Among those of us who see some value in smart contracts, there are two camps: those who are realistic about their limits and challenges, and those who have bought in to a massive delusion. This quote epitomizes the latter.
For example, how does 'run exactly as programmed' rule out fraud? Fraud is as programmable as legitimate activity.
For example, if fraud is not possible, then what was the justification for the hard fork?
People who have bought into a delusion find it hard to evaluate evidence - for example "Van de Sande is eager to move on. “It was really just a blip,” he says." So what was all the fuss about? After all, it was just two lines of code, so simple in retrospect, and now it has been fixed, so there's nothing to worry about, right?
Perhaps my favorite quote is "“I’m absolutely amazed. Why has no one traced this back and found out who did it?” asks Stephan Tual, the third co-founder of Slock.it." He is amazed that in one respect, this digital currency lived up to one of their major claimed benefits?
I am also not at all surprised by the 'shoot the messenger' complaints about Sirer's involvement.
The reality is that the verification of software, especially at this scale, is a really difficult problem, and everyone who has bought into the delusion seems to think that someone else is going to do it for them - I doubt that even 1% know how to do it themselves. So much for 'trustless'.
