5 ms·
Blockchain contracts definitely do not somehow preclude "evil", for almost any reasonable definition of evil. They preclude forgery and very specific categories
by jxf 6y ago
Blockchain contracts definitely do not somehow preclude "evil", for almost any reasonable definition of evil. They preclude forgery and very specific categories of fraud — but beyond that the sky is the limit.
- chrisco255 6y agoIt's auditable, open source, and immutable. It's neutral. Neither good nor evil. It's your responsibility or the community's responsibility to audit the code and assess the risks.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoSo is a contract written in legalese English.
- obmelvin 6y agoThat's great at and all, but I honestly don't understand how that would help in this situation. Unless you write something absurd like "Mark Zuckerberg's stock will be transferred to Palmer Luckey if this promise is broken", which just about no one in Mark's position would agree to, how are you going to actually prevent something like this from happening? edit: and as ComputerGuru stated - such a clause can just as easily be put into a traditional contract
- darkwater 6y agoWill a blockchain contract block FB from committing the code in the Occulus software that requires to login in Facebook? I guess it won't, so...
- ashtonkem 6y agoAnd this is why blockchains will never replace courts.
- dteiml 6y agoThe problem with block chain is it requires the whole stack be on chain (at least if it is to be referenced in a contract). If that's the case, then you can definitely do this. E.g. a smart contract that represents the login functionality and you can hard-code it has to be some other immutable contract, and can't be changed to FB login. On second thought, the whole issue is weird because blockchain doesn't have a login concept.