3 ms·

I think the word „smart contract“ does not actually describe them very good. Of course, a piece of software can not replace a legal contract, really, because so

I think the word „smart contract“ does not actually describe them very good. Of course, a piece of software can not replace a legal contract, really, because software is stupid and inflexible. Think of smart contracts rather as vending machines for financial transactions. For example: You enter some crypto coins, maybe select an option and the machine returns a receipt for redeeming your investment plus some interest later. If the machine is well designed it will forever do the same thing and, hence, be reliable and convenient. Of course, bugs can happen. But like with vending machines, you test and audit its code before deploying it everywhere.

remram 5y ago
In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts. In the same way a "smart speaker" allows for interactive and sensitivity to its environment compared to a "dumb speaker", a "legal contract" allows for arguing and bugfixing and sensitivity to its environment compared to an block chain "contract". They should call them "strict contracts" or "inflexible contracts" or "software-enforced contracts". The smarts have been taken out on purpose.
- G3rn0ti 5y ago
  > The smarts have been taken out on purpose. Yes. Where dumb contracts make sense, they make many financial services much cheaper. But investing your life savings somewhere will probably forever demand counselling by a human being.
- kybernetikos 5y ago
  > In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts. It's more that they're just entirely separate things. Smart contracts are programmable money. Contracts are agreements between parties. The fact that you can use smart contracts to automatically take actions required by an actual contract is interesting and useful, but it's not enough to make the two comparable.
  - remram 5y ago
    I'm not the one who decided to name them "smart contracts" instead of "programmable money". Not that I think the latter term makes sense...

remram 5y ago

In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts. In the same way a "smart speaker" allows for interactive and sensitivity to its environment compared to a "dumb speaker", a "legal contract" allows for arguing and bugfixing and sensitivity to its environment compared to an block chain "contract". They should call them "strict contracts" or "inflexible contracts" or "software-enforced contracts". The smarts have been taken out on purpose.

G3rn0ti 5y ago
> The smarts have been taken out on purpose. Yes. Where dumb contracts make sense, they make many financial services much cheaper. But investing your life savings somewhere will probably forever demand counselling by a human being.
kybernetikos 5y ago
> In a very real way, those contracts are less smart than existing legal contracts. It's more that they're just entirely separate things. Smart contracts are programmable money. Contracts are agreements between parties. The fact that you can use smart contracts to automatically take actions required by an actual contract is interesting and useful, but it's not enough to make the two comparable.
- remram 5y ago
  I'm not the one who decided to name them "smart contracts" instead of "programmable money". Not that I think the latter term makes sense...