4 ms·

How is it fraud if the smart contract allowed it? Actually curious what makes it fraud. Just because one group wants the money back?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Lawful intention. What the smart contract dictates isn’t necessarily the final authority, but what the intent was (per legal interpretation of state contract law).
- shkkmo 5y ago
  smart contracts are actually legally contracts (nor all that smart.)
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    I think you're missing a 'not'.
- enlyth 5y ago
  Code is law! No wait.. not like that! The crypto evangelist mental gymnastics never cease to amaze me
- tdeck 5y ago
  This kinda belies the whole premise behind "smart" "contracts", doesn't it? I've always heard that the point of smart contracts is that we don't need the legal system to settle issues, because the code itself enforces the contract. Apparently code can have bugs, and people can make mistakes? Whoops, wish we'd known those things before pouring millions into this stuff.
  - Stevvo 5y ago
    The idea of "Code is law" as an absolute died back in 2016 with the DAO fork. A better way to see it is like "law is law", which is obviously untrue as we have things like case law/common law.
- stordoff 5y ago
  I wonder if the argument will become what is the contact - essentially, is it specific transfers as implemented by the smart contract, or is it to be bound by the smart contract, even if these transfers weren't in the contemplation of the parties at formation?
  - jbverschoor 5y ago
    Depends who you ask under what circumstances
- newswasboring 5y ago
  Has a case like this ever been brought to court yet?
- dhaavi 5y ago
  The user (supposedly) read the (smart) contract and agreed to it as it is. So how is that resolved then?
- barnabee 5y ago
  This assumes a contract in addition to the smart contract. I am not sure in this case whether one could be said to exist, but certainly a truly decentralised system probably ought not to create such contracts.
- smitop 5y ago
  The intention of the parties was that the smart contract was enforced exactly as the smart contract was written: if that turns out to be unexpectedly disadvantageous for a party, then that's their problem.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Lawful intention. What the smart contract dictates isn’t necessarily the final authority, but what the intent was (per legal interpretation of state contract law).

shkkmo 5y ago
smart contracts are actually legally contracts (nor all that smart.)
- crooked-v 5y ago
  I think you're missing a 'not'.
enlyth 5y ago
Code is law! No wait.. not like that! The crypto evangelist mental gymnastics never cease to amaze me
tdeck 5y ago
This kinda belies the whole premise behind "smart" "contracts", doesn't it? I've always heard that the point of smart contracts is that we don't need the legal system to settle issues, because the code itself enforces the contract. Apparently code can have bugs, and people can make mistakes? Whoops, wish we'd known those things before pouring millions into this stuff.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  The idea of "Code is law" as an absolute died back in 2016 with the DAO fork. A better way to see it is like "law is law", which is obviously untrue as we have things like case law/common law.
stordoff 5y ago
I wonder if the argument will become what is the contact - essentially, is it specific transfers as implemented by the smart contract, or is it to be bound by the smart contract, even if these transfers weren't in the contemplation of the parties at formation?
- jbverschoor 5y ago
  Depends who you ask under what circumstances
newswasboring 5y ago
Has a case like this ever been brought to court yet?
dhaavi 5y ago
The user (supposedly) read the (smart) contract and agreed to it as it is. So how is that resolved then?
barnabee 5y ago
This assumes a contract in addition to the smart contract. I am not sure in this case whether one could be said to exist, but certainly a truly decentralised system probably ought not to create such contracts.
smitop 5y ago
The intention of the parties was that the smart contract was enforced exactly as the smart contract was written: if that turns out to be unexpectedly disadvantageous for a party, then that's their problem.