As I explained in another thread [0], there is a reasonable argument that so-called "smart contracts" are not legally contracts at all, because they are not int

As I explained in another thread [0], there is a reasonable argument that so-called "smart contracts" are not legally contracts at all, because they are not intended to give the parties recourse to legal enforcement of their terms. (This is the basic raison d'être of smart contracts—enforcement de machina rather than de jure.) If a judge accepts that argument, then contract law would not apply to smart contracts, and the usual considerations of intent in contract law would not be relevant. Of course the intent underlying the code that implements the smart contract would remain relevant, but unless the "contracting" parties agreed on meta-provisions for arbitrating disagreements about the intent of the code (legal or otherwise), it seems reasonable to accept the default interpretation supported by many members of Ethereum's community: what the code says goes. In short, legal arguments may not be dispositive, because smart contracts may not be legal contracts. In that case, determining the intent behind the code may be a morass best avoided as many assumed it would be, by ignoring it and letting the code decide. (Of course, the ideal form of arbitrating meta-provision is code compiled against a spec enforced by a tool-chain that includes formal verification—both because it is self-enforcing and because it bridges the gap between intent and what the code actually does. But that seems a long way off.) 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11932003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11932003