- One of my favorite quotes about computers owned by Joseph Campbell: Computers are like Old Testament gods; a bunch of rules and no mercy.
Despite the frivolity, this statement is enough truth. Computer programs are stupid, pedantic, and completely ruthless. Most of the major innovations in the development of software for the past few decades seem only trying to protect us from ourselves. Whether it's an event like the common development with testing or linting towards occult methods such as Hoare logic, you can see an excellent guide here. software development, seems to be the art of mental self-defense.
Without my knowledge and outside knowledge of any computer scientist to propose a universal method of writing correct code. Even when a loss worth millions, both in the space industry, we are still witnessing an almost comical errors, like the NASA puncture with the metric in 1999. So, it can be labor of Sisyphus trying to make everything perfect. We do the best that we can hope for - mostly stable application that quickly patch and naturally clean upon reaching certain level of technical debt? The philosophy of Silicon Valley "move ahead, destroy everything around," it seems to confirm this assumption.
However, at a nominal value of "code is the law" - a mantra that demands perfection, and, like Old Testament gods, administers a crushing revenge on the losers. My main point is that this interpretation is incorrect. At best, it is a misunderstanding, well, at worst - a politically motivated puppet theater.
How credible allegations "code is law"?
When the movement began Ethereum Illegalnosti slogan read code that either do not care. My interpretation of this idea lies in the fact that anxiety can not exist at the protocol level. Deciding things related to human emotions - it is the responsibility of the author, users as well as their respective jurisdictions. Protocol - like Bitcoin to him - must be automated Goliath, one line processing logic for another, while the output appears something meaningful.
Such judgments seem to oppress our human sense of morality. We can imagine a modern version of an inquisitive killer that binds timer weapons of mass destruction to the smart contract. Should we censor the contract to the bomb did not explode? Is the paradigm of "code is the Law" worth of human lives? A more detailed discussion can be found in the excellent work of Shi, The Ring of Gyges.
The most probable root of this debate is growing connections of human and computer ethics. Protocols cryptocurrency, autonomous transports, drones and other systems that are partially or fully controlled by software, can not be controlled by human morality. They are excluded from it. This reality also makes them very predictable, resistant to corruption and violence. There is no ego in order to protect him. No bias in judgment.
We are not used to communicate with systems of this type. People - creating exceptions, prejudices and attitudes. We are building a wide network of contacts to protect yourself from unforeseen problems. We are establishing political connections to obtain benefits. Even more sociopathic manipulate emotions or get the desired extortion. This behavior - good or bad - to be expected, and is fully human.
When presented operating side does not fit with our expectations, we can just enjoy her good qualities, but many want to immediately change its nature, as soon face the consequences. Incident The DAO is not a dramatic development in the style of "Black Swan." This is the norm. So, we are faced with a strange choice: whether normal that people are managing systems that do not have the emotional level down to us?
One-sided concepts
Returning to the beginning, probably the most complex component of this paradigm lies in our inability to fully express our intention and will for computers. We simply do not speak the same language, and can not achieve sufficient accuracy to ensure that does not happen unforeseen things. It seems unfair to punish someone for a wrong interpretation. However, this concept seems awfully lopsided.
We can easily see the flaws in computer interpretation, however, that if the human side is defective? For example, the recent accident the autopilot Tesla has attracted worldwide attention. Reporters and consumer protection groups quickly began to broadcast the imminent closure of the development of autopilot technology as an optimal measure of security; Empirical evidence shows clearly that even in unfinished form, autopilot Tesla is much safer than a drunk driver. How many people are distracted and relaxed drivers are killed each year?
Such nuances, it seems to me, are usually lost in the arguments against the idea of "code is the law." We love to argue, discussing all the specific details and to general concepts, but do not delve into the long-term benefits. The existence of Bitcoin has provoked a dramatic evolution in the payment systems and banking. All this provoked a decrease in commissions and wider inclusion in the global financial system. All this happened without regulation at the protocol level, without taking human ethics. We needed to create a humanity beyond the scope of the protocol.
Ethereum Similarly, under the influence of the paradigm of "code is the law" makes us look at the issue of the accuracy of the much higher level. It makes engineers explicitly encode exceptions, the path to upgrade or protect against errors in their smart contracts. It promotes best practices and punishes more detrimental. It seems evolutionary stimulant towards the best standards of engineering. Moreover, it makes people much more carefully consider the motives and consequences.
The main idea here is that the code is not the law says you have no right to interfere or challenge. He does not say that you need to leave in the past the local laws and regulation. He says that you need to program it all into a smart deal. Even more than that, where it is difficult to simulate the mission programming, the developer can create an object language to capture it, and people will be judged later.
These are necessary steps to communicate securely with the Old Testament God code. And they really are to a great advantage. You get a much better contract, a clear expression of intent, an open source library that can be used again, and emerging government regulation, customized for the account of the new technology. Nothing like this is not necessary if you allow human intervention at the protocol level.
Know yourself
I guess we must have the courage to travel to new lands. We can not truly appreciate the way that front, we can not predict the events that hurt us, but we can accept the fact that we are imperfect creatures.
The existence of OT protocol is a monument to our intelligence. We created something that allows us to overcome our own nature and interact with something completely different.
While interactions have consequences, they make us better and make you think differently. For me, this is a new era of humanity, we have to be supported. The moment has come to know ourselves in the 21st century. Let's not profukali it.
Author: Charles Hoskinson
