3 ms·

No, the 9/10ths aphorism is not a real law. Possession doesn’t even really factor at all in contract or restitution law for fungible currency. Smart contracts

No, the 9/10ths aphorism is not a real law. Possession doesn’t even really factor at all in contract or restitution law for fungible currency. Smart contracts are contracts, because you agree to their automatically enforced terms when you sign them. The “legal overhead” is when the terms as written don’t match what you actually agreed on, for example there was a mistake. The only reason you don’t currently believe there is legal overhead is that nobody has done anything interesting enough to want to litigate the rules that would pretty obviously apply. Maybe they have already!

CryptoPunk 6y ago
Thanks for the explanation of the contract dispute resolution process. But I wasn't suggesting it's a real law. From Wikipedia: Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Beyond the presumption of being the rightful owner that stems from having possession, is the barrier to legal action that often prevents ligitation in the event of a contract dispute. In such cases, the party in possession will likely maintain it. These barriers could be multiplied in multi-jurisdictional cases involving pseudonymous parties, as is often the case with FOSS projects, and other internet community endeavors.
- cormacrelf 6y ago
  Wikipedia is actually talking about real laws there. If I have a basketball, and you complain to the court you have a better proprietary right to the basketball than me and then I stole it, then they can order me to give it back (specifically, award a constructive trust over the ball in your favour, so if I sold the ball I have to give you the proceeds etc), but it’s hard to argue that without evidence of your own possession of the ball. Fortunately contracts cases literally all have that evidence, because being owed something under a contract IS a better right than possession, and lack of evidence of possession is never the problem. This is why it is silly to be talking about possession dominating these disputes — your point about multi-jurisdiction FOSS arrangements would be better if you identified conflict of laws and other jurisdictional issues as preventing people making claims at all. It is merely coincidental that the people who currently have it retain it, it is not an instance of the possession dominating phenomenon. Edit: to be clear, people don’t shy away from prosecuting a valid contract claim simply because the other party currently possesses the item in question. “The other party has my stuff” is on the contrary very motivating to a lot of potential litigants. It is not a “barrier”.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Of course we're talking about real laws, and how the expression relates to them. Relating to real laws doesn't mean the expression is a real law. >>Fortunately contracts cases literally all have that evidence, because being owed something under a contract IS a better right than possession, and lack of evidence of possession is never the problem. I see, that makes sense. I think in many cases though, the smart contract will be the dominant contract, and a traditional contract will be poorly drafted, or costs of litigating will discourage contract participants from doing so. Which again is why I predict smart contracts will continue to have value in the face of the potentially conflicting jurisdiction of traditional contract law. >>your point about multi-jurisdiction FOSS arrangements would be better if you identified conflict of laws and other jurisdictional issues as preventing people making claims at all Yes that is what I mean: I think it can be reasonably assumed that there would often be more factors, relating to conflicts of laws and the additional complexity of dealing with multiple legal processes, preventing or discouraging people from making legal claims when the arrangement is multi-jurisdictional. There are yet more when participants to an arrangement are pseudonymous, and the arrangement is not bound by a strong traditional contract. >>It is merely coincidental that the people who currently have it retain it, it is not an instance of the possession dominating phenomenon. Fair point. My point I guess is that if the traditional legal system fails to be useful, then being in possession of an asset will often be advantageous, and therefore smart contracts which assign possession will often be impactful. In conclusion, I see your point, that when there is a traditional contract in place, and when a party to it does make a legal claim relating to it, possession will not impact the judgment of the court. My initial comment implies otherwise.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

Thanks for the explanation of the contract dispute resolution process. But I wasn't suggesting it's a real law. From Wikipedia: Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2] Beyond the presumption of being the rightful owner that stems from having possession, is the barrier to legal action that often prevents ligitation in the event of a contract dispute. In such cases, the party in possession will likely maintain it. These barriers could be multiplied in multi-jurisdictional cases involving pseudonymous parties, as is often the case with FOSS projects, and other internet community endeavors.

cormacrelf 6y ago
Wikipedia is actually talking about real laws there. If I have a basketball, and you complain to the court you have a better proprietary right to the basketball than me and then I stole it, then they can order me to give it back (specifically, award a constructive trust over the ball in your favour, so if I sold the ball I have to give you the proceeds etc), but it’s hard to argue that without evidence of your own possession of the ball. Fortunately contracts cases literally all have that evidence, because being owed something under a contract IS a better right than possession, and lack of evidence of possession is never the problem. This is why it is silly to be talking about possession dominating these disputes — your point about multi-jurisdiction FOSS arrangements would be better if you identified conflict of laws and other jurisdictional issues as preventing people making claims at all. It is merely coincidental that the people who currently have it retain it, it is not an instance of the possession dominating phenomenon. Edit: to be clear, people don’t shy away from prosecuting a valid contract claim simply because the other party currently possesses the item in question. “The other party has my stuff” is on the contrary very motivating to a lot of potential litigants. It is not a “barrier”.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Of course we're talking about real laws, and how the expression relates to them. Relating to real laws doesn't mean the expression is a real law. >>Fortunately contracts cases literally all have that evidence, because being owed something under a contract IS a better right than possession, and lack of evidence of possession is never the problem. I see, that makes sense. I think in many cases though, the smart contract will be the dominant contract, and a traditional contract will be poorly drafted, or costs of litigating will discourage contract participants from doing so. Which again is why I predict smart contracts will continue to have value in the face of the potentially conflicting jurisdiction of traditional contract law. >>your point about multi-jurisdiction FOSS arrangements would be better if you identified conflict of laws and other jurisdictional issues as preventing people making claims at all Yes that is what I mean: I think it can be reasonably assumed that there would often be more factors, relating to conflicts of laws and the additional complexity of dealing with multiple legal processes, preventing or discouraging people from making legal claims when the arrangement is multi-jurisdictional. There are yet more when participants to an arrangement are pseudonymous, and the arrangement is not bound by a strong traditional contract. >>It is merely coincidental that the people who currently have it retain it, it is not an instance of the possession dominating phenomenon. Fair point. My point I guess is that if the traditional legal system fails to be useful, then being in possession of an asset will often be advantageous, and therefore smart contracts which assign possession will often be impactful. In conclusion, I see your point, that when there is a traditional contract in place, and when a party to it does make a legal claim relating to it, possession will not impact the judgment of the court. My initial comment implies otherwise.