Slock.it - Crunchbase Company Profile & Funding

EthCrowdfund: Crowdsale events funding Ethereum DAOs

EthCrowdfund is a subreddit dedicated to news covering past and present crowdsale events funding Ethereum blockchain organizations. Posts include, but are not limited to, discussion related to the Digix, Augur and Plutus crowdfunding events.
[link]

web3.0

Web3 is a vision, idea, and movement for a decentralized web. Web3 is free of third party intermediaries and makes it so that infrining on individual's privacy is extremely expensive. Web3 was term coined by Dr. Gavin Wood in a 2014 blog post: http://gavwood.com/web3lt.html.
[link]

EthTrader Testing

[link]

Congrats!: "Slock.it secures $2 million USD seed funding to build next-generation Sharing Economy Platform" (Yes, on Ethereum. No, no ICO)

Congrats!: submitted by cryptopascal to ethereum [link] [comments]

The bug which the "DAO hacker" exploited was *not* "merely in the DAO itself" (ie, *separate* from Ethereum). The bug was in Ethereum's *language design* itself (Solidity / EVM - Ethereum Virtual Machine) - shown by the "recursive call bug discovery" divulged (and dismissed) on slock.it last week.

Hi - I've never posted on this forum before, and I do not know all the intricacies of Ethereum yet - but I've been starting to learn more after the disaster involving "The DAO".
I usually post over on btc, and I posted something there today on the disaster - basically giving my "diagnosis" (opinion) that this problem happened because of poor language design - and also providing some suggestions, based on ideas from the area of language design.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
Yes, I realize the OP is a bit harsh. I do think Vitalik is a smart guy. But I also think that tens of millions of dollars almost evaporated here, and I would like to provide a perspective based on language design - which might be somewhat different from what we've already heard from Emin Gün Sirer in his post mortem which also appeared recently.
TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code"). I suspect many people (raised in a world where JavaScript is the "assembly language of the web") might not know about some of the history and possibly related work. So take this as a stern lecture telling you to take a good look at the history of functional languages (and specification vs implementation languages) as used in mission-critical projects, including finance - which, even when using such tools, are still very hard to get right - as we can see from the decades-long history of failures of major projects in defense, healthcare, aerospace, etc.
Below is the OP original posted on btc:
The world already has enough crappy buggy websites based on a mish-mash of error-prone procedural JavaScript - a low-level, procedural language which is notorious for its lack of formal semantics and verification.
JavaScript is such a mess that almost no webdesigners directly program in it any more - they work in one of the many higher-level "JavaScript frameworks", and/or use a higher-level language which "compiles to" JavaScript.
The mere fact that there are so many of these higher-level alternatives simply proves that a low-level language like JavaScript is not useful on its own:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=%2Fhtml&q=languages+that+compile+to+javascript&ia=web
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS
JavaScript is the "assembly language" of the web:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=javascript+assembly+language+web&t=disconnect&ia=web
Every day, you visit websites (on your computer, on your smartphone) where some JavaScript error occurs. The page is displayed incorrectly, and you go on with your life.
There is a reason why crappy error-prone procedural low-level languages like JavaScript aren't used to power nuclear reactors, or missile systems, or X-ray machines - or financial applications.
Programs produced by these crappy low-level procedural languages routinely have bugs.
These languages are only used for unimportant things like consumer-facing websites.
(And most of those pages were not even written directly in JavaScript - they used one of those higher-level frameworks / languages in the first links above. But still - the website generated errors.)
What do the Big Boys use?
The US Department of Defense doesn't program missile systems in low-level procedural languages like JavaScript - they use languages like ADA and Spark (and higher-level specification languages like ANNA) - where the language design itself guarantees that things like some ridiculous "recursive call bug" simply cannot happen - and where the use of a specification language forces the programmer to spell out in advance what the program is supposed to do, before digging down into the implementation details of how it's supposed to do it.
And your boring old bank uses declarative workhorses like SQL - where most of the work can be done without even running any procedural code - avoiding the very notion of "recursion" in the first place.
Now, some Ethereum devs put together an investment fund controlling a quarter of a billion dollars - using a language which looks and feels (and runs) a helluva lot like JavaScript: Ethereum's Solidity.
And the whole thing blew up in their face - because the language design of Ethereum's Solidity was total wrong.
Contractual law / human society should not run by these kinds of crappy bug-prone low-level procedural languages.
The Big Boys derive provably correct implementations from very-high-level specifications
Note that "The DAO" had two different "descriptions":
  • An non-binding, high-level, more human-readable one (in ancillary materials, posted separately)
  • A binding, low-level, less human-readable one (the actual code)
This is ok for unimportant projects.
But for important projects, the "high-level, more human-readable" version is actually written in a formal specification language which supports things like automatically deriving the implementation from it (and mathematicaly proving that the implementation is correct - ie, that is satisfies the specification).
So, when using a formal specification language coupled with an implementation language, the two verions of the system are "linked" - ie, the implementation is mechanistically derived from the specification, and formal tools for derivation and validation can be used to mathematically prove that the (less human-readable) implementation has the exact same semantics as the (more human-readable) specification.
How many cryptocurrency scripting kiddies actually know this stuff?
Lots of this stuff is probably foreign to all these scripting kiddies and web designers whose concept of "programming" up till now has basically been "Hey let's slap some JavaScript onto a web page!"
I can assure you - there are many, many programmers who would never touch that world with a ten-foot pole.
They work for the Department of Defense, they work on Wall Street (on back-office systems - handling billions of dollars), they develop software running nuclear reactors or MRI machines - or they do research and development at academic institutions.
For many of these people (in the academic world), even a supposedly "well-defined" and "battle-tested" language like C/C++ is totally "beneath" them.
I have heard theoretical computer scientists, working on DARPA-funded language design projects, say that they wanted to avoid using C/C++ as an implementation language "because it lacks a clearly defined semantics." (These are academics who use things like functional languages, algebraic languages, etc. - which are often more "declarative" in nature, versus the "procedural" languages many casual programmers use).
There is a whole world of programming where not only "GOTO" is ridiculed - but even commonly used procedural constructs "for-loops" and "try/throw/catch" blocks for exceptions are also avoided.
Get serious or GTFO
The only acceptable, serious approach for doing stuff like "smart contracts" or the "The DAO" must be based on much more serious languages than this silly "Solidity" invented by some kid - eg, if we're going to start migrating contractual law onto machines, then the only languages we should be using must:
  • be "functional" (eg, from the family of Haskell/ML) - not procedural languages (eg, C/C++, Java, JavaScript, etc.)
  • support high-level, formal tools for program specification, derivation, and validation
As far as I'm concerned, if we want machines to run our contractual law and financial structures, then the minimal acceptable approach must be:
  • implementing in a functional language like Ocaml (used with great success by Jane Street, a Wall Street firm - check out their videos on YouTube)
  • and long-term, we should think about specifying using a language like Coq (a theorem prover which can be used to derive machine-runnable Ocaml programs/implementations from human-readable specifications).
Kids think the glass is half-full. Pros know it's half-empty.
Maybe all this sounds totally foreign and complicated to today's "scripting kiddies" - the kinds of people like Mark Karepelès who thought he could process hundreds of millions of dollars using that "fractal of bad design" known as PHP - and now Vitalik - who seems like a smart kid, but still, I wonder:
  • how much he's studied up on things like functional languages, or
  • if he's even heard of the Curry-Howard Isomophism, and understands how it can be applied to the problem of developing human-readable specifications (analogous to theorems), and deriving provably correct machine-runnable implementations/programs (analogous to proofs) from them
  • if he's heard of stuff like NATO's 1968 conference on the "software crisis" - which many believe is still not resolved
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nato+1968+software+crisis&ia=web
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_crisis
  • if he's aware of the "AI Winter" - the fact that most researchers consider Artificial Intelligence to be a failure
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=AI+winter&t=disconnect&ia=about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
The above all reflect the fact that computer programming as practiced by most people in the industry today is actually a total fucking disaster.
"Lethal software" is a thing.
http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2014/03/lethal-software-defects-patriot-missile-failure/
"Worse is better" is a (tongue-in-cheek) programming design philosophy.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22worse+is+better%22&t=disconnect&ia=about
"Release early, release often" is an industry slogan - to get your "minimally viable" product out there, despite the fact that it isn't actually ready for prime time yet.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Release+early%2C+release+often%22&t=disconnect&ia=about
"Waterfall" and "agile" and "Xtreme" and countless other software development and management methodologies have been proposed, out of desperation, to deal with the fact that many programming projects, using popular "procedural" languages, fail.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=waterfall+agile+xtreme&t=disconnect&ia=web
These methodologies do all work "more-or-less" - but note that they all rely heavily on stuff outside the code (mostly meetings, pep talks, quality assurance testing, etc.) - and they have been proposed out of a dire necessity - the fact that "the code itself" normally does not work right, without continual human prodding from managerial types.
We almost never trust "the code itself" to work properly. Because after a few decades of experience (using these crappy languages), we know that it almost never does.
More examples of failed projects and "lethal software"
  • The newly constructed Denver Airport was held up for years because the developers couldn't get the software right for the baggage handling system.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=denver+airport+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • In one of America's many recent wars (there's so many, I can't keep track of which one that was), over in the Mid-East, the defense systems used against SCUD missiles didn't work - due to software errors.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patriot+scud+missiles+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • The Ariane rocket (a $7 billion project) blew up - causing $500 in damage.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ariane+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • The Mars Climate Orbiter burned up in the Martial atmosphere - because the engineers screws up converting between metric and imperial. (By the way, type systems as used functional languages have ways of easily preventing this kind of problem - but in most procecural languages, it's much harder.)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mars+climate+orbiter+newtons+&t=disconnect&ia=about
  • The rollout of the healthcare.gov website for Obamacare was a disaster - but to be fair, that involved trying to get hundreds of different backends from all the private insurance companies to talk to each other, so maybe that was to be expected.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=healthcare.gov+disastrous+rollout&t=disconnect&ia=web
Software development is a mess
The take-away is: software development is a mess - even when it's done by Wall Street or NASA or the Department of Defense, incorporating "functional" languages, or "formal methods" supporting an initial "specification" followed by a derived (and supposedly "provably correct") "implementation".
So... the lesson is... a newly-invented language like Solidity... which people thought was "cool" because it "looked like" JavaScript - is nowhere near the kind of rigorous, absolutely safe level required for handling a quarter of a billion dollars in people's actual wealth.
Vitalik seems like a great guy - but this whole area of "smart conctracts" and "distributed automous organizations" will have to attract many more serious heavyweights from industry and academia before it will be safe enough to run contractual law and financial structures controlling hundreds of millions of dollars in people's actual money and affecting people's actual lives.
Some random links
To give one tiny example (and I'm not saying that Ethereum or "The DAO" necessary has to use this sort of thing - I'm just curious as to what people's backgrounds might be) - does anyone involved with Ethereum or "The DAO" have a passing acquaintance (perhaps from years ago), with historical, related work like the following:
Composing contracts: an adventure in financial engineering - Simon Peyton Jones
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/financial-contracts/contracts-icfp.pdf
Caml Trading - Yaron Minsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKcOkWzj0_s
Why OCaml - JaneStreet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1CmGbOGb2I
Just because you're storing stuff in a permissionless blockchain, does not mean you get to ignore all this historical, possibly related work.
In particular, you can go ahead and design a "smart contracts" language to run on your decentralized permissionless blockchain. But if your goal is that it should "look like JavaScript" (instead of "acting like Haskell or Ocaml") - then you're probably doing it wrong.
It's about language design
On a final note - it's not about "recursion" or "complexity" or even "avoiding Turing-completeness". Someday, we should be able to have all those things in our smart contracts and DAOs.
What it's really about is language design - including domain-specific languages (DSLs), ideally within a development ecosystem which includes both a high-level specification language, as well as a low-level (machine-runnable) implementation language - where a provably correct program/implementation is mechanistically derived from its specification.
(And by the way, this would have given us a high-level, formal, human-readable, and legally enforceable *specification of "The DAO" - instead of the informal, meaningless, irrelevant English-language "description" which so many suckers fell for - and which the hacker was able to totally ignore and override, when he took the time to read the only "spec" there was: the "implementation", which was in code whose semantics were obvious to almost nobody.)
Language design, formal methods, program derivation and verification, model theory - these are entire fields within theoretical computer science. Is there anyone involved in "smart contracts" and DAOs who knows about this kind of stuff? If so, I think the community would love to hear what they're doing.
Sorry to be "that guy" - but someone has to say it:
Smart contracts and DAOs are going to be a disaster - and cause yet more human suffering in this capitalist system - if we base them on JavaScript-like languages - instead of on state-of-the-art industrial-strength functional languages like Ocaml and Haskell and formally verifiable specification languages like Coq.
submitted by ydtm to ethereum [link] [comments]

How to (not) run an ethereum archive node - slock.it

How to (not) run an ethereum archive node - slock.it submitted by CJentzsch to ethereum [link] [comments]

The Ethereum foundation needs to distance itself from the people behind The DAO (Slock.it) if there is to be any chance of moving forward.

Warned weeks prior to this incident by members of this community, The team behind the DAO took no action to fix the bug that lost Ethereum millions of dollars and tanked the stock by 50%. Everyone here loves Vitalik and there's nothing wrong with the Ethereum network, let go of those people and let's move past all of this. There needs to be more communication from Vitalik's team. The only people being vocal about any of this are the guys behind Slock.it and all they seem to being saying it "we did nothing wrong" "everything is ok"
submitted by yipyipyippay to ethereum [link] [comments]

The bug which the "DAO hacker" exploited was *not* "merely in the DAO itself" (ie, *separate* from Ethereum). The bug was in Ethereum's *language design* itself (Solidity / EVM - Ethereum Virtual Machine) - shown by the "recursive call bug discovery" divulged (and dismissed) on slock.it last week.

TL;DR:
I just read the latest post from Emin Gün Sirer, and it basically took him only two lines to say pretty much everything I tried to say in my "wall of text" below:
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/17/thoughts-on-the-dao-hack/
What's a Hack When You Don't Have a Spec?
First of all, I'm not even sure that this qualifies as a hack. To label something as a hack or a bug or unwanted behavior, we need to have a specification of the wanted behavior.
UPDATE: Wow. I just found these other two threads that are making arguments similar to what I'm saying here (but they're much, much more sophisticated than anything I managed to say here). I am very encouraged that people with expertise in functional languages, formal methods, and proof theory are paying attention to Ethereum and cryptocurrencies.
https://np.reddit.com/haskell/comments/4ois15/would_the_smart_formal_methods_people_here_mind/
https://np.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/4oimok/can_we_please_never_again_put_100m_in_a_contract/
Long-term, this kind of stuff is the only way that Ethereum will be able to succeed as a system for high-value smart contracts (like "The DAO" was meant to be).
And long-term, I also think it will be very important for Bitcoin to also use these kinds of approaches. (And doing something like providing a formal specification and a proof of correctness for Bitcoin using Coq + Ocaml, or reimplementing Bitcoin using Ocaml + MirageOS, would be much easier than doing this kind of stuff for Ethereum - since Bitcoin is so much simpler.)
It's also a total culture shock to go into a thread on ethereum - and see it full of real programmers. You never see a thread on r\bitcoin or btc full of real programmers - they've all been chased away by nullc.
Seriously, scroll down through that thread on ethereum linked above. Have you ever seen so many programming heavyweights discussing Bitcoin?
What is it about the Ethereum community where serious programmers feel welcome to comment - but in the Bitcoin community, they don't?
The original OP:
The world already has enough crappy buggy websites based on a mish-mash of error-prone procedural JavaScript - a low-level, procedural language which is notorious for its lack of formal semantics and verification.
JavaScript is such a mess that almost no webdesigners directly program in it any more - they work in one of the many higher-level "JavaScript frameworks", and/or use a higher-level language which "compiles to" JavaScript.
The mere fact that there are so many of these higher-level alternatives simply proves that a low-level language like JavaScript is not useful on its own:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=%2Fhtml&q=languages+that+compile+to+javascript&ia=web
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS
JavaScript is the "assembly language" of the web:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=javascript+assembly+language+web&t=disconnect&ia=web
Every day, you visit websites (on your computer, on your smartphone) where some JavaScript error occurs. The page is displayed incorrectly, and you go on with your life.
There is a reason why crappy error-prone procedural low-level languages like JavaScript aren't used to power nuclear reactors, or missile systems, or X-ray machines - or financial applications.
Programs produced by these crappy low-level procedural languages routinely have bugs.
These languages are only used for unimportant things consumer-facing websites.
(And most of those pages were not even written directly in JavaScript - they used one of those higher-level frameworks / languages in the first links above. But still - the website generated errors.)
What do the Big Boys use?
The US Department of Defense doesn't program missile systems in low-level procedural languages like JavaScript - they use languages like ADA and Spark (and higher-level specification languages like ANNA) - where the language design itself guarantees that things like some ridiculous "recursive call bug" simply cannot happen - and where the use of a specification language forces the programmer to spell out in advance what the program is supposed to do, before digging down into the implementation details of how it's supposed to do it.
And your boring old bank uses declarative workhorses like SQL - where most of the work can be done without even running any procedural code - avoiding the very notion of "recursion" in the first place.
Now, some Ethereum devs put together an investment fund controlling a quarter of a billion dollars - using a language which looks and feels (and runs) a helluva lot like JavaScript: Ethereum's Solidity.
And the whole thing blew up in their face - because the language design of Ethereum's Solidity was total wrong.
Contractual law / human society should not run by these kinds of crappy bug-prone low-level procedural languages.
The Big Boys derive provably correct implementations from very-high-level specifications
Note that "The DAO" had two different "descriptions":
  • An non-binding, high-level, more human-readable one (in ancillary materials, posted separately)
  • A binding, low-level, less human-readable one (the actual code)
This is ok for unimportant projects.
But for important projects, the "high-level, more human-readable" version is actually written in a formal specification language which supports things like automatically deriving the implementation from it (and mathematicaly proving that the implementation is correct - ie, that is satisfies the specification).
So, when using a formal specification language coupled with an implementation language, the two verions of the system are "linked" - ie, the implementation is mechanistically derived from the specification, and formal tools for derivation and validation can be used to mathematically prove that the (less human-readable) implementation has the exact same semantics as the (more human-readable) specification.
How many cryptocurrency scripting kiddies actually know this stuff?
Lots of this stuff is probably foreign to all these scripting kiddies and web designers whose concept of "programming" up till now has basically been "Hey let's slap some JavaScript onto a web page!"
I can assure you - there are many, many programmers who would never touch that world with a ten-foot pole.
They work for the Department of Defense, they work on Wall Street (on back-office systems - handling billions of dollars), they develop software running nuclear reactors or MRI machines - or they do research and development at academic institutions.
For many of these people (in the academic world), even a supposedly "well-defined" and "battle-tested" language like C/C++ is totally "beneath" them.
I have heard theoretical computer scientists, working on DARPA-funded language design projects, say that they wanted to avoid using C/C++ as an implementation language "because it lacks a clearly defined semantics." (These are academics who use things like functional languages, algebraic languages, etc. - which are often more "declarative" in nature, versus the "procedural" languages many casual programmers use).
There is a whole world of programming where not only "GOTO" is ridiculed - but even commonly used procedural constructs "for-loops" and "try/throw/catch" blocks for exceptions are also avoided.
Get serious or GTFO
The only acceptable, serious approach for doing stuff like "smart contracts" or the "The DAO" must be based on much more serious languages than this silly "Solidity" invented by some kid - eg, if we're going to start migrating contractual law onto machines, then the only languages we should be using must:
  • be "functional" (eg, from the family of Haskell/ML) - not procedural languages (eg, C/C++, Java, JavaScript, etc.)
  • support high-level, formal tools for program specification, derivation, and validation
As far as I'm concerned, if we want machines to run our contractual law and financial structures, then the minimal acceptable approach must be:
  • implementing in a functional language like Ocaml (used with great success by Jane Street, a Wall Street firm - check out their videos on YouTube)
  • and long-term, we should think about specifying using a language like Coq (a theorem prover which can be used to derive machine-runnable Ocaml programs/implementations from human-readable specifications).
Kids think the glass is half-full. Pros know it's half-empty.
Maybe all this sounds totally foreign and complicated to today's "scripting kiddies" - the kinds of people like Mark Karepelès who thought he could process hundreds of millions of dollars using that "fractal of bad design" known as PHP - and now Vitalik - who seems like a smart kid, but still, I wonder:
  • how much he's studied up on things like functional languages, or
  • if he's even heard of the Curry-Howard Isomophism, and understands how it can be applied to the problem of developing human-readable specifications (analogous to theorems), and deriving provably correct machine-runnable implementations/programs (analogous to proofs) from them
  • if he's heard of stuff like NATO's 1968 conference on the "software crisis" - which many believe is still not resolved
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nato+1968+software+crisis&ia=web
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_crisis
  • if he's aware of the "AI Winter" - the fact that most researchers consider Artificial Intelligence to be a failure
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=AI+winter&t=disconnect&ia=about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
The above all reflect the fact that computer programming as practiced by most people in the industry today is actually a total fucking disaster.
"Lethal software" is a thing.
http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2014/03/lethal-software-defects-patriot-missile-failure/
"Worse is better" is a (tongue-in-cheek) programming design philosophy.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22worse+is+better%22&t=disconnect&ia=about
"Release early, release often" is an industry slogan - to get your "minimally viable" product out there, despite the fact that it isn't actually ready for prime time yet.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Release+early%2C+release+often%22&t=disconnect&ia=about
"Waterfall" and "agile" and "Xtreme" and countless other software development and management methodologies have been proposed, out of desperation, to deal with the fact that many programming projects, using popular "procedural" languages, fail.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=waterfall+agile+xtreme&t=disconnect&ia=web
These methodologies do all work "more-or-less" - but note that they all rely heavily on stuff outside the code (mostly meetings, pep talks, quality assurance testing, etc.) - and they have been proposed out of a dire necessity - the fact that "the code itself" normally does not work right, without continual human prodding from managerial types.
We almost never trust "the code itself" to work properly. Because after a few decades of experience (using these crappy languages), we know that it almost never does.
More examples of failed projects and "lethal software"
  • The newly constructed Denver Airport was held up for years because the developers couldn't get the software right for the baggage handling system.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=denver+airport+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • In one of America's many recent wars (there's so many, I can't keep track of which one that was), over in the Mid-East, the defense systems used against SCUD missiles didn't work - due to software errors.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patriot+scud+missiles+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • The Ariane rocket (a $7 billion project) blew up - causing $500 in damage.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ariane+software+failure&t=disconnect&ia=web
  • The Mars Climate Orbiter burned up in the Martial atmosphere - because the engineers screws up converting between metric and imperial. (By the way, type systems as used functional languages have ways of easily preventing this kind of problem - but in most procecural languages, it's much harder.)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mars+climate+orbiter+newtons+&t=disconnect&ia=about
  • The rollout of the healthcare.gov website for Obamacare was a disaster - but to be fair, that involved trying to get hundreds of different backends from all the private insurance companies to talk to each other, so maybe that was to be expected.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=healthcare.gov+disastrous+rollout&t=disconnect&ia=web
Software development is a mess
The take-away is: software development is a mess - even when it's done by Wall Street or NASA or the Department of Defense, incorporating "functional" languages, or "formal methods" supporting an initial "specification" followed by a derived (and supposedly "provably correct") "implementation".
So... the lesson is... a newly-invented language like Solidity... which people thought was "cool" because it "looked like" JavaScript - is nowhere near the kind of rigorous, absolutely safe level required for handling a quarter of a billion dollars in people's actual wealth.
Vitalik seems like a great guy - but this whole area of "smart conctracts" and "distributed automous organizations" will have to attract many more serious heavyweights from industry and academia before it will be safe enough to run contractual law and financial structures controlling hundreds of millions of dollars in people's actual money and affecting people's actual lives.
Some random links
To give one tiny example (and I'm not saying that Ethereum or "The DAO" necessary has to use this sort of thing - I'm just curious as to what people's backgrounds might be) - does anyone involved with Ethereum or "The DAO" have a passing acquaintance (perhaps from years ago), with historical, related work like the following:
Composing contracts: an adventure in financial engineering - Simon Peyton Jones
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/financial-contracts/contracts-icfp.pdf
Caml Trading - Yaron Minsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKcOkWzj0_s
Why OCaml - JaneStreet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1CmGbOGb2I
Just because you're storing stuff in a permissionless blockchain, does not mean you get to ignore all this historical, possibly related work.
In particular, you can go ahead and design a "smart contracts" language to run on you rdecentralized permissionless blockchain. But if your goal is that it should "look like JavaScript" (instead of "acting like Haskell or Ocaml") - then you're probably doing it wrong.
It's about language design
On a final note - it's not about "recursion" or "complexity" or even "avoiding Turing-completeness". Someday, we should be able to have all those things in our smart contracts and DAOs.
What it's really about is language design - including domain-specific languages (DSLs), ideally within a development ecosystem which includes both a high-level specification language, as well as a low-level (machine-runnable) implementation language - where a provably correct program/implementation is mechanistically derived from its specification.
(And by the way, this would have given us a high-level, formal, human-readable, and legally enforceable *specification of "The DAO" - instead of the informal, meaningless, irrelevant English-language "description" which so many suckers fell for - and which the hacker was able to totally ignore and override, when he took the time to read the only "spec" there was: the "implementation", which was in code whose semantics were obvious to almost nobody.)
Language design, formal methods, program derivation and verification, model theory - these are entire fields within theoretical computer science. Is there anyone involved in "smart contracts" and DAOs who knows about this kind of stuff? If so, I think the community would love to hear what they're doing.
Sorry to be "that guy" - but someone has to say it:
Smart contracts and DAOs are going to be a disaster - and cause yet more human suffering in this capitalist system - if we base them on JavaScript-like languages - instead of on state-of-the-art industrial-strength functional languages like Ocaml and Haskell and formally verifiable specification languages like Coq.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

More technical details around Ethereum car-charging project ahead of official announcement - Slock.it CTO

More technical details around Ethereum car-charging project ahead of official announcement - Slock.it CTO submitted by Ursium to ethereum [link] [comments]

Our Proposal: Taking Ethereum to the Mainstream with the Ethereum Computer - Slock.it Blog

Our Proposal: Taking Ethereum to the Mainstream with the Ethereum Computer - Slock.it Blog submitted by Ursium to ethereum [link] [comments]

We’re building the Ethereum Computer - Slock.it blog

We’re building the Ethereum Computer - Slock.it blog submitted by Ursium to ethereum [link] [comments]

Slock.It Is 110% Working On Ethereum

You're welcome, Ethereum.
submitted by bobsmith9273 to ethereum [link] [comments]

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains submitted by nugget_alex to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Our Proposal: Taking Ethereum to the Mainstream with the Ethereum Computer — Slock.it Blog

Our Proposal: Taking Ethereum to the Mainstream with the Ethereum Computer — Slock.it Blog submitted by FARTINGTOOLOUD to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Embarassing post by slock.it, six days ago: No DAO funds at risk following the Ethereum smart contract ‘recursive call’ bug discovery — Slock.it Blog

Embarassing post by slock.it, six days ago: No DAO funds at risk following the Ethereum smart contract ‘recursive call’ bug discovery — Slock.it Blog submitted by Geldeintreiber to btc [link] [comments]

Ethereum-based Slock reveals first ever lock opened with money

Ethereum-based Slock reveals first ever lock opened with money submitted by CJentzsch to ethereum [link] [comments]

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains submitted by nugget_alex to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Slock.it teams up with German electricity provider RWE to explore car-to-charging station interaction over the public Ethereum blockchain.

Slock.it teams up with German electricity provider RWE to explore car-to-charging station interaction over the public Ethereum blockchain. submitted by cryptopascal to ethereum [link] [comments]

RWE and Slock.it – Electric cars using Ethereum wallets can recharge by induction at traffic lights

RWE and Slock.it – Electric cars using Ethereum wallets can recharge by induction at traffic lights submitted by GrifffGreeen to ethereum [link] [comments]

Ethereum is proud to announce Slock.it will be sponsoring DEVCON1!

Ethereum is proud to announce Slock.it will be sponsoring DEVCON1! submitted by thehighfiveghost to ethereum [link] [comments]

Former Ethereum CCO Stephan Tual joins Slock.it Team

Christoph Jentzsch, Founder, said ”Stephan’s expertise will be critical when negotiating with our present and future integration partners. He was part of the Ethereum project since day one, has an excellent standing within the community, and his dutiful approach to relationship building is something we look forward to see flourish within Slock.it.”
submitted by daydreamtrader to ethereum [link] [comments]

Ethereum-powered project recognized by German Government Prize - Slock.it & innogy SE receives 2016 German Mobility Award for Dēmos Project

Ethereum-powered project recognized by German Government Prize - Slock.it & innogy SE receives 2016 German Mobility Award for Dēmos Project submitted by Ursium to ethereum [link] [comments]

An In-Depth Interview With Stephan Tual Former CCO of Ethereum and founder of Slock.it & The DAO

An In-Depth Interview With Stephan Tual Former CCO of Ethereum and founder of Slock.it & The DAO submitted by mixmaster_remailer to ethereum [link] [comments]

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains

Former Ethereum COO Stephan Tual - Ethereum, DAO, Slock.it & Future Blockchains submitted by nugget_alex to ethereum [link] [comments]

Hopefully slock.it continues the work on EC and not delaying it for DAO funding. "IoT Startup: The Ethereum Computer is Going to Change Everything"

Hopefully slock.it continues the work on EC and not delaying it for DAO funding. submitted by hermanmaas to ethereum [link] [comments]

Why ETH Could EXPLODE with Ethereum 2.0 📈 - YouTube ETHEREUM IS HEADED FOR $20,000 - YouTube Ether, Slock.It and The DAO: Decentralised Autonomous Organisation Will Ethereum Price Rise to $10,000 Per Coin?? WHAT WILL ... Ethereum - YouTube

Find the latest Ethereum USD (ETH-USD) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing. About Ethereum. Ethereum price today is $359.69 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $14,306,776,657 USD. Ethereum is up 5.62% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #2, with a market cap of $40,621,553,162 USD. About the Author. Stephan Tual is the Founder and COO of Slock.it.. Previously CCO for the Ethereum project, Stephan has three startups under his belt and brings 20 years of enterprise IT experience to the Slock.it project. Before discovering the Blockchain, Stephan held CTO positions at leading data analytics companies in London with clients including VISA Europe and BP. Read writing about Ethereum in slock.it Blog. IoT + Blockchain. For Ethereum, nabbing enterprise customers with its proprietary blockchain is the ultimate goal. Image source: Getty Images. The top Ethereum stocks . But investors in Ethereum aren't the only ...

[index] [6781] [6073] [5465] [4510] [1447] [1304] [6852] [3627] [6301] [582]

Why ETH Could EXPLODE with Ethereum 2.0 📈 - YouTube

Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, fraud or third party interference. 🔥 TOP Crypto TIPS In My Newsletter 👉 https://signup.coinbureau.com/newsletter 📲 Coin Bureau Insider Channel 👉 https://t.me/cbinsider 💰 Join ByBit & Get ... Hey Altcoin Daily Team!! Yes! You are gonna like this video. Today I want to talk about ETHEREUM. Twitter: https://twitter.com/AltcoinDailyio Ethereum Creato... Christoph Jentzsch demonstrates Slock.it's capabilities at the London Ethereum Devcon One conference. Emerging from stealth mode, ambitious German’s startup ... Ethereum price and why Ethereum will be bigger than Bitcoin - Duration: 10:38. ... Slock.it DAO demo at Devcon1: IoT + Blockchain - Duration: 19:56. Slockit GmbH 31,042 views.

http://forex-france.learn-how-to-trade-forex.club