Post 2225331 by mhall119@fosstodon.org
 (DIR) More posts by mhall119@fosstodon.org
 (DIR) Post #2225303 by cwebber@octodon.social
       2018-11-20T14:37:56Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       It disappoints me that Etherium did such a good job of making people think that "smart contracts" are only for code that runs on a blockchain.  That term exists before blockchains has, and was used for distributed transactional agreements between parties since the 90s.  While smart contracts on blockchains is absolutely an application, in the 90s smart contracts ran on even just the actor model.  You can read more here: http://erights.org/smart-contracts/index.html
       
 (DIR) Post #2225323 by axx@mstdn.fr
       2018-11-20T14:52:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber Fair, but before blockchain networks you really have to trust the (computing) executing party is going to respect the "contract" (the program really) and run it without modifying it. BC networks makes it easier to trust it will run without cheating. Also, "smart contracts" is a terrible name, as they are neither smart nor really contracts.
       
 (DIR) Post #2225324 by cwebber@octodon.social
       2018-11-20T15:29:16Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @axx smart contracts in the non-blockchain system involved scopes of trust, where you could be ensure that the integrity of the system will preserve *certain* aspects.  The key is there isn't "one" executing parties, but multiple, across different machines, possibly playing different roles.
       
 (DIR) Post #2225331 by mhall119@fosstodon.org
       2018-11-20T17:03:49Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber Everybody who used "crypto" to mean cryptography understands your frustration