"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 …
-
-
Well I wouldn’t and didn’t say “only”, but I think that multisig, together with tokenization, is what most people attempt to do with EVM “smart contracts”. What else?
-
CFDs, derivatives, rule-based pools of money, trust-minimized intermediation of cash flows, tons of things.
-
Maybe I’m talking to the wrong people. I wish I knew more folks who are interested in using smart contracts for that kind of thing. Usually I find myself walking clients through why smart contracts might not be the best fit for a dating app
-
On this particular topic (in contrast to most others crypto-related), people focused on Bitcoin are definitely the wrong people to talk to. But the Ethereum community is very noisy so it is hard to find the many valuable needles in its haystack.
-
If Turing complete smart contracts could indeed produce value, that still leaves a big question: if it should be on a standalone “Turing complete, decentralize all the things” chain or built on top of a secure, low entropy, immutable sound money (as a sidecchain / other layer)
-
Well you’d have to first show us how to build it as a second layer though
-
There are probably ways to approximate the Turing complete needs without actually being fully Turing complete. Isn’t this the goal of simplicity? But I do think this is one of the most important areas of research
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
it's been years and there are no secure multisig ethereum wallets. Multisig should be low level like in Bitcoin
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.