3 ms·

> even on the blockchain it's not hard to make a contract amendable with unanimous consent. Unanimous consent is nice when it happens, but we typically want th

> even on the blockchain it's not hard to make a contract amendable with unanimous consent. Unanimous consent is nice when it happens, but we typically want the ability to make amendments without unanimous consent, too. Concrete examples: I wouldn't want to use an electronic payment card that doesn't have some sort of chargeback mechanism. My mutual funds want the exchanges they operate on to have some mechanism for busting erroneous trades, and I'm glad that they do. When I check in at a hotel, they want a credit card on file, so that they can charge me if I steal the towels. All of these mechanisms involve retroactively altering the financial terms of a contract in a way that causes one person to lose some money without their consent. For the most part, people agree that this is just and desirable, because they also value fairness. That said, I agree on the point at hand -- I don't think that the example from the story is particularly relevant here.

scott_s 8y ago
I don't think these examples retroactively alter the financial terms of a contract. Rather, I think they invoke the contract to retroactively alter the financial terms of the transaction. But I do agree we want to be able to do that, and mediums that disallow it are less useful.
atomical 8y ago
Chargebacks can be settled by arbitration with the merchant in the case of a purchase. That's actually more in line with the dispute resolution pushed by sharing economy services that people are familiar with like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, etc.
- mcguire 8y ago
  ...where the arbitrator works for the merchant.
  - atomical 8y ago
    Amazon has more of a vested interest in resolving a dispute with a customer than say Uber resolving a dispute with a rider. Even if the rider stops using the service Uber still has the business of the driver. Consumers, knowingly or not, have shown that they are okay with this model. I think arbitration would likely be seen as an acceptable option.
ball_of_lint 8y ago
All of those examples are just passing off the risk of a bad deal from one person or business to another. The article is specifically about how the wording of a contract doesn't matter when both people are happy with it and want it to work. If you want chargebacks and etc in Bitcoin that's perfectly possible but it's going to end up working the same way. There's always risk in dealing with a stranger.

scott_s 8y ago

I don't think these examples retroactively alter the financial terms of a contract. Rather, I think they invoke the contract to retroactively alter the financial terms of the transaction. But I do agree we want to be able to do that, and mediums that disallow it are less useful.

atomical 8y ago

Chargebacks can be settled by arbitration with the merchant in the case of a purchase. That's actually more in line with the dispute resolution pushed by sharing economy services that people are familiar with like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, etc.

mcguire 8y ago
...where the arbitrator works for the merchant.
- atomical 8y ago
  Amazon has more of a vested interest in resolving a dispute with a customer than say Uber resolving a dispute with a rider. Even if the rider stops using the service Uber still has the business of the driver. Consumers, knowingly or not, have shown that they are okay with this model. I think arbitration would likely be seen as an acceptable option.

ball_of_lint 8y ago

All of those examples are just passing off the risk of a bad deal from one person or business to another. The article is specifically about how the wording of a contract doesn't matter when both people are happy with it and want it to work. If you want chargebacks and etc in Bitcoin that's perfectly possible but it's going to end up working the same way. There's always risk in dealing with a stranger.