7 ms·

IRL, contract law and courts take precedence over schemes like Ethereum and the DAO, just like arrest warrants do, money laundering regs, etc. Whether this is g

IRL, contract law and courts take precedence over schemes like Ethereum and the DAO, just like arrest warrants do, money laundering regs, etc. Whether this is good or bad, it just is. In real contract law, there are three elements of a contract. 1. a meeting of the minds: the parties must agree on what is being exchanged 2. an actual exchange, in both directions, it's called "consideration" 3. at least one of the parties must behave as if they are relying on the contract, a party must "make a move" and begin to deliver on the contract. There may be all sorts of guarantees written into contracts to enhance the security of the either of the two sides. So, these mathematical smart contracts are completely OK under contract law; however, the smart contracts and the surrounding activity must still meet the requirements of a contract. It is not "a meeting of the minds" for one side to drain the other side of their total balances, and it violates "consideration" as well since nothing is being exchanged for the extra money. So there is ample reason to claim that these were not valid contracts and should be rolled back. Cuz that's how contracts work, it's the only way they work.

droffel 10y ago
> It is not "a meeting of the minds" for one side to drain the other side of their total balances, and it violates "consideration" as well since nothing is being exchanged for the extra money. So there is ample reason to claim that these were not valid contracts and should be rolled back. I disagree. From the Explanation of Terms and Disclaimer[1] on the DAOhub site: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." The Code is Law. All parties knew, and accepted this before 'investing'. The contract performed exactly as designed. [1] https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html
- blastrat 10y ago
  |I disagree. Excellent! and I disagree with you, so we disagree. Where does that leave us? Simply as two proponents of free speech... unless... unless we have a smart contract between us, one under which you just drained my Ethereum account of ether. Beyond being a proponent of free speech, that gives me "standing" to become a "litigant", a "plaintiff" against you as "defendant". You would get to tell your side to the judge, just like me. Here are some exaggerated hypothetical examples where you will agree with me; then hopefully you can see how a judge would look at the present situation with the DAO: If, buried in TheCodeThatIsLaw that AllPartiesKnewAndAccepted, there is encoded an agreement to deliver narcotics to children, or sell children into slavery, or to provide funding to a terror training cell for children, then it wouldn't matter what TheCodeThatIsLaw says, a court would declare it invalid, NotAContract, NotBinding. Even if we encoded it in language that says "this is the funding part, being non-specific about the activities". That's simply how it works. Period. And you can't write a binding contract to give money away, there's no consideration. TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw must meet standards of its own in order to provide additional binding law, the standards I outlined above, a meeting of the minds, consideration, and reliance. So when it comes to challenging the results of TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw, courts will look inside, and they will look for AMeetingOfTheMinds, and they will look at what actually happened, how people behaved, and the court will decide if TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw fulfills the requirements that all contracts must fulfill in order to be binding. My point is not that these contracts are invalid; my point is that these contracts are not free from interpretation by courts, and they are not free from meeting the standards of contracts as seen and interpreted by the courts, and not as seen by one party to the agreement who got what they wanted. And, by the way, contracts can't contain ponzis. No matter how many signatures, lawyers, notaries, and PhDs in economics are involved in forging the agreement, TheCodeThatIsLaw is not the law if the code contains a ponzi. That's how the law works. I'm talking about US law (we are talking .com here) but other countries of laws use similar methods of determination.

droffel 10y ago

> It is not "a meeting of the minds" for one side to drain the other side of their total balances, and it violates "consideration" as well since nothing is being exchanged for the extra money. So there is ample reason to claim that these were not valid contracts and should be rolled back. I disagree. From the Explanation of Terms and Disclaimer[1] on the DAOhub site: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." The Code is Law. All parties knew, and accepted this before 'investing'. The contract performed exactly as designed. [1] https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html

blastrat 10y ago
|I disagree. Excellent! and I disagree with you, so we disagree. Where does that leave us? Simply as two proponents of free speech... unless... unless we have a smart contract between us, one under which you just drained my Ethereum account of ether. Beyond being a proponent of free speech, that gives me "standing" to become a "litigant", a "plaintiff" against you as "defendant". You would get to tell your side to the judge, just like me. Here are some exaggerated hypothetical examples where you will agree with me; then hopefully you can see how a judge would look at the present situation with the DAO: If, buried in TheCodeThatIsLaw that AllPartiesKnewAndAccepted, there is encoded an agreement to deliver narcotics to children, or sell children into slavery, or to provide funding to a terror training cell for children, then it wouldn't matter what TheCodeThatIsLaw says, a court would declare it invalid, NotAContract, NotBinding. Even if we encoded it in language that says "this is the funding part, being non-specific about the activities". That's simply how it works. Period. And you can't write a binding contract to give money away, there's no consideration. TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw must meet standards of its own in order to provide additional binding law, the standards I outlined above, a meeting of the minds, consideration, and reliance. So when it comes to challenging the results of TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw, courts will look inside, and they will look for AMeetingOfTheMinds, and they will look at what actually happened, how people behaved, and the court will decide if TheCodeThatPurportsToBeLaw fulfills the requirements that all contracts must fulfill in order to be binding. My point is not that these contracts are invalid; my point is that these contracts are not free from interpretation by courts, and they are not free from meeting the standards of contracts as seen and interpreted by the courts, and not as seen by one party to the agreement who got what they wanted. And, by the way, contracts can't contain ponzis. No matter how many signatures, lawyers, notaries, and PhDs in economics are involved in forging the agreement, TheCodeThatIsLaw is not the law if the code contains a ponzi. That's how the law works. I'm talking about US law (we are talking .com here) but other countries of laws use similar methods of determination.