7 ms·
It seems we have some mismatch between the abstraction layer where we want to talk about cryptocurrencies and how their actual implementation goes. IMHO, we ar
by elnygren 9y ago
It seems we have some mismatch between the abstraction layer where we want to talk about cryptocurrencies and how their actual implementation goes.
IMHO, we are venturing to the domain of lawyers; most people are not just going to be saying computer code == what-we-agreed-here because most people are just normal people and they couldn't care about computer code. And let's face it, cryptos are already full of normal people, it's not for the early nerds anymore.
However, always keep in mind that cryptos are not regulated, they are not always too compatible with current regulation regarding normal money and they are extremely valuable when considering the fact that they are not regulated.
- ryanlol 9y agoIf computer code == what-we-agreed-here isn't what you want, then you don't want smart contracts.
- Spivak 9y agoIt's not really a matter of what you want, it's the legal prededent that will be set when someone exploits a bug in a smart contract that is obviously not part of the authors intent. Or a smart contract that was entered into by manipulation, coercion, or violence. Or a smart contract that violates some financial regulation or requires performing illegal activity. The court will intervene and that will be the end of the idea that the code is the final authority.
- honestlyreally 9y agoThe court can order the contract's private key to be magically willed into existence? The law often sees itself as onnipotent, but it stands no chance against cryptography and unnamed contract authors.
- Spivak 9y agoThey don't have to. Just like encryption having the ability to use violent force enables all sorts of side channel attacks. But in the case of an anonymous scammer they would probably hold the Etherium Inc. responsible for the damages.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- thinkmassive 9y agoWho is Etherium Inc?
- int_19h 9y agoWhat makes contracts valid and enforceable in the first place is the backing of the law. And the law can choose to not recognize such contracts as valid, or recognize them only with various caveats.
- ryanlol 9y agoSmart contracts enforce themselves, there's no need for the law to recognize them.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 9y agoAh, but there is. Because if the smart contract "enforces itself" in a way that contract law doesn't recognize as valid, then the law can force the reversal of said contract.
- mannykannot 9y ago> If computer code == what-we-agreed-here isn't what you want, then you don't want smart contracts. That is one thing that both skeptics and the most zealous of smart-contract proponents agree on. Many of Ethereum's key players thought that was what they wanted until they found themselves in a contract containing a 'clause' they had not anticipated.