I was completely on board until the second paragraph. Isn't this almost exactly the argument the DAO used?
It seems like in cases where extremely large amounts of money are at risk, we still haven't developed computers that should be completely trusted with it.
I was completely on board until the second paragraph. Isn't this almost exactly the argument the DAO used?
No. The DAO attack wasn't a 50% attack - it was a bug in the contract.
It seems like in cases where extremely large amounts of money are at risk, we still haven't developed computers that should be completely trusted with it.
It seems like in cases where extremely large amounts of money are at risk, we still haven't developed computers that should be completely trusted with it.