4 ms·

Even without the "binding contract" aspect, the very concept of "put important code in the blockchain (where it can never be patched without the agreement of th

Even without the "binding contract" aspect, the very concept of "put important code in the blockchain (where it can never be patched without the agreement of the entire community)" seems ... spooky. "Unpatchable code" is probably one of the most terrifying two-word phrases in the English language.

paulmd 8y ago
The 9 most terrifying words in the English language: "I work with Blockchain, and this contract is immutable." Turns out everyone likes government when it helps them, and Reagan was just a senile old man making memes.
- barking 8y ago
  Your second sentence is a non sequitur as well as being ageist and possibly mocking of people with Alzheimer's disease. That's quite a lot for one sentence.
  - paulmd 8y ago
    Please don't shame the differently abled. Alzheimer's disease doesn't really hold you back these days. We've elected presidents with Alzheimer's three times in the last 4 decades. I mean, how much higher can you go than that? What better proof of their competence do you want? They managed to pass through our electoral system, right? How dare you judge their mental abilities? How dare you, sir? Let's see you get elected president, buster. What are you, some kind of doctor? Not that there's any trend as to which party keeps electing the "differently abled" to the highest office in the country, no sir... I mean, my heart and my best intentions say that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. /s After all, we all know that decorum is what's really important, in fact more important than saying what needs to be said. Which is that Republicans keep electing actual dementia patients to be President, and keeping them in office even when that becomes obvious. And, that the US political system is founded on broad assumptions of good faith and isn't built to handle intense partisanship to the extent that a Congress would refuse to deal with an obviously senile president. But hey, it probably worked reasonably well in an era when your average elite lived to be like 50 or something. We're no longer in that era, and it's time to put a maximum age limit on the Presidency as well as a minimum, and start enforcing the 25th.
  - ambicapter 8y ago
    The quote he's spoofing is from Reagan, and there is a not small group of Americans who think the original quote was unduly harmful to politics and by extension social and cultural mores in the US.
- zaarn 8y ago
  One day, two companies who have a blockchain contract between them, will end up in a lawsuit. While the contract gives right to one company, the court disagrees and says the other party is right because of the law of the state. The court orders the company to give back the money the contract gave them. They refuse. What happens now? Which side will win? I'm not putting my bets on the blockchain contract.
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > The court orders the company to give back the money the contract gave them. They refuse. This seems to have nothing to do with blockchains; the same situation could occur (and its consequences are important to investigate!) no matter what the circumstances that led up the court order.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Yes but with the difference that without blockchain the corporations bank will then do the deed and push the money back on court order. And if not possible the company will (to my knowledge in german legal code) be dissolved, assets sold and the profits go to the other side until the damage is covered, which is usually not the case and the winning party still looses money. With blockchain there is no bank and if the company doesn't want to, the next option is nuclear as above. With blockchain there is no way for the party to obtain what is rightfully theirs other than to nuclearize the other party. Without there are options because banks and other intermediaries can intervene and correct.
      - mcguire 8y ago
        Well, the blockchain computors could fork the blockchain, no? Not that that is much better or more likely. And if the ownership of the assets is recorded on the blockchain...
        zaarn 8y ago
        But if you just fork the blockchain over legal disputes... what have you gained over not having a blockchain? Blockchain removes all the nice stuff we have in our legal system to deal with disputes. Why put it back in? What does that gain us?
- dang 8y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

paulmd 8y ago

The 9 most terrifying words in the English language: "I work with Blockchain, and this contract is immutable." Turns out everyone likes government when it helps them, and Reagan was just a senile old man making memes.

barking 8y ago
Your second sentence is a non sequitur as well as being ageist and possibly mocking of people with Alzheimer's disease. That's quite a lot for one sentence.
- paulmd 8y ago
  Please don't shame the differently abled. Alzheimer's disease doesn't really hold you back these days. We've elected presidents with Alzheimer's three times in the last 4 decades. I mean, how much higher can you go than that? What better proof of their competence do you want? They managed to pass through our electoral system, right? How dare you judge their mental abilities? How dare you, sir? Let's see you get elected president, buster. What are you, some kind of doctor? Not that there's any trend as to which party keeps electing the "differently abled" to the highest office in the country, no sir... I mean, my heart and my best intentions say that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. /s After all, we all know that decorum is what's really important, in fact more important than saying what needs to be said. Which is that Republicans keep electing actual dementia patients to be President, and keeping them in office even when that becomes obvious. And, that the US political system is founded on broad assumptions of good faith and isn't built to handle intense partisanship to the extent that a Congress would refuse to deal with an obviously senile president. But hey, it probably worked reasonably well in an era when your average elite lived to be like 50 or something. We're no longer in that era, and it's time to put a maximum age limit on the Presidency as well as a minimum, and start enforcing the 25th.
- ambicapter 8y ago
  The quote he's spoofing is from Reagan, and there is a not small group of Americans who think the original quote was unduly harmful to politics and by extension social and cultural mores in the US.
zaarn 8y ago
One day, two companies who have a blockchain contract between them, will end up in a lawsuit. While the contract gives right to one company, the court disagrees and says the other party is right because of the law of the state. The court orders the company to give back the money the contract gave them. They refuse. What happens now? Which side will win? I'm not putting my bets on the blockchain contract.
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > The court orders the company to give back the money the contract gave them. They refuse. This seems to have nothing to do with blockchains; the same situation could occur (and its consequences are important to investigate!) no matter what the circumstances that led up the court order.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Yes but with the difference that without blockchain the corporations bank will then do the deed and push the money back on court order. And if not possible the company will (to my knowledge in german legal code) be dissolved, assets sold and the profits go to the other side until the damage is covered, which is usually not the case and the winning party still looses money. With blockchain there is no bank and if the company doesn't want to, the next option is nuclear as above. With blockchain there is no way for the party to obtain what is rightfully theirs other than to nuclearize the other party. Without there are options because banks and other intermediaries can intervene and correct.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Well, the blockchain computors could fork the blockchain, no? Not that that is much better or more likely. And if the ownership of the assets is recorded on the blockchain...
      - zaarn 8y ago
        But if you just fork the blockchain over legal disputes... what have you gained over not having a blockchain? Blockchain removes all the nice stuff we have in our legal system to deal with disputes. Why put it back in? What does that gain us?
dang 8y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?