Hacker News Reader

Comment by village-idiot | Hacker News Reader

As has been pointed out, a large percentage of these are probably “hello world” types, which is harmless enough.

I’d be interested in what percentage of smart contracts are actually useful. Remove the demo contracts, the horribly broken, the Ponzi schemes and all the ICO token contracts. What do you have left, and does it justify the existence and price of Ethereum?

View on HN

With those excluded, what you have left is going to be 99.9% gambling.

Fills a demand, sure. But I would assume that every one of these contracts is more shady and less fun than online poker.

I wonder what percentage of those are not rigged.

Why are ICO contracts not useful?

"Why are ICO contracts not useful?"

Burden is on your side: "Why are they useful?"

nope the burden is on yours because apparently people do use them (proven by transactions from different addresses)

The only use case I’ve seen is to evade SEC IPO rules. I consider that worthless.

Well, that and ponzi coins and exit scam coins.

I also see post exit-scam coins still trading above 0, which just screams bubble to me.

The burden of usefulness is on those who present them as useful, not for others to demonstrate that they are not useful.

That 'some people are using them' is not really validation of anything.

If someone can explain why they are practical, give real world use cases, and demonstrate how they are already being used in a practical way, then that would make sense.

Until them it's vapourtech.

useful = users don't overcomplicate things with personal views and bias. People use it end of story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com