Digital RMB vs. Public Chain Smart Contracts: What Are the Differences in Technical Architecture?

Question

【ChainWen】Smart contracts look the same, but in fact, they are very different. Someone knowledgeable in this area recently shared the fundamental differences between Digital RMB and public chain smart contracts.

In simple terms, the essence of both types of contracts is the same—conditional trigger to automatically execute code. But the details are quite complex.

The smart contracts used by Digital RMB are based on an account system and are restricted Turing complete. It sounds impressive, but in reality, it simply means programming is strictly limited within templates approved by the central bank, supporting only some preset, relatively simple conditional trigger functions. Why do it this way? Mainly for security and risk control considerations. After all, it involves the financial system, and you can’t try everything like on a public chain.

In contrast, smart contracts on public chains are fully Turing complete. For example, programming languages like Solidity allow you to write much more flexible and free code.

Interestingly, the technology of Digital RMB fully supports these fully Turing complete programming languages. From a technical perspective, it’s not a problem at all. The real difficulty lies in designing a set of standards and access mechanisms that can be accepted by the financial system while ensuring security audits. This is the true challenge we face.

AmateurDAOWatcher · Accepted Answer

The central bank's approach is really clever. They have to put money in a cage before releasing it. Why don't they trust developers? Haha.

Public chains are having a blast, anything can be written, but rug pulls keep happening wave after wave. No wonder there are two paths to choose.

The topic is too competitive. Basically, it's the old script of freedom vs. control.

The digital yuan approach feels like strangling the dream of Web3 right in its cradle.

Limited Turing completeness? To put it nicely, it's a cut-down version of smart contracts.

RektRecorder · Answer

The central bank's contracts are just about setting rules, while public chains are actually free wild children.

GasFeeSurvivor · Answer

The central bank is just playing around with contracts, fearing something might go wrong. On the public chain side, it's growing wildly, with a bunch of buggy contracts. To put it simply, one is a safe deposit box, and the other is a casino.

ForkTongue · Answer

It's a nested doll. The central bank's approach is to restrict freedom, while our public chain is the true realm of imagination.

GasWaster · Answer

Isn't this just the old routine of centralized vs decentralized? One is trapped behind bars, and the other is free to the point of risking trouble.

HorizonHunter · Answer

The central bank's move is really clever, putting the digital renminbi under the label of "restricted Turing completeness." Basically, they're just afraid of issues arising. In contrast, public blockchains offer tremendous freedom, but the risks are very real.

EthMaximalist · Answer

The central bank is trapped by the framework, and the limited Turing completeness essentially means a cut-down version, haha.

YieldHunter · Answer

nah, "restricted turing complete" is just a fancy way of saying they're terrified of exploits lmao. cbdc contracts are basically training wheels for finance bros who've never seen a reentrancy attack before... gimme full solidity chaos any day, at least the risk metrics are transparent 💀

SmartContractPhobia · Answer

The central bank has put a tight leash on it, only public chains are truly free.

Digital RMB vs. Public Chain Smart Contracts: What Are the Differences in Technical Architecture?

Trending Topics

GateFebruaryTransparencyReport

CryptoMarketBouncesBack

TrumpSaysIranConflictNearsEnd

MicroStrategyAddsBTCFor1.28B

GoldAndSilverMoveHigher

Hot Gate Fun

GLG

GALACTIC GOLW

MAOJIAN

信阳毛尖

SXTB

双信通宝

CNY-1

CNY-1

PEACE

Peace Truce Coin

Pin