2 ms·
I don't see why this is a fundamental problem. At worst, a simple legal shim of the "third party law firm legally bound to do X if smart contract dictates so" w
by ethbro 10y ago
I don't see why this is a fundamental problem. At worst, a simple legal shim of the "third party law firm legally bound to do X if smart contract dictates so" would bridge pretty effectively.
Smart hardware locks sounds interesting. I'll have to read up on what they tried -- it sounds like a technically interesting problem.
- notahacker 10y agoIt's a pretty fundamental problem for a "trustless", "decentralised" system to require either a significant amount of trust, a third party to fix things or both in most conceivable practical use cases. If you're requiring a third party law firm to ensure offline parts of a smart contract are enforced and mediate disputes, you might as well write the contract in something the law firm actually recognises as a contract.
- nemild 10y agoSee my other comment, there are gradients of trust not simply trusted or trustless. A simple example why is that 10 MM parties across the world want to coordinate together for a custom contract - this might be challenging depending solely on the current system (coordination cost, different jurisdictions), but there may be benefits to having elements of both systems involved. Again, this is all speculation - and only time will tell, but I also think it's a debate to be had, rather than suggesting that such a system is worthless if it depends on any real world legal forms.