How does the writer argue that banks protect traditional software from serious hacks?
banks centralised; there are layers of protection, some cards can be cancelled, others are maxed out, plus if a transaction does take place they can be traced and refunded. Whilst smart contracts are one way and final.
The writer is somewhat against upgradeable contracts, what arguments does he make?
Upgrading contracts could cause problems. Smart contract are desired to not change fundamentally towards the actual block chain or forwarded to gateways to action the most up-to-date contract.
basically simple & boring is better than complex and straightforwardness for maximum security
What comparison does the writer make between smart contracts and Lord of the Rings?
It only has one official entryway. This is because if enemies want to get in and plunder it, they need to climb up an extremely high wall, or a very narrow entrance. This design was prevalent in medieval times, as it makes it relatively simple for a smaller group of soldiers with spears to keep an entire army at bay by guarding a single opening.
Therefore the more complicated a smart contract it becomes, and as the complexity increases, so do the number of attack vector. In conclusion keep the smart contract simple so it is easier to defend. (reference “Helms Deep”)