Afaik, no, proofs of correctness are not currently implemented in the languages that are used. Some of them iirc have a way to do that in part, but currently the languages aren&#x27;t set up for full proofs of correctness. (But, iirc, some things can be shown)<p>It is planned though.<p>Ok, yes, I suppose that the contracts will&#x2F;would eventually get kind of long. As it is now though, It hasn&#x27;t taken me &#x2F;all&#x2F; that long to read the contracts I&#x27;ve looked at. (But perhaps I&#x27;ve only bothered to look at the ones short enough to read )<p>Regarding finding security flaws despite people looking carefully: yes, that seems a good point. I think proofs of correctness will be important for important contracts. However, many contracts logic is not really all that complicated. A contract can be powerful without being complicated, I think. Because of this, I think much of the time the proofs should not be too hard to write.<p>Regarding running out of gas:<p>Well, yes, if the transaction you send does not have enough gas, and you needed it to run, that could be a problem. But, if you run the transaction locally, and use that to estimate the amount of gas which needs to be used (might not be exact if the state of the contract changes in a way that your transaction needs more computation, but for reasonable contracts I think this would not be much), and one can provide extra gas in case this happens (the extra gas will be refunded), to have a high confidence that it will be enough.<p>But, if the transaction is important, one would be watching what happened carefully anyway, to make sure the transaction gets in the chain, regardless of the complications from the computations in the transaction. If, counter to your expectations, the gas you provided did not end up being enough, then you would be able to notice this, and, though you would be out that gas cost, you could just send the transaction again with more gas.<p>The block times are very short (under a minute), so you probably wouldn&#x27;t have to wait long to send the transaction again with more gas. Most of the gas costs shouldn&#x27;t be too large, so unless the transaction you are sending is very time sensitive, or very computationally expensive, a transaction running out of gas shouldn&#x27;t be &#x2F;too&#x2F; much of a problem?<p>I think you make some good points btw, just explaining my understanding of how those things are addressed.<p>Also, I&#x27;m not sure, but it seems you might have a small confusion about gas. Gas is included in the transaction, not stored by a contract over time. Gas only exists within the context of a particular transaction, the token which is actually exchanged is ether. You might have just been choosing not to mention the details of that though.