3 ms·

> And what if they refuse [despite consequences]? I feel like this is a problem that is pretty commonly exercised in our legal system and incarceration is usua

> And what if they refuse [despite consequences]? I feel like this is a problem that is pretty commonly exercised in our legal system and incarceration is usually a strong last resort motivator.

wyldfire 9y ago
That's why I added "despite consequences". Ok, now they're in jail and they still refuse. Now what? Ugh, lets go convince the peers contributing to consensus that we need to fork the chain and delete this transaction (like Ethereal). This is just the tip of the iceberg BTW. What if they die or have a brain injury? Their password securing the wallet is now lost to the world. Now there's no way to reverse this transaction. We accept this risk with the trustless system of currency. But real estate, equities, this kinda stuff -- it just doesn't map well at all.
- wakamoleguy 9y ago
  Forking the chain or otherwise building consensus may be necessary to recover the coins from those particular transactions, but it's not clear that we would need to do that. As an analogy from traditional currency, consider what happens if somebody dies while in debt. Their estate can be used to settle the debt, but if the money isn't there, creditors will go unpaid. There's no guarantee that all of the transactions that occurred with that money can be reversed. One other potential problem is that if an owner of some Bitcoin dies, there may not be access to their wallet at all. However, if there is considerable wealth in that wallet, they should have incentive to pass that on to their heirs, in which case they may have set up a will or otherwise passed on instructions for how to recover the money. Whoever that money is recovered to can then be approached for settling the estate or what-have-you. In the end, though, laws and the consequences for breaking them are (in principle) set up to incentivize behavior that is good for society. If you break laws, you face consequences. If you avoid those (e.g. court orders you to pay and you refuse), you face other/worse consequences (e.g. garnished wages, contempt of court). If the consequences still aren't strong enough or enforceable enough to maintain the peace, then society has a problem and new laws can be passed.
  - CJefferson 9y ago
    I agree with blockchains that represent something equivalent to money, which would include bitcoins. The problem is using blockchains to represent shares in a company (for example). Ownership of a company can't be "lost", or "unpaid". Legally, someone owns each share of a company, and a court can declare ownership is moved. At that point, your blockchain doesn't represent reality any more (as declared by a court) and then, what value does it have?
    - wakamoleguy 9y ago
      That's definitely an interesting distinction. In that case, I would expect there to be consensus among shareholders to follow the court's order. That could be enough to force the transaction if the chain is unique to the company in question. However, it would pose issues if the shares are riding on a broader chain outside of their control, like Ethereum. Even if the chain was unique to the company, you could still have issues if you are using proof of work instead of proof of stake. Interesting problem. Can a court actually declare that ownership is moved, or can they only declare that one is to transfer ownership, implicitly under penalty of something else if you don't? If you have a car and the court declares that it is my car now, that doesn't physically transport it to my driveway and you could steps to prevent that from happening (eg, driving it into a lake).
      - CJefferson 9y ago
        You can drive it into a lake, but that counts as theft, the same as if you stole someone else's car. When it comes to things like houses, a court certainly can declare ownership is changed, there is no option for you to refuse, or have to do anything.
- jerkstate 9y ago
  The receiver of ill-gotten gains refusing/being unable to pay them back is not a new legal problem and certainly not unique to blockchain.
  - CJefferson 9y ago
    But when it comes to (I don't have a good term..) unique objects, like houses, or shares in a company, they exist and have an owner. A court can simply declare "you don't own that house any more, this person does". A business doesn't become ownerless forevermore because someone lost a private key.
    - chongli 9y ago
      With houses it's not always that simple. Often in real estate fraud cases an 'agent' will sell one person's house to another and skip town with the money. If the courts revert the deed to the original owner then the innocent buyers are still out all that money.
    - namelost 9y ago
      If the money is in a bank account in a foreign country, a court may have no jurisdiction to recover the money.
- carlisle_ 9y ago
  >That's why I added "despite consequences". Ok, now they're in jail and they still refuse. Now what? This already happens without block chains.

> And what if they refuse [despite consequences]? I feel like this is a problem that is pretty commonly exercised in our legal system and incarceration is usually a strong last resort motivator.

wyldfire 9y ago

That's why I added "despite consequences". Ok, now they're in jail and they still refuse. Now what? Ugh, lets go convince the peers contributing to consensus that we need to fork the chain and delete this transaction (like Ethereal). This is just the tip of the iceberg BTW. What if they die or have a brain injury? Their password securing the wallet is now lost to the world. Now there's no way to reverse this transaction. We accept this risk with the trustless system of currency. But real estate, equities, this kinda stuff -- it just doesn't map well at all.

wakamoleguy 9y ago
Forking the chain or otherwise building consensus may be necessary to recover the coins from those particular transactions, but it's not clear that we would need to do that. As an analogy from traditional currency, consider what happens if somebody dies while in debt. Their estate can be used to settle the debt, but if the money isn't there, creditors will go unpaid. There's no guarantee that all of the transactions that occurred with that money can be reversed. One other potential problem is that if an owner of some Bitcoin dies, there may not be access to their wallet at all. However, if there is considerable wealth in that wallet, they should have incentive to pass that on to their heirs, in which case they may have set up a will or otherwise passed on instructions for how to recover the money. Whoever that money is recovered to can then be approached for settling the estate or what-have-you. In the end, though, laws and the consequences for breaking them are (in principle) set up to incentivize behavior that is good for society. If you break laws, you face consequences. If you avoid those (e.g. court orders you to pay and you refuse), you face other/worse consequences (e.g. garnished wages, contempt of court). If the consequences still aren't strong enough or enforceable enough to maintain the peace, then society has a problem and new laws can be passed.
- CJefferson 9y ago
  I agree with blockchains that represent something equivalent to money, which would include bitcoins. The problem is using blockchains to represent shares in a company (for example). Ownership of a company can't be "lost", or "unpaid". Legally, someone owns each share of a company, and a court can declare ownership is moved. At that point, your blockchain doesn't represent reality any more (as declared by a court) and then, what value does it have?
  - wakamoleguy 9y ago
    That's definitely an interesting distinction. In that case, I would expect there to be consensus among shareholders to follow the court's order. That could be enough to force the transaction if the chain is unique to the company in question. However, it would pose issues if the shares are riding on a broader chain outside of their control, like Ethereum. Even if the chain was unique to the company, you could still have issues if you are using proof of work instead of proof of stake. Interesting problem. Can a court actually declare that ownership is moved, or can they only declare that one is to transfer ownership, implicitly under penalty of something else if you don't? If you have a car and the court declares that it is my car now, that doesn't physically transport it to my driveway and you could steps to prevent that from happening (eg, driving it into a lake).
    - CJefferson 9y ago
      You can drive it into a lake, but that counts as theft, the same as if you stole someone else's car. When it comes to things like houses, a court certainly can declare ownership is changed, there is no option for you to refuse, or have to do anything.
jerkstate 9y ago
The receiver of ill-gotten gains refusing/being unable to pay them back is not a new legal problem and certainly not unique to blockchain.
- CJefferson 9y ago
  But when it comes to (I don't have a good term..) unique objects, like houses, or shares in a company, they exist and have an owner. A court can simply declare "you don't own that house any more, this person does". A business doesn't become ownerless forevermore because someone lost a private key.
  - chongli 9y ago
    With houses it's not always that simple. Often in real estate fraud cases an 'agent' will sell one person's house to another and skip town with the money. If the courts revert the deed to the original owner then the innocent buyers are still out all that money.
  - namelost 9y ago
    If the money is in a bank account in a foreign country, a court may have no jurisdiction to recover the money.
carlisle_ 9y ago
>That's why I added "despite consequences". Ok, now they're in jail and they still refuse. Now what? This already happens without block chains.