For black hats?
-
-
Replying to @Astrophizz @Pinboard
It means that the participants in a system bear the costs of flaws in that system. Legacy institutions externalize the cost of security failures - it's borne by the people whose private information is leaked, not the institutions themselves absent lawsuits.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That's still the case with these, as far as I can tell. What recourse do you have with whatever party created the smart contract for you that had a critical flaw?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Astrophizz @Pinboard
Usually, the party that created the smart contract has a large amount (everything) to lose if there's a flaw in their contract.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Their business might fold if it's a big enough problem across their customer base, but I imagine that's cold comfort for the victims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Astrophizz @Pinboard
The alternative today is that after 5 years, you get an award of $2 and a subscription to an identity-theft-monitoring service as the result of a class-action lawsuit. I'm not sure how that's much more comfort than seeing the company go under.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
While there are scenarios where you often don't get everything that you need there are scenarios where you do and at a minimum, there is a chance of restitution. With immutable, self-reliant contracts there is none.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Astrophizz @Pinboard
Sure; on the other hand, it's much easier to perform accurate risk assessment when you can (either personally or by proxy) audit the code of the contracts you choose to interact with. Trying to do that with a centralized institution is hopeless.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nuttycom @Astrophizz
I wouldn't put as much faith in auditing as you do. Remember we live in a world where binary search in one of the most popular computer textbooks (a 15 line algorithm) was broken for 20+ years.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard @Astrophizz
I don't think audits give you certainty. But I also don't think that we should regard the present arrangement of our financial institutions with anything but the greatest skepticism - I think that regulatory capture and self-dealing are rampant; those externalities matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree with you, but as a *user* the financial system protects me in a way that these architectures don't. The "decentralized" model relies just as much on trusted entities, except ones that don't have any of the institutional machinery around them and are run by mountebanks.
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.