jubalix (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
|
 |
June 19, 2016, 10:52:47 AM |
|
Vitalikhttps://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and “fairness” is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem" well yes it can:If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code"). When I read Vitalik, its boils down to semantics, buzz words and a spin not hard logic/maths, contra vitalik to the white paper of satoshi. Satoshi is almost all business and proofs. Vitalik is obviously good at galveinsing capital behind a project and networking with people, just not so much as CEO of a code based contracts system it seems, as he does not have the understanding to select the coding team and understand what they tell him.
|
|
|
|
benthach
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 19, 2016, 10:58:41 AM |
|
Vitalikhttps://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and “fairness” is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem" well yes it can:If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code"). When I read Vitalik, its boils down to semantics, buzz words and a spin not hard logic/maths, contra vitalik to the white paper of satoshi. Satoshi is almost all business and proofs. Vitalik is obviously good at galveinsing capital behind a project and networking with people, just not so much as CEO of a code based contracts system it seems, as he does not have the understanding to select the coding team and understand what they tell him. vitalik is a no one, just a homeless little kid who spent years attending every bitcoin events to spreads his idea, some dumb whale jump on his boat and ignited this huge crazy fake pump to make everyone fear of miśsing out. he have zero coding credibility. all the eth included smart contract is code by stephan tual, the creator of the dao. |
reddit btcwriter1 - twitter kingpininvestor
|
|
|
|
RussianMiner
|
|
June 19, 2016, 11:00:15 AM |
|
Don't worry, they will fix it in one way or another
They gonna make PoS hardfork anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
jubalix (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
|
|
June 19, 2016, 11:24:32 AM |
|
Vitalikhttps://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and “fairness” is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem" well yes it can:If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code"). When I read Vitalik, its boils down to semantics, buzz words and a spin not hard logic/maths, contra vitalik to the white paper of satoshi. Satoshi is almost all business and proofs. Vitalik is obviously good at galveinsing capital behind a project and networking with people, just not so much as CEO of a code based contracts system it seems, as he does not have the understanding to select the coding team and understand what they tell him. vitalik is a no one, just a homeless little kid who spent years attending every bitcoin events to spreads his idea, some dumb whale jump on his boat and ignited this huge crazy fake pump to make everyone fear of miśsing out. he have zero coding credibility. all the eth included smart contract is code by stephan tual, the creator of the dao. I don't think that he is no - one, but it seems there are some largish holes / miss match in his skill set versus the product he is the figurehead for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
maxsinner
|
|
June 19, 2016, 12:25:58 PM |
|
Vitalik should get a lot more heat for his involvement with the DAO and especially declaring he was buying DAO tokens right after the security breach. What a greedy bastard. It's not like he did not make enough money from ETH alone. He can make millions from consultancy fees without the need to rape all ETH followers buy getting attached to scammy side projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
June 19, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
Last edit: June 19, 2016, 12:41:26 PM by iamnotback |
|
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself and link to my explanation that the quoted Reddit above is INCORRECT! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15273470#msg15273470Vitalik is correct. The Reddit post is not. Period. Turning-complete programming on a block chain can't be guaranteed to be secure. There will always be a gap between "intent" and "execution". The fundamental reason is tied into the Halting problem, in that one can't prove an absolute negative, e.g. prove that no dinosaurs are still alive any where in the universe. It is undecideable. Fundamentally this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that time is irreversible so entropy is unbounded. The only way that wouldn't be the case would be if the speed-of-light was not finite, but then the past and future would collapse into the same infinitesimal point of nothingness and nothing could exist. Theorem provers such as Coq produce output that is not Turing-complete. Yet that isn't even relevant, because "intent" can't be absolutely quantified in code or specification because interpretation is relative, i.e. the only account of history which is 100% certain doesn't exist (people will disagree on what happened because no one was every where in real-time, i.e. the speed-of-light is finite). If you can't grasp this, don't fret. It requires a high level of intellect and also understanding of several fields including computer science and physics. The bottom line is that Turing-complete programming on a block chain is "a can of worms" which is what we all told Ethereum since back in 2013 when Vitalik first proposed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rastanan
|
|
June 19, 2016, 12:33:34 PM |
|
Vitalik should get a lot more heat for his involvement with the DAO and especially declaring he was buying DAO tokens right after the security breach. What a greedy bastard. It's not like he did not make enough money from ETH alone. He can make millions from consultancy fees without the need to rape all ETH followers buy getting attached to scammy side projects.
Do you have the source of the story that he bought more DAO after the breach yesterday? I would like to know. |
|
|
|
|
BitUsher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1034
|
|
June 19, 2016, 03:51:31 PM |
|
Yeah, Sure ....  Never Forget! 17/Jun/2016 Vitalik Buterin on brink of 1st bailout for DAOs |
|
|
|
|
Spoetnik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1011
FUD Philanthropist™
|
|
June 19, 2016, 04:10:58 PM |
|
He can get his scrawny little smug ass over here with a real account to talk of he wants. What ? You think he doesn't know about this forum section where his "coin" is posted ? You think he owes you all an explanation or at least some occasional updates ? Fuck NO ! He is above all you Investard Peons.. He only made the shit storm called ETHEREUM. (Knowing full well it would be traded for profit) NOT USED FOR DAPPS .. AKA: *trying* to play the plausible deniability card. The brat unleashed an ICO Pyramid Scheme Coin coin scam Then i guarantee was helping behind the scene spam the fuck out of this place about it. And later.. CASHED OUT and told you all ! How did you all react to it all since 2014 ? WHO GIVES A SHIT AS AS LONG AS I PROFIT FROM IT......... TOO ! Ya.. let's lynch mob him now ROFL Not like all of you were not responsible for all this idiocy too ahhahahahah ..ya blame him for it all (not the Investards who pushed it to 18 bucks a coin LOL) YOU ALL DESERVE IT ..enjoy mETH heads ROFL "dapps"  |
FUD first & ask questions later™ |
|
|
jubalix (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
|
|
June 19, 2016, 10:17:25 PM |
|
Yeah, Sure .... Never Forget! 17/Jun/2016 Vitalik Buterin on brink of 1st bailout for DAOs yes...and this is exactly what happened a unstoppable program and contract was executed.....it just looked like cheating, but it wasn't the maths did not care....the investors just did not realise what this really meant. The smartest person will get the money. |
|
|
|
jubalix (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
|
|
June 19, 2016, 10:19:42 PM |
|
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself and link to my explanation that the quoted Reddit above is INCORRECT! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15273470#msg15273470Vitalik is correct. The Reddit post is not. Period. Turning-complete programming on a block chain can't be guaranteed to be secure. There will always be a gap between "intent" and "execution". The fundamental reason is tied into the Halting problem, in that one can't prove an absolute negative, e.g. prove that no dinosaurs are still alive any where in the universe. It is undecideable. Fundamentally this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that time is irreversible so entropy is unbounded. The only way that wouldn't be the case would be if the speed-of-light was not finite, but then the past and future would collapse into the same infinitesimal point of nothingness and nothing could exist. Theorem provers such as Coq produce output that is not Turing-complete. Yet that isn't even relevant, because "intent" can't be absolutely quantified in code or specification because interpretation is relative, i.e. the only account of history which is 100% certain doesn't exist (people will disagree on what happened because no one was every where in real-time, i.e. the speed-of-light is finite). If you can't grasp this, don't fret. It requires a high level of intellect and also understanding of several fields including computer science and physics. The bottom line is that Turing-complete programming on a block chain is "a can of worms" which is what we all told Ethereum since back in 2013 when Vitalik first proposed it. Yeah no. you can make it so the likelyhood is so unlikely is negligible, we all know about the halting problem. Burn a piece of paper and it could reform from its ash spontaneously as reslut of local conditions.... but its pretty unlikely. Much like a key clash is unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
June 19, 2016, 10:24:33 PM |
|
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself and link to my explanation that the quoted Reddit above is INCORRECT! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15273470#msg15273470Vitalik is correct. The Reddit post is not. Period. Turning-complete programming on a block chain can't be guaranteed to be secure. There will always be a gap between "intent" and "execution". The fundamental reason is tied into the Halting problem, in that one can't prove an absolute negative, e.g. prove that no dinosaurs are still alive any where in the universe. It is undecideable. Fundamentally this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that time is irreversible so entropy is unbounded. The only way that wouldn't be the case would be if the speed-of-light was not finite, but then the past and future would collapse into the same infinitesimal point of nothingness and nothing could exist. Theorem provers such as Coq produce output that is not Turing-complete. Yet that isn't even relevant, because "intent" can't be absolutely quantified in code or specification because interpretation is relative, i.e. the only account of history which is 100% certain doesn't exist (people will disagree on what happened because no one was every where in real-time, i.e. the speed-of-light is finite). If you can't grasp this, don't fret. It requires a high level of intellect and also understanding of several fields including computer science and physics. The bottom line is that Turing-complete programming on a block chain is "a can of worms" which is what we all told Ethereum since back in 2013 when Vitalik first proposed it. Yeah no. you can make it so the likelyhood is so unlikely is negligible, we all know about the halting problem. Burn a piece of paper and it could reform from its ash spontaneously as reslut of local conditions.... but its pretty unlikely. Much like a key clash is unlikely. If you use formal logic, you give up Turing-completeness. Ditto a declarative language which is not Turing-complete. And thus your programs can't do everything you might want them to do. For example, HTML is not Turing-complete (unless you add JavaScript code). If you would like to have technical debate with me, please do it in the the following linked thread (not in this thread as I don't want my discussion spread around in so many threads): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15273470#msg15273470I don't think you understand the issue of unbounded recursion and how it even applies to higher-level semantics. Are you expert in the field of programming language design? You may wish to observe some of my recent research and discussion on PL design for example: https://gist.github.com/shelby3/3829dbad408c9c043695e006a1581d19 |
|
|
|
|
|
