According to blockchain security firm Cetrik, just in year 2020 alone, over $16 billion crypto assets were lost due to security problems in smart contracts
People put their attentions to smart contract projects, hope to solve the problems by code auditing and have ignored the root causes of the problems

Present transaction model for smart contract is root cause of many smart contract security problems

The model people use today was originally proposed in the Ethereum White Paper
User submits smart contract call → Smart contract executes the call → As long as the smart contract returns with success，miner considers the transaction valid and record it;
User's contract assets (tokens) are recorded inside smart contract
This model is NOT contractual, NOT decentralized, and WITHOUT validation for results

Validation is prerequisite for a valid contract

A contract could be executed by a program, but execution of program is not a contract
Contract is meet of minds. If result of program execution meets minds of both parties, it is a contract. Otherwise, it is not.
Thus when blockchain records a trade of assets through smart contract, it must validation the result of execution to ensure the minds of the parties meet
Nakamoto: Don't trust, verify!
Validation is a missing link in the present smart contract model

Virtually all blockchain smart contracts today are --
Centralized Unverified Non-contracts

This is the root cause of crypto asset losses of billions of dollars
Present smart contract model does not allow users to express their intentions to miners, miners therefore are unable to verify that the results of executions meet minds of the users, and can only take the results of contract executions as agreement of the parties
This kind smart contracts are not contracts by legal standard
Behind every smart contract is a centralized entity. A smart contract is an agent of the entity. This centralized nature of smart contracts does not change solely because the contract codes are stored in blockchains
Decentralism comes from the fact that each miner independently validates transactions and determines ownership of assets
Under present smart contract model, ledger for contract issued tokens are kept by the issuing smart contract. In essense, it is the creator of the smart contract keeping the ledger for his customers since the smart contract is merely his agent. Since miners only mechanically executes steps the creator had set up, miners do not independently determine ownership of and keep ledge for the token assets.
Thus, the present smart contract model is a centralized ledger.
Using this kind centralized, unverified, non-contractual model to trade assets, no wonder billions of dollars assets were lost.

Scalability is a problem for blockchain since its birth

Blockchain trillema: Among scalability, security, and decentralism, improvement in one objective can only be achieved by sacrificing the other two.
There is a trend of using pro-centralism POS technology to replace POW technology
There is really no solution to the blockchain trillema？

For smart contract security problem, Ω suggests an manifest smart contract transaction model

Under this model:
1. User submits an incomplete UTXO style transaction manifesting his intent and containing smart contract calls;
2. Miner executes smart contract calls in OVM（Ω Virtual Machine）. During execution, the smart contract may inerts inputs or outputs to the present UTXO style transaction to meet user requirements or to submit its own requirement;
3. After successful execution, miner would independently verify that requirements of both of the user and the smart contract are met;
4. User will receive UTXO outputs as value he gets from the transaction, not an entry in the smart contract's intenal ledger.
Miner will consider a transaction legitimate and record it in blockchain only if intents of both the user and the smart contract are met。
This smart contract model provides contract in conformity with the law, and is truelly decentralized. It is the choice of furture blockchains.

Trillema originates from the one-chain architecture of homogeneous blocks

The three objectives are inherently conflicting. In one-chain architecture of homogeneous blocks, each block must carry out all of the three objectives, dillema occurs
Ω suggest a dual-chain architecture distributing the three objective to different types of blocks, thus never falls into the dillema
Compromising neither security nor decentralism, Ω eliminates theoritical limitation on scalability. A node's ability to process transactions is only limited by its ability to validate and pack transactions. Ω has unrestricted scalability..

That's not all for Ω. Ω has a unique land token technology, universal value representation to unify representation of numerical and NFT values in a unified form, supporting the most diverse types of applications

To learn more, please continue browsing this website