Your 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) tha

Your 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.