4 ms·

I'm new to the whole area, so maybe it's my lack of knowledge of what "smart contracts" are meant to be, but is that something they are claiming to solve? I me

I'm new to the whole area, so maybe it's my lack of knowledge of what "smart contracts" are meant to be, but is that something they are claiming to solve? I mean, how would a regular contract solve it — it wouldn't, a judge would solve it after you'd taken your landlord to court. Are smart contracts proponents saying that they'll do away with the whole legal system, or just the solicitors' fees/time for drawing up contracts in the first place? I presume I'd still be able to take my landlord to court for breach of contract for anything related to physical world (the bathroom is mouldy or he disputes the condition I've returned the apartment in and is withholding my deposit), but wouldn't need to pay £80 to get the contract drawn up in the first place. And then all the 'meta' stuff, that doesn't relate to tangible things, is built-in and testable — e.g. rent cannot be increased more often than every 6 months and can only be increased by up to 15% of the current fee; at the end of the lease, the deposit minus cleaning fees should be returned within 30 days, with any interest earned.

sanswork 10y ago
What you are imagining are templates. They are already widespread(see LegalZoom) and almost everyone using contracts uses them for certain things. Smart contracts are programmatically verifiable. That is why they are flawed for almost everything. They also don't allow discretion, intent, or anything that almost everyone wants to be considered in a contract. They also wouldn't do away with lawyers fees they would just replace them with lawyers who are also programmers fees since you don't want a novice to code a smart contract since they are locked in so if its not in the contact it doesn't matter. Smart contract proponents(well a lot of them) believe they will literally replace the whole legal system.

sanswork 10y ago

What you are imagining are templates. They are already widespread(see LegalZoom) and almost everyone using contracts uses them for certain things. Smart contracts are programmatically verifiable. That is why they are flawed for almost everything. They also don't allow discretion, intent, or anything that almost everyone wants to be considered in a contract. They also wouldn't do away with lawyers fees they would just replace them with lawyers who are also programmers fees since you don't want a novice to code a smart contract since they are locked in so if its not in the contact it doesn't matter. Smart contract proponents(well a lot of them) believe they will literally replace the whole legal system.