Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • December 2, 2021 11:40 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

The basic problem is that the code is the ultimate authority — there is no adjudication protocol — so if there’s a vulnerability in the code, there is no recourse. And, of course, there are lots of vulnerabilities in code.

There is another “basic problem” and one that if not correctly addressed will leave “Smart Contracts” for ever broken.

The problem is the majority of programmers write limited sequential code, not full state machine code. Thus one heck of a lot gets left out, and thus “dangling” and waiting to be used/abused. Lawyers unlike many programmers appear to be aware of this issue.

This issue was known to be a problem back in the 1950’s. British Computer Scientist and logicion C.A.R.Hoare worked on the problem and came up with a fundemental set of rules that became known as Hoare Logic which he published at the end of the 1960’s.

The fundemental block of Hoare Logic is the Hoare Tripple,

A Hoare triple is of the form

{P}C{Q}

Where {P} and {Q} are assertions about state etc and C is a command.

P, is the precondition
Q, is the postcondition

Where the assertions P and Q are expressed as formulae in predicate logic.

When the precondition P is met, executing the command C causes changes and establishes the postcondition Q.

Whilst you can build “full state” code with Hoare Logic, it’s not something most would want to do…

In short “It’s tedious not creative” and “dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s can be a tedious task ordinarily.

So it has a “slip-shod” habit of not being done which unfortunately gets carried over into unrevokable issues.

But… In normal life the last thing anyone actually wants is unrevokavle contracts so arbitration usually gets “built in”. In principle there is no reason why smart contracts can not have arbitration built in, it just creates a whole heap of downstream issues nobody wants to address.

Untill arbitration or full state control is implemented in Smart Contracts we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing happening.

Clive Robinson • December 3, 2021 3:23 AM

@ Shoal Creek, Jon, Scam Coin, Tom Rollins, Winter, ALL,

Rothbard promoted the idea that a contract is only valid within a code of laws that is based on natural law.

Sorry there is no such thing as “Natural law”, just the working rules of evolution.

In fact “law” or more correctly “legislation” is it’s self an artificial construct of man that comes about due to a failing which as I’ve pointed out before can be sumed up as,

“Abdication of responsability, to self and others.”

As such “abdication is unavoidable” for individuals (you have to sleep or go mad and die). As none of us wish to be,

1, Killed in our sleep
2, Jumped from behind

We form groups where we share the responsability of watching over others.

That is those groups as small as two individuals form the basis for what we chose to call “society” in humans, and herd mentality etc in other abimals.

Unfortunately as they say “For every upside there is a downside”. Whilst this is not an absolute, it does apply to “Abdication of Responsability”.

That is you can not give some one responsability over your life whilst you sleep or to watch your blind spot, without also giving them the “power” to chose if you live or die, by their action or inaction.

This rule where abdication of responsability gives power to others is realy the only “Natural Law” if you are looking for such.

All other laws and behaviours within groups and societies of any size follow on from this, simple rule.

As a consequence of this rule it can be seen that hierarchies form. That is one person can watch over more than one person who sleeps or is otherwise not taking responsability for their defense. So it is more efficient to have more people being watched than it is watchers.

At a certain size it is more convenient to have two people watch over a group, as not only can they look out for the many sleeping they can also cover each others blind zones thus watch each others backs.

This by the way is not a “human construct” you can see it in many creatures. In fact some point out that plants also do this watching out for others.

But it should be clear from the way immune systems work the rule applies on the cellular level as well. So has not come about via the agency of a “directing mind” but is in fact a basic evolutionary process that works at many levels and has done for longer than we can determine.

Unfortunately when an organism is sufficiently complex it developes “agency” that is it can follow or not follow rules based on other rulrs, chance, or choice. It is this agency that gives rise to what we chose to call “power” via choice. As such, “power” is attractive to certain mentalities.

@Winter has listed the “dark triad” of these mentalities in the past and you can go and see what it is that they find particularly attractive.

Interestingly these attractions form a hierarchy as well. From this you can see why there are “authoritarian followers” who fill the levels that are the “guard labour” and above in the social hierarchy.

As a consequence we get not just power accumulating towards the top of hierarchies, but certain people attracted to diferent aspects of that power.

The higher the level in a hierarchy the less poistions there are. Thus competition / fighting to be at the top of hierarchy is not just inevitable where there is agency, it is highly visable and considered a primary requirment to hold a higher position.

This gives us the “King Game”, from which the “Estates of Man” followed and gave us deities and religion.

To answer @Scam Coin’s final questions above,

So the reality of what some call “Natural law” is the incurable lunatics realy do run society, or if you prefer “the asylum”. So we already know…

Interrstingly though, what in the US are called “libitarians” are those that due to their own inadequacies have failed to rise in the existing social hierarchies. Thus they form their own hierarchies which they want to force every one else into. More interestingly is that at the lower levels of their hierarchy they delude themselves into thinking they have not formed a hierarchy as a “natural consequence of their existance”, nor that they are just the fodder to be prey for those further up the hierarchy.

As was once observed,

“The more things change,
the more they stay the same.”

Or the more fun,

Hey, that’s evolution baby.

Clive Robinson • December 3, 2021 9:50 AM

@ Winter,

I have seen people argue that you have an unwritten constitution.

More fool them, they can not even plead they do not understand,

An unwritten contract is not worth the paper it is written on.

As was taught to me about “log books” for both science and engineering research,

If it’s not written down it never happened