But it doesn't belong to that Jack. You can interpret the “smart contract” one of two ways: • As a device to programmatically ensure the “owner” of some resour

But it doesn't belong to that Jack. You can interpret the “smart contract” one of two ways: • As a device to programmatically ensure the “owner” of some resource is the one who controls it; or • As a system that decides who controls a resource, whomsoever controls the resource has a right to it, there can only be one. The sensible interpretation (imo) is the first one, unless we're doing away with our conception of property rights. (Which would be an interesting experiment, but given the philosophical background of a lot of this cryptocurrency stuff I don't think that's what's intended.)