5 ms·

I'm just happy to see something about contracts here that's actually about contracts -- not about the blockchain things called "smart contracts," which are neit

by jrm4 5y ago

I'm just happy to see something about contracts here that's actually about contracts -- not about the blockchain things called "smart contracts," which are neither smart (okay, that's debatable) but definitely not contracts.

foobarbecue 5y ago
Yeah and don't you hate how graphs aren't graphs and trees aren't trees? These people talk about bootstrapping when they aren't even referring to footwear! And always talking about bandwidth as if it's a maximum data rate when the term really refers to the electromagnetic spectrum! Makes me so angry how these people treat language as if it's some fluid thing where homonyms develop.
- shuntress 5y ago
  "graph", "tree", "boostrapping", and "bandwidth" are all fairly accurate analogies. "smart contract" is a buzzword (incidentally, you may notice that it is not literally buzzing). The parent comment is like saying "I'm just happy to see something about crypto that's actually about cryptography"
  - foobarbecue 5y ago
    Wow, downvoters, excuse me for having a little fun! But since you want to be serious, let's bikeshed this: What word would you rather we use, in place of "smart contract," to refer to the small programs that run on the blockchain?
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      Serverless lambda cloudchain functions!
      - foobarbecue 5y ago
        SLCFs it is.
    - shuntress 5y ago
      A Ledger App implemented as a Smart Block seems significantly more descriptive to me while being about a simple and also less obviously a buzzword.
- jrm4 5y ago
  No, smarty pants. I'm telling you that "smart contract" is a bad term for those things because it is unclear and confusing. A contract is a legally binding statement describing a promise or promises among parties to execute one or more actions. But they are NOT the actions themselves, again, they are a document relating to the actions. "Smart contracts" are THE ACTIONS THEMSELVES. They're deliverables, they're payments, they're executions of code, but they're NOT CONTRACTS, by any sense of how we've always traditionally used the word.
  - foobarbecue 5y ago
    Interesting perspective, but it sounds like you're mixing up smart contacts with transactions. A smart contact defines what transactions might happen. Transactions are the actual actions. One contract can run for an indefinant amount of time and cause many transactions.
    - jrm4 5y ago
      By this definition, a vending machine is a contract. Which it isn't. You could put a sign on the machine, contact so-and-so if it steals your money, we will definitely repay you. That would be a contract.
      - foobarbecue 5y ago
        Yeah, the price list on a vending machine is an implied contract defining a monetary transaction for food. So if someone wants to call a vending machine a contract, I'm fine with that.
        jrm4 5y ago
        I'm a lawyer and you shouldn't be. That's my point. I've already seen people immediately make this mistake. "Oh, I don't need a lawyer now because the contract is now on the blockchain." Wrong wrong wrong. If you'd like to do a blockchain transaction thing with or without a lawyer, that's fine, the risk is on you. But, the thing called a smart contract does not fundamentally replace what the lawyer does.
myWindoonn 5y ago
It's sad, because smart contracts were originally about something much simpler and without blockchains. A smart contract was just a contract which partially consists of portable executable code. What made it "smart" is that, due to the included code, it could "know" about certain formal conditions in the contract. To make this all concrete, a vending machine offers a smart contract to its customers. The vending machine "knows" how much money has been deposited in it, and that lets it be "smart" about when to uphold its end of the bargain and dispense snacks.
- jrm4 5y ago
  Again, you're all using the word "contract" wrong. More precisely, you are using it in a way that is fundamentally different from how the law uses it, and I believe that doing so is harmful (i.e. this isn't about being a language prescriptivist, it's about confusing people in ways that will likely mess them up.) In the vending machine hypothetical, the part that people are calling the "smart contract" is the physical workings of the machine itself; it detects the presence of a bill, it takes it, gears turn, and a soda comes out. There is nothing here about obligations, promises, who is owed what. It's just a machine. And thus should not be called a contract. The contract is the legal obligations that are carried with it.
  - myWindoonn 5y ago
    I strongly recommend that you read "Smart Contracts and Traditional Contract Law, or: The Law of the Vending Machine" by Rohr in 2019, published in a reputable law-review journal [1]. If literally nothing else, it contains the quote, "smart contracts are not necessarily legal contracts," which appears to be the point that you want made. But also, on p9, the author points out that "it may be silly to think of a vending machine in this way, but when, for example, somebody is sickened by a defective can of Coke and issues arise relating to warranties that apply to the sales of goods, the legal status of those ubiquitous, small-potatoes transactions matters." The article goes on to critique the "just a machine[,] and thus not should be called a contract" view which you espouse. [1] https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4025&context=clevstlrev https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

by jrm4 5y ago

foobarbecue 5y ago

Yeah and don't you hate how graphs aren't graphs and trees aren't trees? These people talk about bootstrapping when they aren't even referring to footwear! And always talking about bandwidth as if it's a maximum data rate when the term really refers to the electromagnetic spectrum! Makes me so angry how these people treat language as if it's some fluid thing where homonyms develop.

shuntress 5y ago
"graph", "tree", "boostrapping", and "bandwidth" are all fairly accurate analogies. "smart contract" is a buzzword (incidentally, you may notice that it is not literally buzzing). The parent comment is like saying "I'm just happy to see something about crypto that's actually about cryptography"
- foobarbecue 5y ago
  Wow, downvoters, excuse me for having a little fun! But since you want to be serious, let's bikeshed this: What word would you rather we use, in place of "smart contract," to refer to the small programs that run on the blockchain?
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    Serverless lambda cloudchain functions!
    - foobarbecue 5y ago
      SLCFs it is.
  - shuntress 5y ago
    A Ledger App implemented as a Smart Block seems significantly more descriptive to me while being about a simple and also less obviously a buzzword.
jrm4 5y ago
No, smarty pants. I'm telling you that "smart contract" is a bad term for those things because it is unclear and confusing. A contract is a legally binding statement describing a promise or promises among parties to execute one or more actions. But they are NOT the actions themselves, again, they are a document relating to the actions. "Smart contracts" are THE ACTIONS THEMSELVES. They're deliverables, they're payments, they're executions of code, but they're NOT CONTRACTS, by any sense of how we've always traditionally used the word.
- foobarbecue 5y ago
  Interesting perspective, but it sounds like you're mixing up smart contacts with transactions. A smart contact defines what transactions might happen. Transactions are the actual actions. One contract can run for an indefinant amount of time and cause many transactions.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    By this definition, a vending machine is a contract. Which it isn't. You could put a sign on the machine, contact so-and-so if it steals your money, we will definitely repay you. That would be a contract.
    - foobarbecue 5y ago
      Yeah, the price list on a vending machine is an implied contract defining a monetary transaction for food. So if someone wants to call a vending machine a contract, I'm fine with that.
      - jrm4 5y ago
        I'm a lawyer and you shouldn't be. That's my point. I've already seen people immediately make this mistake. "Oh, I don't need a lawyer now because the contract is now on the blockchain." Wrong wrong wrong. If you'd like to do a blockchain transaction thing with or without a lawyer, that's fine, the risk is on you. But, the thing called a smart contract does not fundamentally replace what the lawyer does.

myWindoonn 5y ago

It's sad, because smart contracts were originally about something much simpler and without blockchains. A smart contract was just a contract which partially consists of portable executable code. What made it "smart" is that, due to the included code, it could "know" about certain formal conditions in the contract. To make this all concrete, a vending machine offers a smart contract to its customers. The vending machine "knows" how much money has been deposited in it, and that lets it be "smart" about when to uphold its end of the bargain and dispense snacks.

jrm4 5y ago
Again, you're all using the word "contract" wrong. More precisely, you are using it in a way that is fundamentally different from how the law uses it, and I believe that doing so is harmful (i.e. this isn't about being a language prescriptivist, it's about confusing people in ways that will likely mess them up.) In the vending machine hypothetical, the part that people are calling the "smart contract" is the physical workings of the machine itself; it detects the presence of a bill, it takes it, gears turn, and a soda comes out. There is nothing here about obligations, promises, who is owed what. It's just a machine. And thus should not be called a contract. The contract is the legal obligations that are carried with it.
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  I strongly recommend that you read "Smart Contracts and Traditional Contract Law, or: The Law of the Vending Machine" by Rohr in 2019, published in a reputable law-review journal [1]. If literally nothing else, it contains the quote, "smart contracts are not necessarily legal contracts," which appears to be the point that you want made. But also, on p9, the author points out that "it may be silly to think of a vending machine in this way, but when, for example, somebody is sickened by a defective can of Coke and issues arise relating to warranties that apply to the sales of goods, the legal status of those ubiquitous, small-potatoes transactions matters." The article goes on to critique the "just a machine[,] and thus not should be called a contract" view which you espouse. [1] https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4025&context=clevstlrev https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...