3 ms·

From the comment you're replying to: > there's a multi-layered system in place to resolve disputes, starting from the customer support call center, reviews, ba

From the comment you're replying to: > there's a multi-layered system in place to resolve disputes, starting from the customer support call center, reviews, bad publicity, and going all the way to the courts. So no, I don't think the plan is to go to court over every contractual dispute.

SilasX 8y ago
Did you see how that part was marked as an edit? It was added after my reply. Furthermore, it reinforced my original point that it's really not all that reassuring that the (slow-moving) legal system will enforce contracts, because it's an expensive process, and you need other protocols on top of that in order for trade with untrusted parties to work. As of the edit, the parent seems to agree. So maybe my comment wasn't as stupid as you're implying, and maybe there's a reason that commenters mark the late changes to their posts as edits.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  The threat of the legal system is a useful spur for resolving contractual disputes, but most disputes are resolved without engaging the legal system. One of my frustrations with discussions of blockchain is how quickly it diverges from reality. Most financial disputes today are resolved without a lawsuit or a prosecution, which I think you know. And transacting $5 via blockchain today will involve 3rd parties with whom you could develop a dispute, and then you'd be right back where you would be for any other $5 transaction.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    That’s why I never said “you have to use bitcoin because courts are too expensive”. That’s an implication you made up out of whole cloth because you never considered that I wrote my comment before the edit. As it happens — and not that it matters to you — I agree that the small-transaction-with-untrusted-party case is not a good use of blockchain. I was only objecting to the OP’s implication that courts are sufficient to ward off all contractual violations. As of the edit, the OP clarified s/he didn’t mean that, and so I’m in agreement with him/her, but that apparently doesn’t stop you from lecturing me as if I weren’t.

SilasX 8y ago

Did you see how that part was marked as an edit? It was added after my reply. Furthermore, it reinforced my original point that it's really not all that reassuring that the (slow-moving) legal system will enforce contracts, because it's an expensive process, and you need other protocols on top of that in order for trade with untrusted parties to work. As of the edit, the parent seems to agree. So maybe my comment wasn't as stupid as you're implying, and maybe there's a reason that commenters mark the late changes to their posts as edits.

snowwrestler 8y ago
The threat of the legal system is a useful spur for resolving contractual disputes, but most disputes are resolved without engaging the legal system. One of my frustrations with discussions of blockchain is how quickly it diverges from reality. Most financial disputes today are resolved without a lawsuit or a prosecution, which I think you know. And transacting $5 via blockchain today will involve 3rd parties with whom you could develop a dispute, and then you'd be right back where you would be for any other $5 transaction.
- SilasX 8y ago
  That’s why I never said “you have to use bitcoin because courts are too expensive”. That’s an implication you made up out of whole cloth because you never considered that I wrote my comment before the edit. As it happens — and not that it matters to you — I agree that the small-transaction-with-untrusted-party case is not a good use of blockchain. I was only objecting to the OP’s implication that courts are sufficient to ward off all contractual violations. As of the edit, the OP clarified s/he didn’t mean that, and so I’m in agreement with him/her, but that apparently doesn’t stop you from lecturing me as if I weren’t.