Why I stopped believing in the concept of smart contracts

I stopped believing in the concept of smart contracts, becausel I think
something similar could happen as happened to CORBA.

You can find a good explanation for the failure of CORBA here:
(There are many other similar articles that google can find for you).

The similarities cannot be found in the technical details, but in the
laws that might apply to the development of any new technological standard. CORBA just did
not live up to real life needs. It became complex and clumsy. Nobody
could easily use it to start a complex application. It just cost too
much money and resources to use it. It was not supported by
Microsoft. It failed for many many other reasons …

But what is behind all of this: It was just overly ambitious. There
was a clear vision, a fascinating idea behind it (distributed
objects), but the idea was just too simple, too »brilliant«, too
simplistic to succeed.

There are so many challenges coming up during the rise of CORBA, that
CORBA could not overcome. It was doomed to die from the moment of its
birth on.

Now, with smart contracts, something similar could happen: The idea is
just too elegant, to smooth. What will happen, if people really start
trying to »change the world« with it?

I tell you what will happen: There will be other dirty and much less
»academic« concepts that will win the race and surprise everybody.

To be correct: I still believe in blockchain and P2P. I really do.

But you just cannot predict! And you cannot be sure of the durability of
such a concept as smart contracts.

What does all this have to do with Cardano? Simple: Smart contracts
are just one of the goals that Cardano is working towards. What will
happen if the goal just turns out to be too theoretical? What will
happen, if the beautifull concept falls into the stinking mud of reality?

1 Like

Don’t let it happen.

I see you are in part “A Public Ledger For eBooks” why are you supporting that?

I suspect it is for the same reasons you are here, supporting Cardano, you want better and not will settle for less. If I’m right about you then don’t accept the status quo, check your reason for not believing in smart contracts…

The future is unwritten, drop the shackles of the past, you learned a lot now it is time to move on.




@lyrx1 I like your article because it reads like a poem, the words just kinda flow. But at the same time I really hope Ada succeeds on the merits of the idea implemented correctly, and precision code well executed.

1 Like

It doesn’t have to succeed in the developed countries. It will absolutely engulf developing countries because they are in a downright NEED for something to create trust between the people and the system or government in place. Even in Cardano adopts Royale, Traxia, and a couple countries banking system, then it will still be worth billions and billions more than it is now.

It doesn’t have to get adopted everywhere, just a few places.

1 Like

If smart contracts doesn’t work out for cryptoes, then everything will just go to 0, and this will be a part of history everyone will be laughing about 20 years from now… and you will all be able to tell stories how you participated in the largest ponzi global scheme in human history, the first of its kind.

That is the risk and reward regarding this. However I do see a lot of interesting things theoretically that could be done, we will have to see what people come up with. Like the internet, amazing how much use came out of that wasn’t absolutely apparent from the get-go. We gotta give it time.

should it fail then obviously we have concluded that only backed crypto-currencies will ever work, because that would be amazing - having money in crypto-form - the world needs this. Can we get a way with not backing it with a commodity? I still believe the biggest use-case for block-chain is being money either we find a way to back it, or we find a way to give it a use.


1 Like

It’s backed by mathematics and logarithmic equations. That’s WAY better than a nations word on it being good. In the 1950s the US promised the world that we (the US) would never leave the gold standard and that we wouldn’t print money like crazy. So, the USD became the world trading currency and the world backing currency. In the 60s they left the gold standard. In the 70s, began the cycle of printing endless amounts of money.

Crypto is surely a better option than that system.

This is not actual backing, aka. intrinsic value. You can say what you want, but it is not. Bitcoin will be priced at 0 eventually due to this law.

That is why Cardano tries to circumvent this by creating a use-case that is non-speculative to give it intrinsic value (demand)

What is not actual backing? The USD to the world or the mathematical equations behind crypto?

USD has backing - to use crypto-world words, the use case is taxes. Hence why there is demand for dollars.
Bitcoin has no backing - there is no use-case for bitcoin hence it will be priced at 0

Deduct what you want from that.

Bitcoin has the verification through math. However, you are correct that it is not backed by a nation. Money has alwsays been social and bartered based off of things that are difficult to replicate though.

Money was gold and silver because of intrinsic value - commodities are the best money.

Oil would be great, but its just not as good as the above because its not practical. But we have never used money with no intrinsic value. Bitcoin will not change this. Its not my opinion, this is economic law. Something that has no intrinsic value will be priced at 0 eventually - and intrinsic value is not subjective when it comes to fungible items.

Sure you can have a speculative bubble that will for a short period raise the price above 0, but the market always gets it right eventually. The only demand there is for bitcoin is speculation, price appreciation, take that away and there will be no demand.

That is why people say they are investing in Bitcoin instead of exchanging their USD for bitcoin. Ive still never met a bitcoin adopter, perhaps they are out there, but I doubt it.

Yes commodities make the best currency but what if commodities are non finite and produceable by everyone and for everyone easily? At that point what do you do with energy, potatoes and third 3D printed car. Gold is useless So is silver. They have almost no intrinsic value.

Well we cant produce commodities, because they are elements. Even if you 3D print something, you need the materials first. .

If we had the technology to 3D-print a gold bar and deliver the materials/atoms through a pipe directly to your home, you still need the same amount of gold to do it.

If that situation came, you are right, but then we dont need money anyway, since everyone would have everything, there would be no need to trade. Remember we only need money, because we trade with each other. The money is a means to an end. Anyway that should also be impossible for what we know of how the universe works.

and we can back crypto-currencies with commodities, there is no one saying we cant, we just need to solve the problem of ownership and storing. If we do that, we have solve the value-stable-token for good, and we can actually adopt it as money. Sure it wont go up and you wont make a lot of money, but you would have an alternative to FIAT. Then we just need to start breaking down the Tax-laws, so it is treated as money and you dont be capital gains. I think this is a much more viable and realistic solution for crypto to go… but of course this is not very “exciting” for the people.

But you know what, I might jump in on that one day, and people who believe the same as I, can follow on.

Ok but what commodities have value? Is the wind a commodity? Is sun light a commodity? How about water? If we cant produce them. Then we cant own them. 3D priniting a gold bar is an end point exaggeration of course. However, I do see your point so I wont start a seperate philosphical conversation.

However what is wrong with the ledger itself being the commodity. Isnt that commodity (for lack of a better word) the immutable record of the transaction. Beyond that a given token or coin is simply a demarcation of value in a given economic realm. Im tired and waiting for plane and just spitballing.

efficiency means that supply far outweighs demand and scarcity has no virtue Be well

1 Like

Its a great question!

I am off for tonight but will probably reply tomorrow!

You drifted slightly off my topic. I do not doubt the potential of crypto
currencies or blockchain. I just doubt it will happen the way we
expect or hope. The ugly can win! The proper can loose!

In my eyes, one of the most ugly programming languages is
Javascript. I just detest touching it, and believe me, I had to touch
it several times as a programmer, just as millions of ordinary programmers
have to do every day. But Javascript is just incredibly successfull, and
it turned out to develop into something undoubtedly mature and stable.

Now, Haskell is a rare and seldom used programming language, living
up to many urgent requirements, but accessable to only few
people. Even if Cardano will provide interfaces to more popular
languages, do you think it is the best start to start like this? –
Technologically it might be … but what about all the other aspects
of this?

Smart contracts, Haskell, OUROBOROS and many others that I do not know
or understand: In the future, all of them might be found in the basis
of an awesome new technology. Maybe not!!! In any case, they will remain invisible
and inaccessable to the majority of people. Other forces will drift
things apart, just as this discussion has already drifted apart …

The point is to make it with easy UI and very secured. Look at what happened to NEO this week, one node collapsed the system. THAT is why you go through peer review and have a debugging platform prior to release. Let everyone else destroy themselves with accidents and rushing to get to the finish line first.

Java is a great example, so is Macintosh an example of how being patient and constantly being innovative will bring people along… eventually.


not much time, but … your reasoning is wrong.

  1. CORBA analogy to smart-contract is non existing
  2. the reason why CORBA failed was different: 1 over-complex standard for something that has no common context/need
  3. CORBA is better compared to DICOM (which unfortunately has not failed )

That is why I was trying to emphasize, that the analogy is not found in the technical details: Yes, CORBA was overly complex, and this is why it failed. But the basic idea behind CORBA was simple, elegant and intriguing, just as the basic idea behind smart contracts is simple and fascinating.

Nevertheless: Distributed objects did not revolutionize the world as expected. I remember there was a really good book about that, trying to predict how distributed objects would overthrow everything, becoming the foundation of distributed applications. It just did not happen! Today we are using restfull services and JSON. Nobody would have predicted that. It just happened.

Another example: I recently had a quick look at some old XML based standard for the semantic web. I think it is still used by gutenberg.org to describe their ebook collection. Not only did XML fade a lot. The whole standard seems just overloaded crap, if you look at it with today’s eyes.

In the end, it always comes down to the same lesson: Do not try to be the smartest! Try to be the best! And that is different. If you try to invent the “world computer”, you will fail. – And smart contracts? You are trying to fly! Walk quicker instead !!!

ahh NO, that’s what I explain , it was overly complex and overbloated! eaxctly the opposite of elegant, simple etc.