Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, has chucked in his thoughts on the very-common term, “smart contracts,’ and its constant association with Ethereum, as he fears he adopted the wrong name.
Buterin decided to lend in his thoughts on a viral thread on twitter; where Cryptoecongames stated that cryptocurrencies “should have stayed a-legal.”
By ‘a-legal,’ it is suggested that cryptocurrency should not have been bounded by law; that way, actions attributed to the industry could not be really processed or dealt with legally, since they won’t be explicitly legal or illegal. “We’ve been clear since the start: *crypto* should’ve left “law out of it” & stayed a-legal,” the account tweeted.
Buterin subsequently joined the ongoing discussion revolving around crypto-law. He agreed that the term “smart contracts; was not the most tepid term available to reveal the uninteresting technicalities surrounding the buzzword. The young developer is worried the term sounds, to a certain degree, overly legalese and believes a boring term such as ‘persistent scripts’ should have been slapped on it. Perhaps then, the state of Tennesse in the United States might not have found it worthy enough to be constituted as a legal authority, as it did in April.
“To be clear, at this point I quite regret adopting the term “smart contracts.” I should have called them something more boring and technical, perhaps something like “persistent scripts,” Buterin’s tweet read.
Vlad Zamfir, also an associate of Vitalik and Ethereum, thinks that Buterin is right and feels the term ‘smart contracts’ does the blockchain algorithm too much good. He, however, suggested he preferred his own coined term for it: “stored procedures.”
Zamfir’s term is still bland nevertheless, and if all he wants is “boring,” he definitely succeeded. Ditto, the term “Smart Contracts,” first coined by Nick Szabo in 1994, has become too much of a buzzword in recent times, and it doesn’t look to be replaced now or in the near future.