I’m a computer scientist passionate about high impact technology. My research interests lay at the intersection of mathematics, computer science, and philosophy. I value work ethic and tenacity above
I am biased from my mathematics education, but I think mathematics is the best form of assurance. Public key cryptography is not just some "hocus pocus"; it's incredibly sophisticated. I wrote about it here if you are interested. It's also the technology your bank uses to keep your fiat money safe. The only difference is that they control the keys to you information instead of you. The primary way to prove things in academia is with mathematics. In fact we have built proving systems like Qoc to exactly this. The black boxes are deterministic and provably so. They are a lot more accurate than almost all of our technical infrastructure's current systems.
I am not questioning math. As an engineer I well know the value in speaking math. I have qualms with cryptography and never implied any hocus-pocus? Again, my issue with Smart Contracts (since their inception) has never been their potential value. I have dreamed up many uses for them, none of which are currently needed or practical, but still. I am just commenting that as they become more and more ingrained in systems, those responsible for developing them, will be under heavier and heavier scrutiny, as we cannot simply pass off the old school to the new school, without being sure these contracts are in fact trustable. I think you mistake my concerns for operational aspects as opposed to what they truly are, a question of the ethics, morals and philosophy of how we use them. Finding out too late a contract was responsible for real problems is bound to happen if we have no oversight, and people just blindly trust that some contract is in fact what they believe it is. So it is not a question of the math, but more, does the math implement what it is believed to be correct and sufficient processing to deliver the goods.
I think a lot of the points mentioned here are valid and true as they exist today. Namely, the cost and complexity of smart contracts, potentially out-weighing their use.
I see this as a gap in talent and education. As more and more developers in Web2 transition to Web3 I believe we will learn to write more efficient code that is secure based on attack verticals.
I am a part of a community that trains engineers to write production ready smart contract code that is secure and scalable (Gas efficiency) in response to the exponentially growing demand for engineers in Web3.
I would love to talk more and collaborate with you both and anyone on this thread if you're open to it.
I’m a computer scientist passionate about high impact technology. My research interests lay at the intersection of mathematics, computer science, and philosophy. I value work ethic and tenacity above
I really love to see this. You are absolutely correct in the gap in talent and education. I am glad to see you doing something about it. Open to chat and collaborate as always. My contact information and DMs are open.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I am biased from my mathematics education, but I think mathematics is the best form of assurance. Public key cryptography is not just some "hocus pocus"; it's incredibly sophisticated. I wrote about it here if you are interested. It's also the technology your bank uses to keep your fiat money safe. The only difference is that they control the keys to you information instead of you. The primary way to prove things in academia is with mathematics. In fact we have built proving systems like Qoc to exactly this. The black boxes are deterministic and provably so. They are a lot more accurate than almost all of our technical infrastructure's current systems.
I am not questioning math. As an engineer I well know the value in speaking math. I have qualms with cryptography and never implied any hocus-pocus? Again, my issue with Smart Contracts (since their inception) has never been their potential value. I have dreamed up many uses for them, none of which are currently needed or practical, but still. I am just commenting that as they become more and more ingrained in systems, those responsible for developing them, will be under heavier and heavier scrutiny, as we cannot simply pass off the old school to the new school, without being sure these contracts are in fact trustable. I think you mistake my concerns for operational aspects as opposed to what they truly are, a question of the ethics, morals and philosophy of how we use them. Finding out too late a contract was responsible for real problems is bound to happen if we have no oversight, and people just blindly trust that some contract is in fact what they believe it is. So it is not a question of the math, but more, does the math implement what it is believed to be correct and sufficient processing to deliver the goods.
Anyway.. thanks for the discussion, all good.
Waylon and David,
I have a lot of thoughts here as well.
I think a lot of the points mentioned here are valid and true as they exist today. Namely, the cost and complexity of smart contracts, potentially out-weighing their use.
I see this as a gap in talent and education. As more and more developers in Web2 transition to Web3 I believe we will learn to write more efficient code that is secure based on attack verticals.
I am a part of a community that trains engineers to write production ready smart contract code that is secure and scalable (Gas efficiency) in response to the exponentially growing demand for engineers in Web3.
I would love to talk more and collaborate with you both and anyone on this thread if you're open to it.
Check it out: optilistic.notion.site/Optilistic-...
I look forward to hearing from you!
Cheers,
Brendan H. Murphy
Optilistic.com
Hey Brendan,
I really love to see this. You are absolutely correct in the gap in talent and education. I am glad to see you doing something about it. Open to chat and collaborate as always. My contact information and DMs are open.