4 ms·

Oracles seem to be a good solution. A lot of the time people just need some boilerplate to conduct a transaction and will need to refer back to the contract in

Oracles seem to be a good solution. A lot of the time people just need some boilerplate to conduct a transaction and will need to refer back to the contract in the case of a dispute only. Contract as code allows us to naturally standardise on boilerplate for common cases whilst allowing for specialised code in specialised cases. The 1% of contracts that are disputed could be conditionally successively escalated until human arbitration, settlement or a trial is reached. Oracle reports and contract executes accordingly.

xyzzy123 8y ago
Fair point, although it’s hard to see what value the smart contract is really adding in this case. The record keeping (what everyone decided) is better I guess. I’m not sure that there’s any (boilerplate) part of a standard employee agreement that could be evaluated on-chain. Somewhat tangential objection, but AFAIK, the only “action” a smart contract can take is, effectively, to disburse funds. It can’t force anyone to do anything, although it can pay people to do stuff if you fund it enough. You probably need more oracles and/or subcontracts to make sure they really do it though. Anyway, doesn’t this mean we need to lock up enough funds to cover all eventualities ahead of time, for all contingencies of the contract? It seems like that could be millions of dollars. What if I lose my arm in a bandsaw and the company was directly responsible?
- nsomaru 8y ago
  > Fair point, although it’s hard to see what value the smart contract is really adding in this case. In the 99% case, it allows us to transact whilst protected by contracts which pay out later as you mentioned. > I’m not sure that there’s any (boilerplate) part of a standard employee agreement that could be evaluated on-chain. "Employee was paid on time and in full" comes to mind. > Anyway, doesn’t this mean we need to lock up enough funds to cover all eventualities ahead of time, for all contingencies of the contract? It seems like that could be millions of dollars. What if I lose my arm in a bandsaw and the company was directly responsible? An interesting one. Presumably one would not sign a smart employment contract that was not tied to some kind of insurance token which covered employee claims?

xyzzy123 8y ago

Fair point, although it’s hard to see what value the smart contract is really adding in this case. The record keeping (what everyone decided) is better I guess. I’m not sure that there’s any (boilerplate) part of a standard employee agreement that could be evaluated on-chain. Somewhat tangential objection, but AFAIK, the only “action” a smart contract can take is, effectively, to disburse funds. It can’t force anyone to do anything, although it can pay people to do stuff if you fund it enough. You probably need more oracles and/or subcontracts to make sure they really do it though. Anyway, doesn’t this mean we need to lock up enough funds to cover all eventualities ahead of time, for all contingencies of the contract? It seems like that could be millions of dollars. What if I lose my arm in a bandsaw and the company was directly responsible?

nsomaru 8y ago
> Fair point, although it’s hard to see what value the smart contract is really adding in this case. In the 99% case, it allows us to transact whilst protected by contracts which pay out later as you mentioned. > I’m not sure that there’s any (boilerplate) part of a standard employee agreement that could be evaluated on-chain. "Employee was paid on time and in full" comes to mind. > Anyway, doesn’t this mean we need to lock up enough funds to cover all eventualities ahead of time, for all contingencies of the contract? It seems like that could be millions of dollars. What if I lose my arm in a bandsaw and the company was directly responsible? An interesting one. Presumably one would not sign a smart employment contract that was not tied to some kind of insurance token which covered employee claims?