4 ms·

> No-one can write bug-free code Perhaps, but nobody can write a bug-free legal contract either, and no legal system is without bugs. Sadly, for the legal sys

> No-one can write bug-free code Perhaps, but nobody can write a bug-free legal contract either, and no legal system is without bugs. Sadly, for the legal system, many of the bugs are due to corruption, so they are actually more akin to systematic exploits being done again and again by malicious actors (who often happen to be wealthy or powerful). Also, in terms of how drastic this bug is, suppose $5M gets stolen over a few days. If the community can strengthen itself and become resilient to a whole class of attacks, that is likely far superior to a meatspace improvement in contract law, which would likely take years to become law (and would be selectively enforced once it did).

masklinn 10y ago
> Perhaps, but nobody can write a bug-free legal contract either, and no legal system is without bugs. The difference is that when there is an issue with a legal contract you can defer to an arbiter (a judge) and discuss whether that is a bug or a feature as soon as a divergence of interpretation is detected. Hell, even just having a sentient empowered human in the loop is sufficient, with fully automated response systems we'd never have survived the cold war as a civilisation, the first false-positive detection (and there have been several) would have ended it.
- cayblood 10y ago
  There's nothing preventing a contract from adding fallback modes that require interaction from human agents. Indeed, most of the more high-assurance contracts will probably require this.
- grandalf 10y ago
  You are describing human judgement or human discretion. It's probably a given that AI will surpass humans in judgement and discretion of many things in the coming years and would be at least as able to avoid reacting to a false-positive as any human. The problem (and the thing you propose as a solution) is deferring to an arbiter. This is not human judgement as much as it is human authority. We conflate the two in meatspace because of the social rank conferred upon such positions (this is the same drive that makes humans bow before gods and dictators) The very idea of decentralization is a different authority model than what is typically in human institutions. In theory, institutions managed in a decentralized and anonymous way have the potential to achieve a form of democratic governance that is far more resistant to corruption than any form previously invented. In meatspace, a judge must be chosen, elected/appointed, confirmed, etc., and when that judge needs to be replaced we take an entirely different (largely unknown) judge and do a full-scale migration to that new judge's "firmware". With smart contracts, we can divide the execution into many smaller smart-contracts, each with a specific domain of expertise. This makes versioning, incremental improvement, and extreme transparency possible. If you listen to us SCOTUS argument, particularly when a case involves discussion of the intent of specific words in a law, it becomes clear how utterly mutable all of the constructs are. While the SCOTUS is a world-class institution in terms of its overall quality, it is reinforced using a highly centralized model of human authority, with all its problems.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > You are describing human judgement or human discretion. It's probably a given that AI will surpass humans in judgement and discretion of many things in the coming years and would be at least as able to avoid reacting to a false-positive as any human. Maybe, maybe not, either way that's a worthless pie-in-the-sky declaration because those AIs don't exist and I have not seen you declare that smart contracts shouldn't happen before those AIs arise. > The problem […] is deferring to an arbiter. You're confused, the problem is the handling of contracts breaking down due to bugs or boundary conditions. > the thing you propose as a solution is deferring to an arbiter. It's not "the thing I propose as a solution" it's the solution we currently have, and one which we know works. > This is not human judgement as much as it is human authority. We conflate the two in meatspace because of the social rank conferred upon such positions. Authority and social rank have nothing to do with it, only that both parties accept an arbiter and that the arbiter's decision will be the binding resolution of the issue. Courts are convenient arbiters as they don't require active cooperation between the parties (quite the opposite) and there are long-standing legal frameworks and case laws, they're not the only option. > The very idea of decentralization is a different authority model than what is typically in human institutions. That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. > In meatspace, a judge must be chosen, elected/appointed, confirmed, etc., and when that judge needs to be replaced we take an entirely different (largely unknown) judge and do a full-scale migration to that new judge's "firmware". So what? > With smart contracts, we can divide the execution into many smaller smart-contracts, each with a specific domain of expertise. This makes versioning, incremental improvement, and extreme transparency possible. You're just masturbating about with "smart contracts" bullshit, you still haven't provided for the handling of contracts breaking down, which is what concerns us here.

masklinn 10y ago

> Perhaps, but nobody can write a bug-free legal contract either, and no legal system is without bugs. The difference is that when there is an issue with a legal contract you can defer to an arbiter (a judge) and discuss whether that is a bug or a feature as soon as a divergence of interpretation is detected. Hell, even just having a sentient empowered human in the loop is sufficient, with fully automated response systems we'd never have survived the cold war as a civilisation, the first false-positive detection (and there have been several) would have ended it.

cayblood 10y ago
There's nothing preventing a contract from adding fallback modes that require interaction from human agents. Indeed, most of the more high-assurance contracts will probably require this.
grandalf 10y ago
You are describing human judgement or human discretion. It's probably a given that AI will surpass humans in judgement and discretion of many things in the coming years and would be at least as able to avoid reacting to a false-positive as any human. The problem (and the thing you propose as a solution) is deferring to an arbiter. This is not human judgement as much as it is human authority. We conflate the two in meatspace because of the social rank conferred upon such positions (this is the same drive that makes humans bow before gods and dictators) The very idea of decentralization is a different authority model than what is typically in human institutions. In theory, institutions managed in a decentralized and anonymous way have the potential to achieve a form of democratic governance that is far more resistant to corruption than any form previously invented. In meatspace, a judge must be chosen, elected/appointed, confirmed, etc., and when that judge needs to be replaced we take an entirely different (largely unknown) judge and do a full-scale migration to that new judge's "firmware". With smart contracts, we can divide the execution into many smaller smart-contracts, each with a specific domain of expertise. This makes versioning, incremental improvement, and extreme transparency possible. If you listen to us SCOTUS argument, particularly when a case involves discussion of the intent of specific words in a law, it becomes clear how utterly mutable all of the constructs are. While the SCOTUS is a world-class institution in terms of its overall quality, it is reinforced using a highly centralized model of human authority, with all its problems.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > You are describing human judgement or human discretion. It's probably a given that AI will surpass humans in judgement and discretion of many things in the coming years and would be at least as able to avoid reacting to a false-positive as any human. Maybe, maybe not, either way that's a worthless pie-in-the-sky declaration because those AIs don't exist and I have not seen you declare that smart contracts shouldn't happen before those AIs arise. > The problem […] is deferring to an arbiter. You're confused, the problem is the handling of contracts breaking down due to bugs or boundary conditions. > the thing you propose as a solution is deferring to an arbiter. It's not "the thing I propose as a solution" it's the solution we currently have, and one which we know works. > This is not human judgement as much as it is human authority. We conflate the two in meatspace because of the social rank conferred upon such positions. Authority and social rank have nothing to do with it, only that both parties accept an arbiter and that the arbiter's decision will be the binding resolution of the issue. Courts are convenient arbiters as they don't require active cooperation between the parties (quite the opposite) and there are long-standing legal frameworks and case laws, they're not the only option. > The very idea of decentralization is a different authority model than what is typically in human institutions. That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. > In meatspace, a judge must be chosen, elected/appointed, confirmed, etc., and when that judge needs to be replaced we take an entirely different (largely unknown) judge and do a full-scale migration to that new judge's "firmware". So what? > With smart contracts, we can divide the execution into many smaller smart-contracts, each with a specific domain of expertise. This makes versioning, incremental improvement, and extreme transparency possible. You're just masturbating about with "smart contracts" bullshit, you still haven't provided for the handling of contracts breaking down, which is what concerns us here.