[Lab3301]

> You could say the same about many hacks that involve money and assets. Judge, the software let me in! That was the original intention of the programmers!

The difference being that ethereum smart contracts are supposed to be autonomous, hence "The Code is the Contract".

If you need or rely on outside parties then why not just have a standard contract?

[hanniabu]

They are autonomous, but sometimes have unintentional outcomes. Same goes for written contracts. Sometimes they're poorly written/worded and loopholes are found.

[52-6F-62]

I always understood it to be more of the automating of contract fulfillment.

That's probably not the universal take. My take is there is a place for automated smart contracts, and a place for traditional contracts. For instance, you can hardly prove beyond any doubt that a package was delivered successfully and so payment can be dispersed. Too much room for fraud there. But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine. AFAIU it's been working quite well for microgrid projects.

(Specifically smart contracts and ethereum as a whole, not really the DAO. Don't know much about that)

[root_axis]

> But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine.

A centralized system works fine for those situations though. Adding Eth into the mix doesn't improve anything in this scenario.