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

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.