3 ms·

Ignoring contract law (which would not blindly accept "the code is the contract", and people's ethos does not allow them to arbitrarily decide how contracts sha

Ignoring contract law (which would not blindly accept "the code is the contract", and people's ethos does not allow them to arbitrarily decide how contracts shall work in the country where they live), the fact that some action was explicitly written in a contract that was properly signed by everyone does not necessarily mean that the action was lawful. For example, if you intentionally misrepresent what the contract means to deceive someone into signing a contract, then is fraud, and it also invalidates the contract. If the fraudster already got the money according to that (invalid) contract, no matter if it's cash or crypto, they possess it, but it's not lawfully theirs.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
I mean, at its heart then you are really arguing than smart contracts shouldn't exist in the first place (I don't really disagree). The entire reason that smart contracts exist is to get rid of the need for any trusted third party intermediary because (as proponents argue) all of the logic for the contract is completely embedded in the code. If it then becomes necessary to say "The code is the contract, unless there's a bug, in which case we'll have some single or set of arbiters decide what the code was really supposed to do" then why have smart contracts at all, why not just go through a normal escrow process where there is an independent arbiter trusted to determine who "lawfully" deserves the funds.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I'm not necessarily arguing that smart contracts shouldn't exist in the first place - perhaps they have a valid future role in effectively and cheaply adjudicating small claims where currently it might not be worth to enforce a contract due to the effort and costs of the legal process; something vaguely like what arbitration was intended to be. This use case would IMHO have a quite large market, and it would be perfectly compatible with those smart contracts having a proper (non-code) appeals process explicitly designed in the system - the benefit would be that the third party (arbiters, or state, or whatever) is not used in most cases, because that would be costly.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Again, though, in that case, as with many use cases where people like to yell "blockchain!!", just use some code running on top of a database. Blockchain adds a ton of cost and complexity precisely because it is completely "autonomous" with no enhanced trust relationship for anyone. The second you have some people with an enhanced trust relationship, then the whole reason for using blockchain falls apart.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    The premise that you can opt out of the laws in the jurisdiction that you're operating in seems faulty. Smart contracts can let you enforce things that aren't enforceable otherwise, but they aren't going to let you avoid having things enforced through other means.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

I mean, at its heart then you are really arguing than smart contracts shouldn't exist in the first place (I don't really disagree). The entire reason that smart contracts exist is to get rid of the need for any trusted third party intermediary because (as proponents argue) all of the logic for the contract is completely embedded in the code. If it then becomes necessary to say "The code is the contract, unless there's a bug, in which case we'll have some single or set of arbiters decide what the code was really supposed to do" then why have smart contracts at all, why not just go through a normal escrow process where there is an independent arbiter trusted to determine who "lawfully" deserves the funds.

PeterisP 5y ago
I'm not necessarily arguing that smart contracts shouldn't exist in the first place - perhaps they have a valid future role in effectively and cheaply adjudicating small claims where currently it might not be worth to enforce a contract due to the effort and costs of the legal process; something vaguely like what arbitration was intended to be. This use case would IMHO have a quite large market, and it would be perfectly compatible with those smart contracts having a proper (non-code) appeals process explicitly designed in the system - the benefit would be that the third party (arbiters, or state, or whatever) is not used in most cases, because that would be costly.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Again, though, in that case, as with many use cases where people like to yell "blockchain!!", just use some code running on top of a database. Blockchain adds a ton of cost and complexity precisely because it is completely "autonomous" with no enhanced trust relationship for anyone. The second you have some people with an enhanced trust relationship, then the whole reason for using blockchain falls apart.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  The premise that you can opt out of the laws in the jurisdiction that you're operating in seems faulty. Smart contracts can let you enforce things that aren't enforceable otherwise, but they aren't going to let you avoid having things enforced through other means.