4 ms·

I'm not surprised that the non-programmer segment of ETH supports the hard fork, but (imo) it should be very easy for those familiar with software development t

by NhanH 10y ago

I'm not surprised that the non-programmer segment of ETH supports the hard fork, but (imo) it should be very easy for those familiar with software development to see why it has to be absolute 100% or rather completely useless. Specifically, it's about turning real world requirements into code. Most of the legal contracts dispute isn't about blatant black and white issue, it's about whether this interpretation or that interpretation of the same wording is the intentional one. And it's obvious that we have enough issues with just turning requirements for CRUD websites into code, there is zero chance in hell there won't be "requirement bugs" in more complicated contracts. Unless you agree with the 100% "code === law", you will get every dispute from the old legal system, plus a whole new class of dispute from those aforementioned bugs. It does raise the question of whether all intentions of legal contract could be turned into code at all. But if that's a no then ETH is dead even before it's started. In other words, our legal system is already 99.9999% good, it's the last remaining 0.0001% that ETH seems to try to replace. And now it seems like it doesn't want to?

drcode 10y ago
> In other words, our legal system is already 99.9999% good, it's the last remaining 0.0001% that ETH seems to try to replace. Again, ethereum is a tool for automation- Once we can have contracts that can be enforced using code instead of judges, we can create contracts that can work even if we can't afford more than a few pennies for enforcement. That sounds like 90% of potential contracts to me, not the 0.0001% you claim (but neither one of us has citations to know what the real number may be)
- NhanH 10y ago
  Judges don't get involve in contract that are not in dispute (that includes enforcement), so functionally most contracts do not need costly enforcement either. There are a lot of real world contracts that already automate (bank deduction monthly from your account?). And there is one point where I thought about but didn't want to point out since it was a slight tangent: in ETH, you need someone to write the contract, then someone to vest it still, it's not free. Contract reuse? From what we've seen of CRUD reuse, it's kind of a pipe dream. People can read and copy a TOS, do you think they will trust a "contract TOS" and using it without hiring an "expert" ?
  - drcode 10y ago
    > Judges don't get involve in contract that are not in dispute Well, in ethereum that's true if the contracts are in dispute, as well- Anyone that disagrees with what the terms of a smart contract are are welcome to submit a transaction to the contract and they'll immediately get the "judge" of the ethereum protocol to supply them with a ruling. As for contract vetting and code reuse: I agree those can get expensive and have their own problems.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      > Well, in ethereum that's true if the contracts are in dispute, as well- Anyone that disagrees with what the terms of a smart contract are are welcome to submit a transaction to the contract and they'll immediately get the "judge" of the ethereum protocol to supply them with a ruling. As mentioned before, unless we agree that the implementation is the contract (immutable code is law), it will be disputed that the implementation is not what the requirements want. A meat-space judge will be involved, and anything can happen from there.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        And because I don't trust your meatspace's law I'm remaining anonymous (or out of reach of your jurisdiction) and we're back to "the code is the law". As long as I'm not buying your house, where I'd need your judge to order you out, I don't particularly care what they'd say.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      That's not how it works. If two parties in an Ethereum contract sue each other, real judges will get involved, and they will treat Ethereum contracts the same as any other contracts. They won't give a crap about what the Ethereum protocol says about the transaction. Ethereum contracts do not get to exist outside of the legal system. Courts have jurisdiction over all contracts, period.

by NhanH 10y ago

drcode 10y ago

> In other words, our legal system is already 99.9999% good, it's the last remaining 0.0001% that ETH seems to try to replace. Again, ethereum is a tool for automation- Once we can have contracts that can be enforced using code instead of judges, we can create contracts that can work even if we can't afford more than a few pennies for enforcement. That sounds like 90% of potential contracts to me, not the 0.0001% you claim (but neither one of us has citations to know what the real number may be)

NhanH 10y ago
Judges don't get involve in contract that are not in dispute (that includes enforcement), so functionally most contracts do not need costly enforcement either. There are a lot of real world contracts that already automate (bank deduction monthly from your account?). And there is one point where I thought about but didn't want to point out since it was a slight tangent: in ETH, you need someone to write the contract, then someone to vest it still, it's not free. Contract reuse? From what we've seen of CRUD reuse, it's kind of a pipe dream. People can read and copy a TOS, do you think they will trust a "contract TOS" and using it without hiring an "expert" ?
- drcode 10y ago
  > Judges don't get involve in contract that are not in dispute Well, in ethereum that's true if the contracts are in dispute, as well- Anyone that disagrees with what the terms of a smart contract are are welcome to submit a transaction to the contract and they'll immediately get the "judge" of the ethereum protocol to supply them with a ruling. As for contract vetting and code reuse: I agree those can get expensive and have their own problems.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    > Well, in ethereum that's true if the contracts are in dispute, as well- Anyone that disagrees with what the terms of a smart contract are are welcome to submit a transaction to the contract and they'll immediately get the "judge" of the ethereum protocol to supply them with a ruling. As mentioned before, unless we agree that the implementation is the contract (immutable code is law), it will be disputed that the implementation is not what the requirements want. A meat-space judge will be involved, and anything can happen from there.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      And because I don't trust your meatspace's law I'm remaining anonymous (or out of reach of your jurisdiction) and we're back to "the code is the law". As long as I'm not buying your house, where I'd need your judge to order you out, I don't particularly care what they'd say.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    That's not how it works. If two parties in an Ethereum contract sue each other, real judges will get involved, and they will treat Ethereum contracts the same as any other contracts. They won't give a crap about what the Ethereum protocol says about the transaction. Ethereum contracts do not get to exist outside of the legal system. Courts have jurisdiction over all contracts, period.