4 ms·

I think this entire idea is insane, but that's not the argument. >Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make th

I think this entire idea is insane, but that's not the argument. >Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts. There is no duality of 'real-world contract'/'digital contracts'. The question is if a digital document and signatures are accepted by a judicial system. In 50 years every judicial system will accept some format of digital contracts. The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ). All of this is possible by human hands, but legal systems are not known for their digital innovation. ( They don't even use standard 'diffs' to negotiate contracts )

bradleyjg 6y ago
> The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ). This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts. As far as I know the only such facts that have been made to work are facts about the prices of other cryptocoins. Furthermore, most of the benefits can already be obtained by registering a contract to be traded over a commodities exchange. There are, for example, weather futures being bought, sold, and adjudicated without any need or use for a blockchain.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  > This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts Do meatspace contracts ascertain external facts? No, a court of law does. For most things that will likely never change. But if the contract is of a fungible nature, then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required. This is why I prefer to call blockchain “market-as-a-service”...
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    > then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required The same is true of the Chicago Board of Options, established 1848. The blockchain adds nothing. It’s the snake oil of the modern age.
    - seibelj 6y ago
      You can’t trade on that directly as a normal person in, say, Turkey or Lebanon. With blockchain you can - there are no borders. And you can’t add a twist on the standard options contract, or experiment whatsoever, as a software dev fooling around. With blockchain you can experiment in infinite ways instantly. There is no permission. Again, the lack of imagination and the total “blockchain equals bad! All of this tech is stupid because I say so!” nonsense is exhausting. You don’t want to learn so you won’t learn.
      - bradleyjg 6y ago
        > nonsense is exhausting. So stop doing it. No one is forcing you to push these get rich quick scams.

bradleyjg 6y ago

> The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ). This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts. As far as I know the only such facts that have been made to work are facts about the prices of other cryptocoins. Furthermore, most of the benefits can already be obtained by registering a contract to be traded over a commodities exchange. There are, for example, weather futures being bought, sold, and adjudicated without any need or use for a blockchain.

jkhdigital 6y ago
> This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts Do meatspace contracts ascertain external facts? No, a court of law does. For most things that will likely never change. But if the contract is of a fungible nature, then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required. This is why I prefer to call blockchain “market-as-a-service”...
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  > then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required The same is true of the Chicago Board of Options, established 1848. The blockchain adds nothing. It’s the snake oil of the modern age.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    You can’t trade on that directly as a normal person in, say, Turkey or Lebanon. With blockchain you can - there are no borders. And you can’t add a twist on the standard options contract, or experiment whatsoever, as a software dev fooling around. With blockchain you can experiment in infinite ways instantly. There is no permission. Again, the lack of imagination and the total “blockchain equals bad! All of this tech is stupid because I say so!” nonsense is exhausting. You don’t want to learn so you won’t learn.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      > nonsense is exhausting. So stop doing it. No one is forcing you to push these get rich quick scams.