3 ms·
> The point of (or at least, one of the points of) smart contracts is to be the enforcement agent for the terms of an ERC20 token. > Of course, we're not there
by vageli 9y ago
> The point of (or at least, one of the points of) smart contracts is to be the enforcement agent for the terms of an ERC20 token.
> Of course, we're not there yet, and for that reason, it's a silly / premature to suppose that an ERC20 token can represent true ownership.
When put this way I can't see the future of smart contracts ever being fully realized. Humans rely on humans for final arbitration and take issue with automatic enforcement of rules without opportunity for appeal.
The appeal mechanisms I've seen still rely on humans (mechanisms like multi-signature transactions with an escrow user as a signature).
Ultimately, unless all of your property is entirely digital or informational in nature, governments will be forever able to use violence or the threat thereof to compel you to relinquish whatever property they wish.
- jMyles 9y agoI mostly agree, but I also think there's a batch size under which things will be fine. A neighborhood food co-op or a pub's fantasy football league will probably actually benefit. A megacorporation is probably just too big to do without human arbitration in the face of violence, as you point out. However, we might be closer than we think to, as you say, property being digital or at least wholly representable digitally. We'll see. I'm both of the belief that smart contracts are awesome and that their usefulness is limited.