4 ms·

Where in this article does it describe how I get tenants out of my rental when they don't pay into the smart contract? That's what enforcement is, not just som

by realce 5y ago

Where in this article does it describe how I get tenants out of my rental when they don't pay into the smart contract? That's what enforcement is, not just some rules in a spreadsheet.

WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago
Actually, it's some rules in a spreadsheet. You get tenants out of your rental because someone is getting paid to do it - their salary is in some spreadsheet - and then their work is verified by someone else who is also getting paid to do that. These complex systems of incentives are currently managed by humans. You could setup a similar incentive system as smart contracts. If your tenant does not pay, you could get him evicted much fatser and automatically, because another smart contract can pay the enforcer. And the overall fees are subsidized and tradeable. Of course we're far away from doing that and both approaches have pros and cons, but it's arguable that the "human-managed" approach is clearly superior.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  In your description, you used the word 'enforcer' for the entity that does the important bit. That entity isn't the contract.
  - WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago
    What do you mean by "That entity isn't the contract"? Yes, the enforcer is not (necessarily) part of the contract. But if the right incentive system is in place and there is consensus that physical enforcement should happen - anyone approved could take that job/risk and be the enforcer. With such a system you may not even need a physical enforcer since the risk of not getting the tenant out could be tradeable (like an insurance) and the owner would get his rent even if the tenant cannot be evicted immediately. In case of the tenant, there would be huge negative financial incentives to stay.
    - lottin 5y ago
      The point is that such a contract requires a central authority that must be capable of evicting the tenant. A "smart contract" which is just some code running on a computer certainly can't do that.
      - WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago
        Why do you require a central authority? What you require is this: 1. An incentive to evict someone. Money. Someone needs to get paid to actually do the eviction because they are taking on some risk - physical in this case. It doesn't matter how they get paid. A smart contract can do that. 2. "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. The person performing the eviction should not get punished for it. If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain this consensus could be achieved. 3. A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
        ac29 5y ago
        Who is this mysterious evictor/enforcer? Also, you are ignoring the fact that, at least where I live, only one entity can legally evict a tenant - the county sheriff (in their role as an agent of the court). You cant just hire some random thugs.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > An incentive to evict someone. Money. Welcome to mafia shakedowns > "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. That "social/legal consensus" is called laws, and they are enforced through a central authority. > If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain Who exactly is deciding "the state and breach of contract"? You can start from the fact that smart contracts are not even written in a human language. > A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor. People were paying each other for thousands of years without smart contracts
        lottin 5y ago
        Yeah, that should work very well. Say if the third-party (from your description, apparently a band of mercenaries) in charge of enforcing the contract is motivated by economic incentives, what stops any of the parties from providing a stronger economic incentive to the mercenaries so that they don't enforce the contract?
- tigroferoce 5y ago
  You are giving for granted that there is a private someone that is payed to evict people from an house, but that's not how it works in many places in the world. In Italy (and I bet in many other European countries) this is the public force that is in charge of doing this and there are a lots of exceptions (for instance, here, you cannot easily evict a family where there are children or sick people). And if you involve the pubic force, then you are inherently accepting the concept of a central trusted authority, hence the decentralisation fails as a requirement.
mindcandy 5y ago
It would require a larger deposit to act as collateral. Maybe 3-4 months rent. If they stop paying rent, they don’t get the deposit back and you have 3-4 months to call the cops about the trespassers.

by realce 5y ago

Where in this article does it describe how I get tenants out of my rental when they don't pay into the smart contract? That's what enforcement is, not just some rules in a spreadsheet.

WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago

Actually, it's some rules in a spreadsheet. You get tenants out of your rental because someone is getting paid to do it - their salary is in some spreadsheet - and then their work is verified by someone else who is also getting paid to do that. These complex systems of incentives are currently managed by humans. You could setup a similar incentive system as smart contracts. If your tenant does not pay, you could get him evicted much fatser and automatically, because another smart contract can pay the enforcer. And the overall fees are subsidized and tradeable. Of course we're far away from doing that and both approaches have pros and cons, but it's arguable that the "human-managed" approach is clearly superior.

maxerickson 5y ago
In your description, you used the word 'enforcer' for the entity that does the important bit. That entity isn't the contract.
- WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago
  What do you mean by "That entity isn't the contract"? Yes, the enforcer is not (necessarily) part of the contract. But if the right incentive system is in place and there is consensus that physical enforcement should happen - anyone approved could take that job/risk and be the enforcer. With such a system you may not even need a physical enforcer since the risk of not getting the tenant out could be tradeable (like an insurance) and the owner would get his rent even if the tenant cannot be evicted immediately. In case of the tenant, there would be huge negative financial incentives to stay.
  - lottin 5y ago
    The point is that such a contract requires a central authority that must be capable of evicting the tenant. A "smart contract" which is just some code running on a computer certainly can't do that.
    - WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 5y ago
      Why do you require a central authority? What you require is this: 1. An incentive to evict someone. Money. Someone needs to get paid to actually do the eviction because they are taking on some risk - physical in this case. It doesn't matter how they get paid. A smart contract can do that. 2. "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. The person performing the eviction should not get punished for it. If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain this consensus could be achieved. 3. A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor.
      - ac29 5y ago
        Who is this mysterious evictor/enforcer? Also, you are ignoring the fact that, at least where I live, only one entity can legally evict a tenant - the county sheriff (in their role as an agent of the court). You cant just hire some random thugs.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > An incentive to evict someone. Money. Welcome to mafia shakedowns > "Social/Legal consensus" that performing the physical eviction is the right thing to do. That "social/legal consensus" is called laws, and they are enforced through a central authority. > If the state and breach of contract is transparent on the blockchain Who exactly is deciding "the state and breach of contract"? You can start from the fact that smart contracts are not even written in a human language. > A way to confirm the eviction to pay the evictor. People were paying each other for thousands of years without smart contracts
      - lottin 5y ago
        Yeah, that should work very well. Say if the third-party (from your description, apparently a band of mercenaries) in charge of enforcing the contract is motivated by economic incentives, what stops any of the parties from providing a stronger economic incentive to the mercenaries so that they don't enforce the contract?
tigroferoce 5y ago
You are giving for granted that there is a private someone that is payed to evict people from an house, but that's not how it works in many places in the world. In Italy (and I bet in many other European countries) this is the public force that is in charge of doing this and there are a lots of exceptions (for instance, here, you cannot easily evict a family where there are children or sick people). And if you involve the pubic force, then you are inherently accepting the concept of a central trusted authority, hence the decentralisation fails as a requirement.

mindcandy 5y ago

It would require a larger deposit to act as collateral. Maybe 3-4 months rent. If they stop paying rent, they don’t get the deposit back and you have 3-4 months to call the cops about the trespassers.