2 ms·
> In other words, it is perfectly plausible from a legal point of view that a judge could find that the primary intent of the parties was to be governed by the
by twblalock 10y ago
> In other words, it is perfectly plausible from a legal point of view that a judge could find that the primary intent of the parties was to be governed by the rules of the system in which they chose to execute the agreement, e.g., Ethereum under its pre-fork consensus rules. A judge might therefore plausibly rule in a way that enhances rather than degrades the promise of immutability oven by a technically enforced consensus system.
Yeah, that could happen. A judge could also invalidate an Ethereum contract. But if a judge makes a ruling on an Ethereum contract, no matter what that ruling might be, that would prove that Ethereum contracts are subject to the jurisdiction of a judge in the legal system, just like other contracts, which proves my point.
- pash 10y agoYour point, it seemed to me, was that a judge's decision would trump the blockchain's. My point was that a judge might decide (a) that he has no say, or (b) that what the blockchain says goes. In either case, the law would effectively trump nothing. If that proves your point, I suppose we might just as well say that the legal system is pointless, because physics gets a say, and what physics says goes—nevermind that the law does not purport to overrule physics. In the same way that physics does not make law irrelevant, the law does not necessarily make the blockchain irrelevant: the law could well recognize the authority of the blockchain. Call it the compatibilist argument.