Muh formal verified science, fartano

Besides vaporware

Reminder you fucking pajeets:
Formal verified language COQ and runtime, all science community writing "muh math proof security formally verified programs"

Then one day, a random faggot proved in COQ language, that FALSE IS TRUE.

Which invalidates every fucking COQ program written to that date, and questions the integrity and validity of every MUH FORMALLY VERIFIED proof program

Your Cardano ADA "formally verified" "science" is only moving the goalpost one step up - your theorem prover can have security bugs, both logical and in implementation. LULZ

The only security can come from experience, like bitcoin, and ethereum (not despite all the hacks, but thanks to them its more secure now than without, and its more secure than Ada will be 5 years from now).

fartano pajeets

Other urls found in this thread:

cardano does not use COQ faggot

Any "formally verified" language and runtime also has the same class of bugs dumbass

In other words, just beacuse you do formal verification does not mean your software is secure. LOL fardano

Whats the matter Veeky Forums cant take any serious thinking?
Thats alright, be a bagholder

How high can this shit coin even go?

Its a bagholder generator

You think I'd trust Veeky Forums over /g/ and over Veeky Forums? I've made threads asking what they thought of mathematically proven security, your statement only applies to the theory not the implementation of COQ. If this was the case then there would be no point to MIT continuing to teach mathematical security proofs. Talk outta your ass more.

>Then one day, a random faggot proved in COQ language, that FALSE IS TRUE.

being active in dev community and always making fun of theoretics, this made me giggle out loud

alright Op just cuz u seem like a mr smartypants wtff is the next 10-20x coin lemme knowpls

FUN, but you didn't hear it from OP.

god dam it who let the funchad in

m8 all of that is important, the thing is market will bring you so much more opportunities in other positions, because trx chink like shilling gonna be bigger short term. Long term yes looks good, but you know, who the fuck knows what happens long term.

>he fuck knows what happens long term.
i mean it would be better find some low mc gem long term rght?

My statement applies to both theory and implementation.

Why dont you go ask a car salesman if care salesmen are really needed? Thats what you're doing. Hey mathematcician, is mathematicians work really worth it? Hey you computer science guy getting off on your own theorems - is computer science really the answer to all questions? Why, yes of course. Have a bag, sir.

Security is practical, as COQ example shows, both implementation and theory can have logical flaws. Just like any other software. BWAAHAHAHA

> he doesn't understand HOL

look at this baka... OP formally proved to be a huge faggot again.

biz hate? ahhh comfy

Yeah friend I completely understand that, I'm bleeding out my ADA now because its once again overvalued and I need more monies to put down on my laptop fund. This FUD is stupid though, cringey even to anyone who is into security and math.

You will have fun reading this

BTW the other fag, when he asked /g/ and Veeky Forums, ask them about Gödel theorem,

What must be trusted in any "muh formally verified language and runtime" is its theorem prover, and due to Gödel theorem - the answer is, its FUUUCKED, its rekt user, rekt. It cant prove itself, it can not completely verify itselt, user.

Man this is so post-modern I don't even know anymore. What does the word mutual-exclusivity means?

Do, you, know, what, mutual-exclusivity, means?

I am developing it user, only take brakes to take a shit on other primitive coins here on Veeky Forums for shits and giggles

My coin will be released soon, its name is BAZINGACOIN

Just messin, the coin Im developing which is sexier than Ada, smarter than Ethereum, coinier than bitcoin, twistier than iota, safer than zcash, faster than Rai, has no name yet.

Thanks for this one

Bugs in a formal verifier are easier to find and fix than bugs in crypto code. I mean you do get that the point of it is engineering better code right? It's not about proving their code when compiled to x86 is mathematically provably going to work -- you can never do that. Everyone knows that. Do you think the PHDs and grad students teams working on this at universities don't know about Godel's theorem?

Honestly confused here OP