So why not just use the existing legal system? What benifit does adding Satoshi’s Glorious Blockchain to the mess add? A nice thick layer of hype, speculation and outright fraud?
All code has bugs and unforeseen unhandled corner cases. When code is law, all bugs and unhandled cases become law too. Do you want your law to veer into unhandled territory because your developers didn’t consider some random edge case?
Ergo, smart contracts are a completely broken idea. Sorry.
This application doesn't make the current legal system obsolete! I don't envision anyone using Stochastic to do a multi-million dollar contract at least for the foreseeable future!
We are not doing an ICO, we are not even holding people's Bitcoin we only hold part of the keys to a contract, how can you consider this application a fraud, it's currently free to use. We may add paid features later on but it's free right now.
I agree with you on the topic of code is law can be a bad thing. But it can also have some positive aspects, like removing trusted 3rd parties!
We are using Bitcoin Script, which unlike Solidity (Ethereum's smart contract language) it is very dumb, very strict and limited for the exact reason you stated.
If code is not law, how does it remove 3rd parties? Every “code contract” of any real importance is going to be “exploited” because, again, all code has bugs and unhandled cases. Meaning a contract for anything real will wind up in some kind of human-needing state.
Sorry, smart contacts are pretty worthless. The only real use ethereum has is for creating ICOs, which are all scams. You could argue that ethereum is a world class platform for running scams. How will this be anything different? If the language is bastardized so it is not Turing compete and is thus impossible to build anything complex, what point does it have?
Again, this has nothing to do with the type of smart contracts you are referring to. There's no code on the blockchain involved. The contract in this case is an actual contract, a legal document between two parties.
You should actually click the link. It's a job/contract board where you pay with Bitcoin. The only "smart" part is that you can lock up your funds to show that the money exist but the actual execution is still centralized and backed by the existing legal system you talk about.
Not saying the service is good or bad but your rant is off topic!
I think people are going to find out we dont actually want decentralization on lots of fields.
I love Bitcoin and the concept of decentralized currency, but a decentralized logistics system, media, files, etc... sound like it will run into major issues when disputes happen or changes need to be done.
Not to mention the cost of blockchain is far more expensive than having a centralized database.
I've recently come to this tough realization myself after seeing what a mess javascript heavy apps can create. I'm sure theres some way to do it "right", but I felt like building a js clientside app inherently put me behind where static sites where starting.
The solution? Server side rendering through next.js, same code via redux+react-router+react.
I'm sure theres some way to do it "right", but I felt like building a js clientside app inherently put me behind where static sites where starting.
For a long standing production app, my suggestion is to start with a plan for a better layout/architecture in your fancy new framework, but start by emulating the old UI. The new framework is often flexible and powerful enough to do this. If it isn't, then I might question its validity.
Its strange that Amazon did this, because its clearly not because of licencing (you didn't restrict it). Although this does happen quite frequently for me, mostly when clicking links on reddit (streamable for the win)
I ranted about this in the unofficial Alexa Slack team and the people there gave some plausible (but unsatisfying) reasons why it works like that. I'm not a huge fan of Amazon though, so I'm happy to blame them. Essentially it boils down to different regions being treated as different "languages" as well as having features rolled out to them at different rates.
No, as a random shareholder you're not automatically entitled to all the details.
You are, however, entitled to the following three things:
1) Whatever information they provide has to be actually true to the best of their knowledge; so they can be vague or secretive, but "more than 100 million" has to literally mean that;
2) There's a set of core information that you are entitled to, but it doesn't go into as much detail;
3) Shareholders as a whole are entitled to whatever information they want; they can elect a board that will ensure that as much detail as you want gets publicized. But it's not likely that most shareholders in a public company will consider it a worthwhile decision.
Look at Apple as another example. They disclose the number of iPhones, iPads and Macs they sell, but they don't disclose:
- how much they make from Beats even though it was their largest acquisition.
- the number of watches or AppleTVs they sell. They are both assumed to be 1 billion dollar businesses.
- they say they have over 38 million subscribers to Apple Music but never give an exact number. Even though Apple Music is a $4 billion+ a year business.
You're entitled to know how much they make from Prime, but not the business specifics (you can't extract information from the profit, either, as not all prime costs the same - there is student membership, month-to-month, yearly, etc)
