4 ms·

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 evictio

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?
jonhendry18 5y ago
What if the tenant offers the enforcer ownership of the landlord's home if the enforcer evicts the landlord instead?

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?

jonhendry18 5y ago

What if the tenant offers the enforcer ownership of the landlord's home if the enforcer evicts the landlord instead?