Talk:Smart contract

Agoric computing references

WP will become much more verifiable and trusted and no more arguing on the talkpage! I am not sure some will be very happy about more honesty. ℳ₳₢†€₨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Chruitier (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Since Agoric computing has been redirected here, to Smart contract, and the non-existent page history here doesn't explain it, it's a bit confusing and self-referential now. I added a \{fact} tag to the Agoric computing section of this article with tag to tease out some references. rhyre (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing this section - there's no cite to the term "smart contract" in any source and doesn't appear ever to have been.

I've similarly tagged the bit about DRM constituting a smart contract - this looks like synthesis, unless there's a clear reference. We can't really just take things from the past and say "well, that could be a sort of smart contract" without some reference for it - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed the bit about DRM and tying mechanisms - without a clear cite, saying these are a sort of smart contract is synthesis - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Deep Space Ship Deactivation

One example of a smart contract is "a military mission in deep space must continuously justify the cost-benefit ratio of their mission to the ship or it will stop working." This seems like a bizarre example, as sending a ship out into space and then deactivating it and sacrificing all inside seems like an unrealistic use of a smart contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30A7:A040:9C4D:3101:66CF:357C (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So does giving $150 million dollars to 800 lines of buggy untested Javascript, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The article opens with: "Smart contracts are computer protocols that facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation or performance of a contract, or that make a contractual clause unnecessary." This doesn't sound right. Surely a smart contract is the output of a computer protocol, rather than a computer protocol itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.3.4 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not just opening sentence, whole article is incomprehensible to a non-expert

This article is incomprehensible to anyone not already familiar with the subject matter, because it is full of domain-specific usage of technical terms that are not defined anywhere in the article or even referenced. What is a "protocol" in this context? Apparently not exactly the same as a network protocol in computing, nor as a protocol in a court of law. Probably something analogous to one or both of those. So then, what? What exactly do we mean here by a "contract" - is it really exactly the same as a traditional legal contract except written in some other format rather than in human language on paper? It doesn't seem so, or at least, it seems that not every kind of contract in traditional contract law would make sense in this context. In any case - explain this critically important term. What does it mean for a computer to "execute" a contract? For traditional legal contracts, executing the contract means a human being going out and doing a physical action like building a building. I don't think the intention is that a "smart contract" must be a humanoid robot. So exactly what kind of "execute" are we talking about here? What does it mean to "enforce" a smart contract - is it linked to the police, or to the court system? What is a "blockchain" and what is "anonymous Byzantine replication"? The term "replicated asset registries", which seems to be essential to the following discussion, is referenced, but only to a web page from 2005 that I am currently unable to retrieve. And even if the web page still exists, this term is obscure enough and central enough that it requires at least a few words of explanation here in the article. Etc. I am marking this article with the Confusing template. StormWillLaugh (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What about replacing "protocol" with "logic"? A smart contract can be something that is written in some kind of higher level language -- be it programming languages like C or Java or something specifically designed for contracts -- but ultimately it must be convertable into something that a computer system can execute (otherwise it's just a normal contract). Also, there should be a statement in the first paragraph making clear that there is a lot of ambiguity in the term and that -- as of now -- different people mean quite different things when talking about smart contracts. --Denwid (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the article's been maintained and largely written by advocates and apologists for a long time, and needs bringing back to earth with mainstream references. e.g. I think it's obvious that The DAO is the most prominent smart contract in mainstream awareness - it's certainly the only one I can think of that achieved headline coverage that included the word "smart contract" - but how do you prove this to the satisfaction of an advocate who considers its failure an embarrassment? And never mind bowdlerising its embarrassing collapse - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been a huge venture scoffed at and no one has gotten traction to take it from developer talk to everyday user things. I agree when you cant understand the language its hard. The general public will have to address this as the technology is growing. It will become something everyone grasps. At its core it is a very simple concept but a consensus is hard to get. ℳ₳₢†€₨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Chruitier (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Source cleanup

I just tagged a pile of bad sources. Will wait a week before clearing badly-sourced material out of the article - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been over a month - clearing bad sources out now - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

"agoric systems" is cited to what appears to be sociological conference proceedings concerning open source development, not any sort of authoritative reference on smart contracts or computing itself. A 30-second Google doesn't show the term "agoric system" in more than hypothetical use. Anyone got something better? - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

removed after two months - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples with running code that people use?

[Mist Wallet] Is one example of running a code contract to support multi sig. [1] 96.230.78.121 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

[Etheria] is a game made possible by smart contracts. [2] (see the 'How to play', the abi is the EEDC in the first instruction) 96.230.78.121 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell ... Ethereum is actually the first smart contract system that isn't just hypotheticals that people actually use at all. I recall there was XCP/Counterparty on the Bitcoin blockchain, and a few other things on Bitcoin, but they seem to have seen negligible use.

Monax is apparently Ethereum, or uses chunks of Ethereum.(primary source)

What non-hypothetical smart contract systems were there before Ethereum? Is there a list?

To be clear: I don't mean taking past things and saying "well, it's sort of a smart contract system if you squint right" - I mean something that wore the label "smart contract" and was running code used by parties other than its authors - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

To my understanding there were a number of projects running on Counterparty (technology), but it seems those projects are moving to Ethereum. Maybe I am generalizing, but I did read that about Storj and Everex, both were running live systems on counterparty and have both moved to Ethereum. I too haven't heard of smart contracts prior to counterparty or Ethereum. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)