way to go.

1 Like
24

The fact that its like 50 nodes being run by only maidsafe staff pretty much is why i said it is right now technically centralized, and what you yourself have mentioned is also why it could “become” centralized
i know they wouldn’t do what i said most likely , but its an attack vector mentioned numerous times and has been talked about extensively and lots of debate has gone into such an instance .

Now lets say maidsafe creates some code in the core of their programming , now 100 special select people are now controllers over certain events taking place, sending and receiving data , coin issuance , who gets what coins depending on what criteria, instead of downloading and being an automated node, those 100 people all decide on the outcome of specific events that take place. They can report and more easily and falsely report details to the safe network and lie to it. forcing code written in the core to not function as it was suppose to.

It’s hard to use the smart contract example , because smart contracts would technically work much better inside maidsafe , considering it isn’t mainly just a ledger but a decentralized world hub of information and data , hence smart contracts have much more reach than outside the specifics of ledger based blockchain tech.

25

What makes you think that smart contracts would work better inside maidsafe? Or do you mean inside maidsafe on a blockchain? Or do you mean a new type of contract which leverages decentalised computing resources?

26

Smart contracts might be extremely efficient (and indeed necessary) for computers to interact economically with each other and with humans, but inefficient for human to human interactions.

A partial analogy is binary data, which is necessary between computers, but inefficient for humans.

1 Like
27

“Because we still need people for anything that cant be programmed, they’re no better than a centralized system” Correct me if I paraphrased that wrong. Once we get that straight I’ll reply because that’s the core of this argument I believe.

What you’re saying doesn’t even make sense to me. Maybe I’m just having a mental block trying to have the ah-hah moment of seeing your side. I never said it doesn’t matter. My position (that started this whole debate) was "don’t push the platform, push the app. People don’t need to give a crap about ethereum or how hard it is to use because the end user wont be using it. As long as the app is built well and does what its supposed to, no need to care about the background. If the background and broken, then there is an issue, but if the issue is just how the app implemented something, that’s a different story.
Ethereum contracts are not easy to manipulate, or control unless they are written poorly. They do EXACTLY what they’re supposed to do, every time given x input.If you code the contract poorly on what the x input should be, its not ethereums fault but you the programmer who should have made it more strict.
To say ethereum contracts themselves are “centralized” because they all live on a single ledger is to say bitcoin is centralized because they are all on the same ledger… its just not true.

This is where we disagree big time. One guy saying “the outcome was x” to me is not even close to having 100 people say “the outcome was x”. Its easier to pay off 1 guy to report wrong than 100 people. Its also not a centralized source. One person might get info from CNN, another from fox news, another from the bbc report. These to me are not even close. If you can’t see a distinction between there two scenarios we’re going to have to agree to disagree and drop this topic.

28

A smart contract requires information to fulfill its function , with blockchain tech , any contract you make that requires confirmation of something happening outside of the blockchain to then be reported by someone to confirm it or deny it , This requires verification , a consensus much be reached, like we have discussed that is done by people for all blockchain based smart contracts .

Maidsafe isn’t just a ledger of coins , it has coins but doesn’t function as a ledger really, it is a decentralized hub of data and information , your criteria for fulfillment of said contract , can be gathered more easily from a decentralized source and have it automated and out of human control for other things not related to a ledger.

It doesn’t allow for complete autonomy of functions/validations/criteria , but gives maidsafe an ability to fulfill a wider range of contract criteria in a decentralized manner.

When and if blockchains expand into everyday life , they will also have this expanded ability to confirm in a more decentralized manner.

when you make a smart contract anything that needs to be confirmed outside of the blockchain , it requires human input currently, Same for maidsafe, anything outside of maidsafe would require outside verification , but maidsafe is more expansive and wider working than just a decentralized tokenized ledger

29

How do you propose to answer “will the cubs win the world series” in any a more decentralized way than currently being done using blockchain solutions? I’m asking honestly. What difference does it make the backend mechanism? You will still need either humans to confirm or an AI to parse news information (made by humans and prone to errors).
I think this is another issue with our previous debate. It seems to me that you want something that hasn’t been developed yet.

30

There is an old phrase in marketing, that Ethereum is not acknowledging… KISS… Keep it simple, stupid.

Ethereum is interesting no doubt and smart contracts will become really important but to my mind Ethereum is just a curiousity atm; it’s a wild blue sky project and then not even alpha attempt at something complex and liable to error; and not one to invest in unless you have that money to burn.

What is likely, is that Etheruem will help resolve what is practical and then on the back of their attempts, others will generate more practical solutions - and cheaper solutions for real problems, rather than ever Ethereum solving all problems in a stable way. I would hope then many of those real world solutions become available via CounterParty or Omni onto BTC blockchain with all the benefit of that chain.

If they get it right first attempt at smart contracts, they will have defied all the odds…

1 Like
31

I think blockchain tech is not the best solution for what they are trying to do. However, it is the only thing up and running. I think SAFE, when compute gets added, will be vastly superior to anything that blockchain tech has to offer. More efficient, faster, better use of resources. However, its not up yet. Ethereum is. I think SAFE can use lessons learned from ethereum to their advantage and for that I’m thankful.

2 Likes
32

They become infinately easier the more and more centralized the source of information is for the smart contract to fulfill its purpose, the core of the program will be , do i pay someone, or do i release a payment ? or do i do a refund or send back to sender ?

The blockchain doesn’t decide what happens , the contract is written with multiple options , do i pay or do i refund?

this smart contract requires a consensus to decide what to do, Usually in the blockchain if it was just the the blockchain would be secured by the many thousands of miners , the consensus thou for what decision this contract takes is based outside of the blockchain , input from outside to tell it exactly what option it should take .

the more centralization of the system the easier it is to manipulate and break , cheat and steal

I am not saying that : “To say ethereum contracts themselves are “centralized” because they all live on a single ledger is to say bitcoin is centralized because they are all on the same ledger… its just not true.”

I am saying that because the way for a contract to decide how and what it does is required outside of the blockchain with some other consensus mechanism that can be more easily manipulated and cannot be decentralized currently and only centralized , that the smart contract can be manipulated into misbehaving and acting in a way it was not designed, that ability to be able to trick said contract increases the more centralized it is , makes it in its current version flawed

33

You create a smart contract that scours 200 different websites that are sports commentators or sports bookies or gambling websites while scouring the whole database of specific inputs of 200 different forums and tagged words for specific words mentioned from forum posts relating to the event . with a statistical % having to be reached for payout.

It’s not something i want, its something that doesn’t exist and i am point that out. it effects the whole core of smart contracts that isn’t out yet so creates huge flaws in their implementation in their current design

34

I have to discontinue this particular part of the discussion. We come from two very different viewpoints that just are not going to be able to mesh. I agree with you that it not the penultimate solution. However, I do not see it as a “huge flaw in design” that makes it not work by any means, nor even slightly centralized. Its decentralized as it can possibly be with current tech. We should continue looking to improve, but that doesn’t mean what is here is flawed.

35

I am saying flawed in a sense of the whole picture , that is 1 part of the problem , Centralization has been witnessed in every single crypto currency in regards to wealth distribution, most coins don’t give power to those holding so much so wealth and power are seperate. I also agree with you on quite a few points , but if a smart contracts end result is determined by a centralized consensus or confirmation , then the system can be cheated , doesn’t make it alllll centralized, doesn’t make the blockchain centralized , but it makes the ability to cheat the system much easier .

The other flaws come from other areas :

economically right this second it costs 5 cents per contract fulfillment , if i was to make a smart contract exchange , each time someone traded with me, it would cost me 5 cents every time a trade comes in , at 0.1% profit , minimum trade on my exchange would be 50 dollars to break even on that trade , Yes they will be lowering the rate , but having an entire business reliant on how much the transactions of each fulfillment will cost is going backwards in my eyes , if you business depends hugely on them cutting fee’s

Micro transaction are practically impossible unless you have huge % fee’s , i could literally attack a smart contract by sending it 1 cent fee’s over and over costing him 5 cents in fee’s every time its activated (yes you can write prevention’s into the code but that destroys any sort of micro transactions)

Sharding and the size of the blockchain is not solved, sharding doesn’t allow the entire network to communicate properly , and becomes even more centralized . augur might just destroy the blockchain if it is adopted hugely and ethereum cannot solve this problem.

but i agree and i will try to explain and expand on particular areas of conversation if we happen to debate again in the future

36

I agree that SAFE Net is not a ledger right now. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘can more easily be gathered from a decentralised source’? I mean thats what Bitcoin does right, act as a ledger for your MAID transactions.

Such as? As in what contract criteria are you referring to?

And what is this expanded ability you are referring to?

37

smart contracts work perfectly for functions within the blockchain , “If my smart contract gets money into this address , it sends another crypto to a specific inputted address” with Atomic transactions this is possible to verify with your contract after 3-4 confirms are seen in your address, it sends coins to another, (obviously the price of bitcoin would need to be worked out which is impossible to tell inside the blockchain)

the blockchain does something , the smart contract see’s it happen , allows for time to pass so its not a lie , pays out money , boom make 200 of those contracts and you got yourself a decentralized exchange.

But what happens when you write a contract “payout rate of 100% to A address and 0% of B address if say manchester united won , pay 0% to A address and 100% to be address B if man city won”

Now this is an extremely simple and stupid contract with no real other parameters just for the example

Now how does the smart contract know who won? It doesn’t. it needs to be told who won , it cannot confirm how the event ended without confirmation from outside the blockchain, then it can decide what to do.

There are many different methods in the works , and that can be viewed now as to how that contract is told what to do.

Augur is a currency , the users report the outcomes of the event , which after 2 months will pay people out depending on how the vote happened , the side with the most votes is correct , so either A or B gets the coins . (obviously a hell of a lot more complex than that but for a core simple example , and not everyone can create a currency where millions of people can potentially decide on the outcome for every single smart contract business made it was be insane, but the majority would still hold the controlling power)

Lisk is using a 101 delegates system, 101 delegates act as deciders and nodes for the health of the network and earn money by reporting these events and functioning correctly

None of these methods are truly decentralized and can be manipulated into making the smart contract pay the wrong people or person , by having a majority power and control over the system. Any part of system that is meant to be decentralized but has a centralized part that require validation, the more centralized something is the easier it is to control and effectively break or function incorrectly for personal gain.

Anything that isn’t directly inside the blockchain will require verification from this group of people, any criteria that has been written into a smart contract that requires verification outside of the blockchain will require these people to report that result

Anything that is outside of the blockchain , requires a verification from a central authority or collection group of people , that will likely be centralized in power and wealth . so anything that doesn’t relate directly to reading the blockchain will require someone , or some group of people to verify it so the smart contract knows what to do, pay A or Pay B for a specific event

the same applies to maidsafe , but maidsafe isn’t just a ledger , It’s a decentralized database for information and decentralized internet , maidsafe has the potential to be hugely more expansive than Bitcoin, so anything inside the maidsafe network could be verified by the network itself(to a certain degree), anything outside the network would require someone or some group to confirm the event happened and what exactly happened.

38

Augur will not only be shutdownable, but will fully cooperate with all government-issued requests for information including those that seek to ID who created what market and who bet on what.

They are trying to “cooperate” with several government backed or owned institutions. Now why would they do that? Because they intend to tell the government to F off the next time someone creates a market for betting on terrorist attacks? I’d say no.

The network has no concept of transaction records and time, so that will be harder than elsewhere.

1 Like