3 ms·

You are thinking about contracts in a limited and restricted way. The economy today is about contracts, everything involves an agreement between two parties. It

by vit05 9y ago

You are thinking about contracts in a limited and restricted way. The economy today is about contracts, everything involves an agreement between two parties. It is not always necessary thousands of signed pages, sometimes they are simple things. There are thousands of standardized contracts that are signed by thousands of people and only a small percentage of them end up in conflict. "IF-WHEN-THEN"

Joeboy 9y ago
> There are thousands of standardized contracts that are signed by thousands of people and only a small percentage of them end up in conflict But how many contracts are there where nothing can be disputed? That seems to me to be the case where a smart contract could be useful. If you're relying on the parties to be honest and compliant then you've gained nothing by having a smart contract, afaics. All you've done is introduced some extra mess into the existing tangle of legal and informal incentives and disincentives. I'm open to suggestions but I'm not sure many such use cases exist. To the extent they do (eg. provably fair casinos), I'm not sure they provide anything compelling over existing dumb alternatives.
woodandsteel 9y ago
I was thinking of serious business contracts, and for ongoing relations, like Firm A agrees to deliver 1,000 widgets every month to firm B. If you talk to an experienced business person, they will have a hundred stories about how something unexpected happened in such cases, or large, complex business deals. >There are thousands of standardized contracts that are signed by thousands of people and only a small percentage of them end up in conflict. That's because, as I explain, when something happens the contract did not anticipate, the involved parties almost always work things out informally For simple things done in large numbers, smart contracts might makes sense. Except if many people are using the same contract, it is more attractive to hackers to try to find a bug.

by vit05 9y ago

Joeboy 9y ago

> There are thousands of standardized contracts that are signed by thousands of people and only a small percentage of them end up in conflict But how many contracts are there where nothing can be disputed? That seems to me to be the case where a smart contract could be useful. If you're relying on the parties to be honest and compliant then you've gained nothing by having a smart contract, afaics. All you've done is introduced some extra mess into the existing tangle of legal and informal incentives and disincentives. I'm open to suggestions but I'm not sure many such use cases exist. To the extent they do (eg. provably fair casinos), I'm not sure they provide anything compelling over existing dumb alternatives.

woodandsteel 9y ago

I was thinking of serious business contracts, and for ongoing relations, like Firm A agrees to deliver 1,000 widgets every month to firm B. If you talk to an experienced business person, they will have a hundred stories about how something unexpected happened in such cases, or large, complex business deals. >There are thousands of standardized contracts that are signed by thousands of people and only a small percentage of them end up in conflict. That's because, as I explain, when something happens the contract did not anticipate, the involved parties almost always work things out informally For simple things done in large numbers, smart contracts might makes sense. Except if many people are using the same contract, it is more attractive to hackers to try to find a bug.