The entire and only possible point of a "smart contract" language is to bind two signed event structures ("blockchains") together. Thus these languages MUST be in terms of logical invariants of such structures, and to allow for universal quantification MUST be interactive proofs.
-
Show this thread
-
Do such languages need to be Turing complete or would a datalog-like language suffice? What about a TLA+ derived language? Clearly the implementation would need to be proved out. Turing completeness seems like overkill and a large attack surface.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @coopsource @sbelak
So the meta-language is not just "Turing complete" but "logic complete", and yet the fragment (threatened to be) executed on the blockchain is designed to provably terminate, and in a known number of steps.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Thought experiment: in the future, Million Dollar Problems in Mathematics can be put on a blockchain and whoever finds a solution can anonymously self-checkout by unlocking the corresponding contract.3
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!