4 ms·
I don’t disagree with you, but I think the only fallacy here is that it’s an extremely zero-sum way to look at things. Are we perhaps better off for many — may
by krrishd 5y ago
I don’t disagree with you, but I think the only fallacy here is that it’s an extremely zero-sum way to look at things.
Are we perhaps better off for many — maybe even all — of our status quo legal contracts not working like software programs? Sure.
Is there a class of legal contracts — either already in existence, or made possible by crypto — that’d make much more sense if ran like software (with different requirements/constraints than the error tolerance you described)? I don’t see why not, and why this would be mutually exclusive with the first premise.
- verdverm 5y agoWhere does the legality of a contract get determined? The execution of a contract seems distinct from is legal validation.
- crote 5y agoWhat would such a contract look like? The whole point of crypto-like contracts is that the terms of the contract are defined solely by code. Ambiguity is, by definition, impossible. If you remove that, why not just use a regular contract?
- omk 5y agoI agree that it isn't a zero sum game and that there are valid use cases. But I don't see any of these use cases operating over a multi-million dollar business. There has to be a way to override an exploit when a sum like that is at stake.
- krrishd 5y agoNot to suggest that this is the best way to do it, but that’s already happened on Ethereum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)