5 ms·

Your definition of reason is different than the law's definition of reason. Under your definition of reason, you'd lose your house because of a typo in your nam

by woah 10y ago

Your definition of reason is different than the law's definition of reason. Under your definition of reason, you'd lose your house because of a typo in your name on the deed.

vonklaus 10y ago
I agree. Also, if the above definition was enforced and we assume everyone was rational, there would be no contracts or smart contracts. If I click "yes I accept the TOU" and $1B USD is debited from my account because I overlooked that clause, and I had to actually pay it it would be pure logic but very unreasonable. Logic meant something like spoken word in the original Greek language, it eventually evolved into something close to reason, which is: > the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. - Dictionary.com so I certainly agree they are != and actually find the parent's definition of reason quite unreasonable. edit: While the code itself will be difficult to write and have issues, much of what will really be the problem is how oracles use logic/reason to propogate settlement distinctions. The key problems are: * creating a bulletproof contract [touched on above] * tx/rx of the settlement information from the oracle's interpretation. * interpreting the oracle's interpretation * settling
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  How about just letting people opt in / out of legal interpretation? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940771
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    There are good reasons you can't waive away certain rights, especially seen in the areas of employment and rent.
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    You can't sell yourself into chattel slavery even if you are an "expert." For good reason. Either you allow those sorts of contracts or you acknowledge that some contracts are unconscionable. Being able to opt out of the legal system would result in private "security" forces with the legal right to hold you upside down by the ankles and shake until you pay up (but, hey, the interest rate was better than the payday loan company that didn't make you sign away your rights, so you took the one with the opt-out). The result would be something out of "Snow Crash." Or a TV sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4
smokeyj 10y ago
Is this any different than signing a contract that you don't know the terms to? If an entrepreneur signs an agreement with a VC that has obscure clauses hidden deep in legalese - that doesn't mean the terms no longer apply. It doesn't matter if there's a billion dollars on the line - there is no 'whoops'.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  But there are "whoops". Lawyers gotta eat too!
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  No, the whole point of this discussion is that those deeply hidden, "tricky" clauses don't always hold up in court.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Let people opt in to the court system, and feel free to tell people they should always do so. But sometimes people really do know what they're doing with the code. Courts are slower than code, let the experts opt out.
    - zyxley 10y ago
      > Let people opt in to the court system You can't "opt in" to a system that exerts coercive power (in the dictionary-definition sense) over everyone in a jurisdiction. You are already in. The system will not let you out, because that would interfere with other civil and criminal processes (for example, bankruptcy proceedings) and in doing so harm society as a whole.
      - programmarchy 10y ago
        The belief that a coercive monopoly is beneficial to society is a delusion of religious proportions.
stale2002 10y ago
Except that that was the whole point of smart contracts to begin with. The purpose was to only rely on the code, and to never have to worry about subjective things like judges and the interpretation of the law. If the code of a smart contract isn't "the law of the land" and you have to rely on messy things like the courts, then smart contracts are useless and you may as well just create a regular contract.
- zyxley 10y ago
  The code of a smart contract will never be "the law of the land", because thousands of years worth of precedent in the legal systems of every country in the world give leeway to override the terms of contracts to satisfy other legal considerations.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Well, it could be if it is irreversible, which is what the debate is about. Bitcoin has done a pretty good job of being irreversible, despite all the illegal stuff that happens on it, and how much I'm sure all the governments would LOVE to shut it down.

by woah 10y ago

Your definition of reason is different than the law's definition of reason. Under your definition of reason, you'd lose your house because of a typo in your name on the deed.

vonklaus 10y ago

I agree. Also, if the above definition was enforced and we assume everyone was rational, there would be no contracts or smart contracts. If I click "yes I accept the TOU" and $1B USD is debited from my account because I overlooked that clause, and I had to actually pay it it would be pure logic but very unreasonable. Logic meant something like spoken word in the original Greek language, it eventually evolved into something close to reason, which is: > the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. - Dictionary.com so I certainly agree they are != and actually find the parent's definition of reason quite unreasonable. edit: While the code itself will be difficult to write and have issues, much of what will really be the problem is how oracles use logic/reason to propogate settlement distinctions. The key problems are: * creating a bulletproof contract [touched on above] * tx/rx of the settlement information from the oracle's interpretation. * interpreting the oracle's interpretation * settling

Natanael_L 10y ago
How about just letting people opt in / out of legal interpretation? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940771
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  There are good reasons you can't waive away certain rights, especially seen in the areas of employment and rent.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  You can't sell yourself into chattel slavery even if you are an "expert." For good reason. Either you allow those sorts of contracts or you acknowledge that some contracts are unconscionable. Being able to opt out of the legal system would result in private "security" forces with the legal right to hold you upside down by the ankles and shake until you pay up (but, hey, the interest rate was better than the payday loan company that didn't make you sign away your rights, so you took the one with the opt-out). The result would be something out of "Snow Crash." Or a TV sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4

smokeyj 10y ago

Is this any different than signing a contract that you don't know the terms to? If an entrepreneur signs an agreement with a VC that has obscure clauses hidden deep in legalese - that doesn't mean the terms no longer apply. It doesn't matter if there's a billion dollars on the line - there is no 'whoops'.

crispyambulance 10y ago
But there are "whoops". Lawyers gotta eat too!
dwaltrip 10y ago
No, the whole point of this discussion is that those deeply hidden, "tricky" clauses don't always hold up in court.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Let people opt in to the court system, and feel free to tell people they should always do so. But sometimes people really do know what they're doing with the code. Courts are slower than code, let the experts opt out.
  - zyxley 10y ago
    > Let people opt in to the court system You can't "opt in" to a system that exerts coercive power (in the dictionary-definition sense) over everyone in a jurisdiction. You are already in. The system will not let you out, because that would interfere with other civil and criminal processes (for example, bankruptcy proceedings) and in doing so harm society as a whole.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      The belief that a coercive monopoly is beneficial to society is a delusion of religious proportions.

stale2002 10y ago

Except that that was the whole point of smart contracts to begin with. The purpose was to only rely on the code, and to never have to worry about subjective things like judges and the interpretation of the law. If the code of a smart contract isn't "the law of the land" and you have to rely on messy things like the courts, then smart contracts are useless and you may as well just create a regular contract.

zyxley 10y ago
The code of a smart contract will never be "the law of the land", because thousands of years worth of precedent in the legal systems of every country in the world give leeway to override the terms of contracts to satisfy other legal considerations.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Well, it could be if it is irreversible, which is what the debate is about. Bitcoin has done a pretty good job of being irreversible, despite all the illegal stuff that happens on it, and how much I'm sure all the governments would LOVE to shut it down.