3 ms·
People compare (smart contracts + no social insitutions) to (paper contracts + the entire legal and political system). But that’s not a fair comparison. Start
by erikpukinskis 8y ago
People compare (smart contracts + no social insitutions) to (paper contracts + the entire legal and political system). But that’s not a fair comparison.
Start by imagining the exact system we have now: police, district attorneys, private attorneys, judges, appellate courts, senate, representatives, and executive... all of that in exactly the same configuration, except nothing is considered settled law until it is finalized by those people on the blockchain. No changes in law or consequences, just a replacement of the existing ad-how bookkeeping with blockchain-based bookkeeping.
That would seemingly function, given the current system functions, right? We would probably need some additional laws on how to deal with lost keys and such. But that would be resolved through existing structures. Someone starts impersonating a senator, the FBI investigates, there is a criminal trial, new keys are issued by the executive branch eventually.
Now imagine a slightly different setup, say... the same thing except no legislative branch. Non criminal law. Just the courts and the executive branch, and the executive branch is charged only with carrying out court orders that result from civil contract disputes.
Would that work? We don’t know. But in this blockchain world, people would be free to try that too.
Now imagine every possible variation between those two scenarios also being played out, in little communities who opt into them.
That’s the idea.
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago> except nothing is considered settled law until it is finalized by those people on the blockchain. This seems like a really good idea. I wonder if someone has already done something like this on any of the systems out there i.e.\ a system where some nodes are designated as the Executive and have the power to change contracts in case of disputes.
- ItsMe000001 8y agoI admit I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean. He writes that laws(!) are not considered "law" until "the people on the blockchain" - whatever that means, agree to it? So the making of laws somehow, obscurely, depends on "the blockchain"? How? Why? It makes no sense to me. What exactly does that mean? A vote of the people over each law, by blockchain? That's the only interpretation I can think of, and it still makes no sense. To me, and I admit my brain is quite limited, every explanation involving "blockchain" sounds surreal at best. I actually took two technical/programming courses (on edX and somewhere else) on "blockchains" so I think I understand the technology, but I'm still puzzled each time somebody explains something that involves this thing. IT seems understanding the technology is of no use - at least to me - when trying to understand the proposed use cases. How exactly the world is supposed to be changed in these scenarios remains a mystery to me, all I read is "magic".
- erikpukinskis 8y agoThe language is ambiguous, your quote puts together parts of two separate clauses. The people aren't on the block chain, the "law is finalized (by those people) on the blockchain". So, throughout the day as a judge is making rulings, their clerk is signing transactions on probably an Ethereum dapp.
- ItsMe000001 8y agoWell, yeah, and as I said, I don't understand any of it. The point, I mean. That does not mean that - if I had the power - I would prevent anyone else from going down that route. Quite the opposite, I'm an interested observer, but I wait with judgment until I see something at work in the real world that makes sense to me. So far all I ever see is [insert arbitrary problem here] and then "...and you can do that better with the blockchain" is added. Of course, I may not have the wiring necessary to understand it, just like I can play some kinds of music to some people and they just won't get it. I'll wait and see.