5 ms·

What do you mean? A smart contract would force them to fulfill the bet, no?

dx87 8y ago
No, because as has happened before, the developers just go "oops, we made a mistake in the smart contract" and nullify the gains of anybody who profited off of it.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).
  - bearjaws 8y ago
    "non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself
rocqua 8y ago
Yes, smart contracts give no recourse when there is an error. Whether or not that is good here, in general it is an issue. That is a large reason why we have courts.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  You can program space for mistakes into your smart contract, though (e.g. no payout without final approval). Everyone would know exactly what is going to happen when.
  - sincerely 8y ago
    In that case what’s the point of the smart contract in the first place?
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Explicit and final agreement about the whole deal.
      - thecatspaw 8y ago
        like an actual legal contract?
        TomMarius 8y ago
        It was said that court decides, legal contract is thus ambiguous.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        But inserting a human final approval... courts will end up deciding.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Yes, but this time, it'd be explicit, including details - who decides, how quickly, etc.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        You mean like a legal contract? I'm genuinely unsure of what you're getting at here.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        A legal contract is not explicit. There usually aren't any details about any court and its procedures, any dates regarding the court, nothing. A legal contract is implicit - relies on the legal system (that is complex and changes often). Making a truly explicit legal contract is way harder than it should be - and impossible in most countries.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    There is no consumer protection there. No method to deal with contracts that are already mistaken. Moreover, the best way I can think of to deal with mistakes in a smart-contract is escrow in something like a 2 out of 3 multi-signature wallet. This essentially elevates the third-party handling escrow to an arbiter. It seems like the kind of thing we'd want to be run by actual courts. Yet, having smart-contracts with build in ability of courts to revert seems to defeat most of the purpose.
6nf 8y ago
Yea that's the problem. Let's say the smart contract accidentally burns the money instead of paying it out due to a bug in the contract code. No recourse.

dx87 8y ago

No, because as has happened before, the developers just go "oops, we made a mistake in the smart contract" and nullify the gains of anybody who profited off of it.

TomMarius 8y ago
That was only possible because the miners have united. It's not going to be that easy in the future or on a larger chain (e.g. Bitcoin).
- bearjaws 8y ago
  "non centralized block chains" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself

rocqua 8y ago

Yes, smart contracts give no recourse when there is an error. Whether or not that is good here, in general it is an issue. That is a large reason why we have courts.

TomMarius 8y ago
You can program space for mistakes into your smart contract, though (e.g. no payout without final approval). Everyone would know exactly what is going to happen when.
- sincerely 8y ago
  In that case what’s the point of the smart contract in the first place?
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Explicit and final agreement about the whole deal.
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      like an actual legal contract?
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        It was said that court decides, legal contract is thus ambiguous.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        But inserting a human final approval... courts will end up deciding.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Yes, but this time, it'd be explicit, including details - who decides, how quickly, etc.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        You mean like a legal contract? I'm genuinely unsure of what you're getting at here.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        A legal contract is not explicit. There usually aren't any details about any court and its procedures, any dates regarding the court, nothing. A legal contract is implicit - relies on the legal system (that is complex and changes often). Making a truly explicit legal contract is way harder than it should be - and impossible in most countries.
- rocqua 8y ago
  There is no consumer protection there. No method to deal with contracts that are already mistaken. Moreover, the best way I can think of to deal with mistakes in a smart-contract is escrow in something like a 2 out of 3 multi-signature wallet. This essentially elevates the third-party handling escrow to an arbiter. It seems like the kind of thing we'd want to be run by actual courts. Yet, having smart-contracts with build in ability of courts to revert seems to defeat most of the purpose.

6nf 8y ago

Yea that's the problem. Let's say the smart contract accidentally burns the money instead of paying it out due to a bug in the contract code. No recourse.