22 ms·

I would support my tax dollars being spent on standardized smart contract development and standardized authentication and custodial relationships, analogous to

I would support my tax dollars being spent on standardized smart contract development and standardized authentication and custodial relationships, analogous to the IETF which started out with US federal government funding and laid the frameworks for internet usefulness.

Daishiman 5y ago
There's nothing in contract law preventing parties to agree on the automated execution of software when certain criteria are met. It's just that it doesn't trump contract law and it's not generally a barrier for implementing contracts digitally.
- vmception 5y ago
  Right, insightful for some but I don’t think it disagrees or adds to anything I wrote? I’ll try again: I would like my taxpayer dollars going to smart contract development, auditing, and promulgating industry standards in a collaborate way. Just an additional signer for industry participants to consider or lean on the opinion of. Conditional execution on a distributed ledger with standardized conditions could easily get its own legal carveout to trump the analogous contract law, no different than someone someone agreeing to arbitration, but even as far as the local law invalidating private sector legalise when a parallel smart contracts is involved to limit possible behaviors already.
jl2718 5y ago
The standard smart contracts are published by OpenZeppelin. Looking into these hacks, however, there are shockingly vulnerable unexpected and otherwise useless “features” in them. I don’t think that the government could standardize contracts, but they could and really ought to be in the lead over threat prevention, incident response, and notification, because they are the only entity that can link on-chain to off-chain data.
- vmception 5y ago
  I’ve held this opinion from before OpenZeppelin existed, and I am glad they have helped tremendously. Governments can be a collaborative coding participant as we use this technology to re-evaluate the concept of governance and what redundancies the world actual needs to handle disputes or control behaviors with the pooled capital of taxpayers and the credit markets. Right now this conversation has been limited to “adversary or not”, and that’s also shortsighted. Fortunately they’ve all moved too slow and there is enough capital within the crypto ecosystem to capture them. So I dont think it will be an organic growth from here to this reality, just consensus flippenings as wealthy backers direct public agencies and legislatures to “do the needful”. As you might imagine, this was a much more extreme position to publicly have 6 years ago. But less absurd now, still not something to say on TV or in a web 2.0 office setting but at a bar or conference its understandable by people now, yay speculation driving innovation.

Daishiman 5y ago

There's nothing in contract law preventing parties to agree on the automated execution of software when certain criteria are met. It's just that it doesn't trump contract law and it's not generally a barrier for implementing contracts digitally.

vmception 5y ago
Right, insightful for some but I don’t think it disagrees or adds to anything I wrote? I’ll try again: I would like my taxpayer dollars going to smart contract development, auditing, and promulgating industry standards in a collaborate way. Just an additional signer for industry participants to consider or lean on the opinion of. Conditional execution on a distributed ledger with standardized conditions could easily get its own legal carveout to trump the analogous contract law, no different than someone someone agreeing to arbitration, but even as far as the local law invalidating private sector legalise when a parallel smart contracts is involved to limit possible behaviors already.

jl2718 5y ago

The standard smart contracts are published by OpenZeppelin. Looking into these hacks, however, there are shockingly vulnerable unexpected and otherwise useless “features” in them. I don’t think that the government could standardize contracts, but they could and really ought to be in the lead over threat prevention, incident response, and notification, because they are the only entity that can link on-chain to off-chain data.

vmception 5y ago
I’ve held this opinion from before OpenZeppelin existed, and I am glad they have helped tremendously. Governments can be a collaborative coding participant as we use this technology to re-evaluate the concept of governance and what redundancies the world actual needs to handle disputes or control behaviors with the pooled capital of taxpayers and the credit markets. Right now this conversation has been limited to “adversary or not”, and that’s also shortsighted. Fortunately they’ve all moved too slow and there is enough capital within the crypto ecosystem to capture them. So I dont think it will be an organic growth from here to this reality, just consensus flippenings as wealthy backers direct public agencies and legislatures to “do the needful”. As you might imagine, this was a much more extreme position to publicly have 6 years ago. But less absurd now, still not something to say on TV or in a web 2.0 office setting but at a bar or conference its understandable by people now, yay speculation driving innovation.