You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
"turing complete is the wrong tool... what our systems do is verification, not computation. This cognitive error confers no advantage, outside of marketing to people with a fuzzy idea of what smart contracts might be good for...” gmaxwell, 2016 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127 …
That take has many problems. 1/almost all biz logic is in P, so that verification is about as expensive as the original computation. 2/in biz logic verification is seldom simpler than the original computation. 3/Turing completeness is largely orthogonal to P vs. NP.
![Anthony Lusardi 🍕🥯 ₯ [#DePi #NGU]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1160993052460273664/9pJ7ybut_normal.jpg)
I don’t know if that’s what Greg meant, but from my experience what most people try to do with Ethereum’s “smart contracts” is just adding semantics to multisig. You get the same properties, but get to name the function call. That’s very wasteful, and it’s security theater too
And that’s without mentioning the more popular use case, which is creating a ledger for an arbitrary token. Calling this a “smart contract” is pretty problematic imo
P.S. for Bitcoin's focus as a trust-minimized global store of value, it pays to be very conservative about this kind of thing. But that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of other useful things you can do -- there are, including stuff my company has developed.
Oh I’m sure there are. But, from my experience, I believe the majority of the broad Ethereum community refer to EVM “smart contracts” as a way to run arbitrary “apps” (like “decentralized Uber”), and those usually seem to be just multisig with semantics
I suspect biz logic is usually dominated by signature checks in execution time. It may consist of more instructions, but only because we have powerful cryptographic primitives. And MAST can reduce verifying of both.
Even if total functional can prevent infinite loops, nodes need to know an upper limit on comp before processing. ETH’s gas mechanism is imperative: A tx’s validity can be computed in O(1) (sig, bal), then sender pays for the more complex verification of intended state update
You can't verify existence of bugs onchain. DAO "hack" was verified by all nodes, yet was not prevented. IMO smart contracts should done as oracles, but in such way so anyone that wants can verify that oracles were honest.
Turing completeness can always create unintended outputs thats why the turing machine failed bad outcomes can happen in a second or years from now thats why Church and Turing squashed Turings own theory https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/ …
It's left up to agents creating & being controlled by contracts to expand & economize assets they & the contracts control, but it would be great if an architecture of contracts , if not the protocol itself, were able to seek optimizations beyond the invisible hand.
Contracts should be turing complete & verification is just as key as the simplest contracts, e.g. value transfer. Macro-level computation for optimization is feasible but most of it has to be off-loaded. It would be good if all that mining power was seeking optimizations.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
