4 ms·

I've been saying for a very long time now to anyone who chooses to listen that a contract itself is a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has

I've been saying for a very long time now to anyone who chooses to listen that a contract itself is a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location to be relevant and useful. Without all of those properties a contract ceases to useful to a human being under all edge cases. So it is, in fact, a dumb contract. Humans want contracts that make them whole at the end of the day, that's the point of the contract: jurisdiction over the human realm.

exporectomy 5y ago
How is that thing you've been saying relevant here or how does it lead to your 2nd paragraph? Smart contracts meet all your requirements for a contract just as PDF contracts do.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I believe the point the poster was making is that "smart contract" is a misnomer and contracts comprised of code should be more realistically called "dumb contracts" since they lack the intelligence to understand and compensate for context and intent.
  - missblit 5y ago
    They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. Imagine for example if a mortgage contract contained some bizarre inscrutable loophole that as-written would give the first 3rd party to notice it total control over over the house. This would of course be laughed out of court because that part of the contract wouldn't be enforcable under contract law. "Code is law" is more accurately written as "code is not law at all".
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. That's a really good point. They are arguably neither "smart" nor "contracts". Maybe a better term is "automated blockchain agents" or something similar?
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      It's a perfectly correct term. They're smart because they do some computation, just like a smart speaker or smart phone. They're contracts because they're an agreement between parties. Not legal contracts, but neither are OOP contracts or social contracts or any other kinds of contract.
      - jkhdigital 5y ago
        I guess I can see your point, but I think the usage of "smart" to describe consumer electronics with computational capabilities is a very different usage. Contracts are not "dumb" technologies that are being "enhanced" with computation; contracts and software code are already the same kind of thing. The difference is that contracts-as-code can actually execute contractual obligations rather than just describing them. I wouldn't describe this enhancement as "smart"... perhaps a better term would be "automatic" or "autonomous".
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Hard to read that from "a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location".
jkhdigital 5y ago
Yes, dumb contract indeed. I think a good term is "fire-and-forget", as once it's live there's no going back so you'd better make sure it does exactly what you want.

exporectomy 5y ago

How is that thing you've been saying relevant here or how does it lead to your 2nd paragraph? Smart contracts meet all your requirements for a contract just as PDF contracts do.

shkkmo 5y ago
I believe the point the poster was making is that "smart contract" is a misnomer and contracts comprised of code should be more realistically called "dumb contracts" since they lack the intelligence to understand and compensate for context and intent.
- missblit 5y ago
  They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. Imagine for example if a mortgage contract contained some bizarre inscrutable loophole that as-written would give the first 3rd party to notice it total control over over the house. This would of course be laughed out of court because that part of the contract wouldn't be enforcable under contract law. "Code is law" is more accurately written as "code is not law at all".
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. That's a really good point. They are arguably neither "smart" nor "contracts". Maybe a better term is "automated blockchain agents" or something similar?
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    It's a perfectly correct term. They're smart because they do some computation, just like a smart speaker or smart phone. They're contracts because they're an agreement between parties. Not legal contracts, but neither are OOP contracts or social contracts or any other kinds of contract.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      I guess I can see your point, but I think the usage of "smart" to describe consumer electronics with computational capabilities is a very different usage. Contracts are not "dumb" technologies that are being "enhanced" with computation; contracts and software code are already the same kind of thing. The difference is that contracts-as-code can actually execute contractual obligations rather than just describing them. I wouldn't describe this enhancement as "smart"... perhaps a better term would be "automatic" or "autonomous".
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Hard to read that from "a human construct - it is both temporal and physical and has location".

jkhdigital 5y ago

Yes, dumb contract indeed. I think a good term is "fire-and-forget", as once it's live there's no going back so you'd better make sure it does exactly what you want.