Priority Queue on Ethereum with a 15 ETH Bug Bounty (opens in new tab)

The term “Smart contracts” (Ethereum/EOS/hyperledger) is often used with wild claims for supply chains and cross border business deals, but why would any real business want to use a public blockchain?

Smart contracts can’t even do anything interesting without a trusted source of data input. The threat model and legal questions of smart contracts are another huge deterrent for most businesses.

Latency, throughput, security threats, and cost are all fairly understood with normal databases, yet with blockchain software all of these are measurably worse.

Where are the completed successful smart contracts deployed?

Why would any person or business want/need to use an existing blockchain when some bug or mining operator might cause a catastrophe of that system, who would they sue for damages?

A single user who spent less than $5000 crashed the entire market for Ethereum last summer. Most of the supply of ETH, XMR, BTC and other crypto tokens are owned by a very small population of crypto-oligarchs.

It all seems like a marketing scheme to sell cyber beanie babies to people who are unfamiliar with the engineering flaws in distributing computing and the marketing lies from “investors” who need to pump the price on their magic beans.

I don't want to be anti-blockchain, but I have yet to come across any problems that are solved better with a blockchain than with any other traditional technology - except for the original one, a distributed electronic currency.

I personally thought I had an open mind about it but it keeps over promising and under delivering (the most extreme example is the rhetoric surrounding the DAO on the ethereum platform). It's undoubtedly a cool technology but at a certain point it's hard to muster any excitement anymore.

You're making a strawman argument here. People who have speculated money in blockchains have a financial incentive to be vocal and overhype the technology while minimizing the many drawbacks it has. So I think a bit of "knee-jerk" skepticism is warranted around anything related to cryptocurrencies.

So maybe instead of building strawmen you could tell us what you find so fascinating about smart contracts? Who knows, you might end up convincing some of us haters. Not me though, I'm too busy wishing with my entire being for it to fail. It's better than running for cardio.

What's sad is the spectacle that has arisen around this novel area over the last several years, the breathless enthusiasm, the handwaving away of concerns, the absolute mindless utopianism that has surrounded this stuff.

Are Smart Contracts interesting? Sure. But they don't address all areas of contract law very well, and they certainly seem like they could well be misused as a way to circumvent a lot of the protections we currently have in place.

Are cryptocurrencies interesting? Again yes, but they don't actually appear to be a very good fit for anything in particular, and they do seem to have a lot of poor economic ideas baked in.

So while blockchains are an interesting set of data structures, a lot of the hate and disparagement comes from the (almost 10) years of relentless hype coupled with the complete failure for any of the great promises to appear. Instead we see exactly what was predictable - hoarding and speculation, scams and fraud.

> However, I think smart contracts are fascinating and wish more people would keep an open mind.

Does it occur to you someone might've had an open mind, and made up their mind?

Your comment assumes such isn't possible, yet your comment polarises the discussion (aka "flamebait") which isn't about the linked article at all. The amount of comments which are on-topic in this thread is zero with a large amount spawning from your initial post. Yet, the linked article is fascinating? Well, I'd love to read the on-topic discussion on it to read about it further.

I think it’s more a reaction to the con artists that infested the whole industry than the technology itself.

> It’s sad that there is a vocal group, especially on HN, that knee-jerk hates everything blockchain related and wishes with their entire being for it to fail.

Given the generally high level of comments here at HN, I wonder if it has ever crossed your mind that it might, just might, not actually be knee-jerk hate but you simply being wrong in the novelty and general awesomeness of cryptocurrencies?

I definitely agree with you about the anti-blockchain bubble that's formed, but I think that there are a few unanswered questions about non-technological factors (shameless self-promotion: [1]) that will unfortunately limit them to be little more than interesting technologies for now.

[1] https://www.notion.so/Yet-Another-Rant-About-Blockchains-ece...

I love the idea behind blockchains and smart contracts, but:

1) I don't think smart contracts should be programmed in JavaScript,

2) it would be better if smart contracts were actually treated as law,

3) most problems that are currently being hyped/solved with blockchain would better be solved with a public signed git repository, and

4) blockchains, as currently implemented, are immensely wasteful (I'm hoping this changes with more research).

I don't understand how the fact that the author solved a novel problem and then posted a bounty points to "flaws of ETH". Could you elaborate?

Also, what do you mean by "Bitcoin not blockchain"?

The fact that what is a necessity? New data structures? Why wouldn't you expect new data structures in absolutely any new environment?

What about open-mindedness, not maximalism

Or neither Bitcoin nor Blockchain. The thing is, inflation is actually what keeps the entire economy moving. Deflationary currencies actively dissuade investment and lending. What would a loan even look like denominated in a deflationary currency? Lenders are incentivized not to give you the one, as their cash reserves appreciate risk-free.

Oh, and also, why trust this random ad-hoc group of self-appointed economists (the core dev team) over a selected group of professional economists with degrees an arms-length away from politics (the federal reserve)? None of it makes sense. If the core team wants to create more bitcoin they can. Just like the fed.

Inflation is not a bad thing - it's solely a regular haircut for unproductive capital. Nobody should be hoarding cash. They should invest. Salaries are indexed for inflation so they don't go down. This isn't rocket science.

Because you know if you can find a given flaw, someone else can; and whoever attacks second gets nothing.

Bug bounties aren't aimed at malicious actors, or an attempt to outbid the black market. There's a lot of non malicious people out there who are still competent hackers.

Thanks, I basically did a brain dump on the README. I plan do do many more bounties like it in the future. Really glad it's made some traction.

> […] if people want to test their exploits for free first […]

This sounds like a bad idea, since it would allow other people to extract the script and put it inside a transaction that’s published on the real network, thus unfairly claiming the bounty.