3 ms·

> there is no central issuing authority; Dai is minted in exchange for Ethereum (and other cryptocurrencies), not fiat currencies Its not fiat-stable, which i

> there is no central issuing authority; Dai is minted in exchange for Ethereum (and other cryptocurrencies), not fiat currencies Its not fiat-stable, which is probably their focus. fiat-stable coins are basically crypto bank notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote Also, > a future where reality is determined by computer code and people are but players in the script. Corporations are "things" in a legal sense - but they're still managed by people, created by people and owned by people. DEFI contracts and orgs are still made by people, and sometimes also managed by people. You can probably be held liable and tied to your misbehaving contract.

DennisP 5y ago
The 9th Circuit ruled that source code is protected under the First Amendment in the Bernstein case, which legalized the export of cryptography. If you just publish the contract and don't have any ongoing administration, I would think that gives you a pretty strong legal defense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Publish the code, or activate/enable/fund/start/whatever to instantiate the activity. If you just publish it github - thats probably a good defense (linux T isn't to blame for all bad things that ran on linux). If you publish a smart contract in a way that enables people to start using it, then that may not be covered. While its different than actively running an API/Service that needs continuous/paid hosting, its probably a grey area at best.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    If the government were to take a hard line on this, then publishing on github for anyone to deploy would work. It's easy to verify that the compiled contract matches published source code. But the Bernstein case was about PGP, and after the decision people had no trouble with using it, making compiled code available for download, etc.

DennisP 5y ago

The 9th Circuit ruled that source code is protected under the First Amendment in the Bernstein case, which legalized the export of cryptography. If you just publish the contract and don't have any ongoing administration, I would think that gives you a pretty strong legal defense.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vineyardmike 5y ago
Publish the code, or activate/enable/fund/start/whatever to instantiate the activity. If you just publish it github - thats probably a good defense (linux T isn't to blame for all bad things that ran on linux). If you publish a smart contract in a way that enables people to start using it, then that may not be covered. While its different than actively running an API/Service that needs continuous/paid hosting, its probably a grey area at best.
- DennisP 5y ago
  If the government were to take a hard line on this, then publishing on github for anyone to deploy would work. It's easy to verify that the compiled contract matches published source code. But the Bernstein case was about PGP, and after the decision people had no trouble with using it, making compiled code available for download, etc.