3 ms·

I’m really surprised that some people here don’t understand the value of smart contracts. Contracts and rules and regulations are made by humans. Humans can so

I’m really surprised that some people here don’t understand the value of smart contracts. Contracts and rules and regulations are made by humans. Humans can sometimes be unfair and biased and error-prone. Code on the other hand does not discriminate. Ethereum smart contracts are open source and auditable. Technology can be used for good or bad. But I would much rather an industry be run by fair, auditable code than (unfortunately faulty) humans. If I apply for a mortgage, I would like to know the process if driven by code which is applied transparently and equally to everyone, so things like skin colour isn’t a factor. Competition will always remain. If a company uses unfair smart contracts, there will always be alternatives.

joe_the_user 6y ago
But I would much rather an industry be run by fair, auditable code than (unfortunately faulty) humans. The only thing "auditable" gets you is "certain to have the intended outcome". It doesn't make the intended outcome good or ... uh, fair. If a company uses unfair smart contracts, there will always be alternatives. Why would that be? You have plenty of situations right now where a given company will offer you an ordinary contracts where there are no alternatives. Google's monopoly on Internet advertising has gotten a lot of press, there are plenty of places where a single ISP is all that's possible. What kind of contract would hospitals offer a person right before surgery? I find it remarkable someone would make this sort of statement.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  "Certain to have the intended outcome" goes a long way in aligning people's expectations with outcomes, and removing sources of unfairness. >>Why would that be? You have plenty of situations right now where a given company will offer you an ordinary contracts where there are no alternatives. Google's monopoly on Internet advertising has gotten a lot of press, there are plenty of places where a single ISP is all that's possible. That's not the fault of the provider who steps in to provide the service. If there is a natural monopoly, it's the public's job to come together and collectively fund a public option to ensure that the economic rent from being the monopolistic provider is distributed to the public rather than captured by a private party. The solution is not to restrict people's right to engage in mutually voluntary private interactions.

joe_the_user 6y ago

But I would much rather an industry be run by fair, auditable code than (unfortunately faulty) humans. The only thing "auditable" gets you is "certain to have the intended outcome". It doesn't make the intended outcome good or ... uh, fair. If a company uses unfair smart contracts, there will always be alternatives. Why would that be? You have plenty of situations right now where a given company will offer you an ordinary contracts where there are no alternatives. Google's monopoly on Internet advertising has gotten a lot of press, there are plenty of places where a single ISP is all that's possible. What kind of contract would hospitals offer a person right before surgery? I find it remarkable someone would make this sort of statement.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
"Certain to have the intended outcome" goes a long way in aligning people's expectations with outcomes, and removing sources of unfairness. >>Why would that be? You have plenty of situations right now where a given company will offer you an ordinary contracts where there are no alternatives. Google's monopoly on Internet advertising has gotten a lot of press, there are plenty of places where a single ISP is all that's possible. That's not the fault of the provider who steps in to provide the service. If there is a natural monopoly, it's the public's job to come together and collectively fund a public option to ensure that the economic rent from being the monopolistic provider is distributed to the public rather than captured by a private party. The solution is not to restrict people's right to engage in mutually voluntary private interactions.