"We won't need lawyers in the (blockchain-dominated) future"? I think this is largely naive -- we'll likely still need lawyers, but we will be calling them "developers", "security researchers"... Am I missing something?
-
-
Replying to @rootkovska
Well, we certainly need lawyers to argue whether executing a certain function in a certain way honored the intent of the contract.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
??? This doesn't make sense to me. If you can execute it it honors the contract. That's the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyperfekt
How come people talk about "stealing" money by "exploiting vulnerabilities" then? Why the hard fork after the DAO incident?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
The DAO incident arguably was an exception, not the rule. Are you trying to imply that the current state of DApp security is to be fixed by regarding the blockchain state as just a recommendation?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyperfekt
Well, the alternative is that all bugs are up for grabs by hackers. Is that the better world?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @andreasdotorg
I'm not saying it's a better world, I'm saying it's the only sensible world. As I said, you can still build in additional governance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
*taking notes here for the big heist*
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.