4 ms·

However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital currencies in the general case. Maybe they can arbitrarily threaten the humans involved (if t

However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital currencies in the general case. Maybe they can arbitrarily threaten the humans involved (if they can find out who they are), but the state has no ability to control digital assets.

viraptor 8y ago
Threatening the humans with access to the currency worked pretty well so far. Cryptocurrency has been successfully seized many times and some countries are happy to jail you until you tell them the password you "forgot". Of course this mostly applies to the cryptocurrency directly related to crimes, but in general I'd say - yes they can, and they proved it.
- joshlemer 8y ago
  Sure, I'm not saying it completely eliminates the state's power to coerce, I'm just saying it does tilt the scale some amount against it.
jacques_chester 8y ago
> However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital currencies in the general case. They don't have to. Judgements are not necessarily scoped to the digital currency. If someone wins a judgement over a dispute about a smart contract, they will probably present exactly your argument. The judge can instead enter orders against bank accounts, crypto exchange accounts (yours or the exchange's), against your harddrive with cryptocoins on it, garnish your wages, exercise your options even at a loss, seize or place liens on property, seize passports, hold people in contempt etc etc. All of which will be enforceable by men and women with guns and dogs. Leaving the alternatives of: obey the actual law and make good in some other way, or disobey the actual law in favour of "smart contracts". Good luck with that.
- russdpale 8y ago
  It seems there are two logical assumptions being made here that are, in my opinion, inconclusive to say the least. That is first, the idea that the law cannot adapt to allow such organizations, and second, that these organizations would in and of themselves be adversary to the law in which they operate.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    The common law already recognises unincorporated associations and there is a rich body of caselaw and legislation built around them. But the point is not whether there is an adversarial relationship with the law. The basic concept of the judicial system is that it is an impartial mechanism for settling disputes and punishing crimes. The impartiality has no bearing on smart contracts except so far as they will be considered to resemble existing principles of contract, unincorporated associations and the like. The common law typically upholds private agreements and typically defers to private rulemaking where it does not have an overriding principle that must be applied. But ultimately there will be disputes about what the smart contract was meant to be, or about whether a vote was legitimate, whether the principles of natural justice have been observed and so on and so forth. One or more parties to the scheme will ask the justice system to settle the dispute and there will be times where the justice system will in fact do so. And it will be able to enforce its decisions against someone's will and without any need to follow the code.

viraptor 8y ago

Threatening the humans with access to the currency worked pretty well so far. Cryptocurrency has been successfully seized many times and some countries are happy to jail you until you tell them the password you "forgot". Of course this mostly applies to the cryptocurrency directly related to crimes, but in general I'd say - yes they can, and they proved it.

joshlemer 8y ago
Sure, I'm not saying it completely eliminates the state's power to coerce, I'm just saying it does tilt the scale some amount against it.

jacques_chester 8y ago

> However, all these men, dogs, and guns cannot really seize digital currencies in the general case. They don't have to. Judgements are not necessarily scoped to the digital currency. If someone wins a judgement over a dispute about a smart contract, they will probably present exactly your argument. The judge can instead enter orders against bank accounts, crypto exchange accounts (yours or the exchange's), against your harddrive with cryptocoins on it, garnish your wages, exercise your options even at a loss, seize or place liens on property, seize passports, hold people in contempt etc etc. All of which will be enforceable by men and women with guns and dogs. Leaving the alternatives of: obey the actual law and make good in some other way, or disobey the actual law in favour of "smart contracts". Good luck with that.

russdpale 8y ago
It seems there are two logical assumptions being made here that are, in my opinion, inconclusive to say the least. That is first, the idea that the law cannot adapt to allow such organizations, and second, that these organizations would in and of themselves be adversary to the law in which they operate.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  The common law already recognises unincorporated associations and there is a rich body of caselaw and legislation built around them. But the point is not whether there is an adversarial relationship with the law. The basic concept of the judicial system is that it is an impartial mechanism for settling disputes and punishing crimes. The impartiality has no bearing on smart contracts except so far as they will be considered to resemble existing principles of contract, unincorporated associations and the like. The common law typically upholds private agreements and typically defers to private rulemaking where it does not have an overriding principle that must be applied. But ultimately there will be disputes about what the smart contract was meant to be, or about whether a vote was legitimate, whether the principles of natural justice have been observed and so on and so forth. One or more parties to the scheme will ask the justice system to settle the dispute and there will be times where the justice system will in fact do so. And it will be able to enforce its decisions against someone's will and without any need to follow the code.