You seem intellectually curious and honest from what you write. So I think you’re one step away from the epiphany, if you can resist doubling down on this statement

this is extremely, extremely wrong

Sure, they can “hardfork” the protocol in a backwards-incompatible way, but they’d have to get the fork adopted by everyone who is currently running (and “securing”) the other version of the database and its “stored procedures”. Often, the node operators don’t all know each other and it’s hard for them to all collude to run the hardfork. Often, the old network has large enough incentives for each individual to not switch, similar to how everyone always threatens to leave Facebook but it still has the same MAU because its network effect is so huge. Good luck leaving when all your friends are on it, etc. And Facebook doesn’t give you a steady stream of income, even. If it did, if you made more profit than it cost you to run a node, why wouldn’t you ALSO keep supporting the old network? I can think of one reason only — if the new network hardfork would pay you MORE and it would be a zero-sum game. It would have to break old contracts AND gain enough traction to pay all the node operators MORE than the old one. That’s quite a hurdle and becomes harder the bigger the original network was.

Bitcoin was forked multiple times, but even a sensible hardfork change like increasing the block size proved too hard to do. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are around but most Bitcoin ”miner” nodes still run the tried and true old blue.

Ethereum team had to put a “difficulty bomb” in there to try to get the miners to upgrade. See Ethereum Classic, for instance, it is still being run, despite having no widely adopted applications or stablecoins on it. So even without utility, you can have shitcoins running for years, and you’re talking to me about how ALL nodes can just abandon it?

Now about the bugs and correctness. Look… first of all, no one is claiming that smart contracts will solve every single problem, neither did Web1 but it solved enough that everyone left AOL and CompuServe and MSN and joined it. That’s a FACT. They also left Encarta and Britannica which were quite popular capitalist enterprises, paying all editors top-down from their profits, and instead Wikipedia eclipsed them all. They are now a rounding error.

But you bring a fair point — since smart contracts must be immutable to be trusted (like UniSwap Factory, or many other protocols) they have to be audited and battle tested before the public can trust them with large amounts of value (elections, money, etc.)

The ultimate in this is Provable Correctness, and there are now tools to actually prove a smart contract or a program is correct.

The second place is what Cardano is doing — running fuzzing with massive amounts of input through what is essentially a functional programming language (Haskell). What is not enough about that? You get the best of all worlds… trillions of tests, and then immutable code you can trust.

Disclaimer: I am not building on Cardano and have no connection to their ecosystem. Just that they are focused on moving the space to a more provably correct set of smart contracts, and it addresses your concern.