4 ms·

Depends on the service, but I would think (ianal) if somebody publishes a smart contract and says "you can buy my house via this smart contract", then that pers

Depends on the service, but I would think (ianal) if somebody publishes a smart contract and says "you can buy my house via this smart contract", then that person is the counter party, not the smart contract. Of course you can burn your crypto and send it so some random contract. You can also take traditional money, go to the woods and burn it.

lottin 5y ago
If the borrower and the lender sign a loan agreement with an intermediary, or among themselves, then sure, but this is conventional finance, not decentralised finance. In this situation the dumb contract becomes redundant. It doesn't do anything.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  In the case of real estate, it replaces the solicitor. And it facilitates the money transfer, so it also replaces the bank.
  - lottin 5y ago
    No. A dumb contract doesn't replace a solicitor and it doesn't replace a bank. You're just saying things now.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      That's why you use smart contracts. You are just unwilling to consider any possibility that crypto could be useful.
      - lottin 5y ago
        You use a dumb contract in a situation where otherwise you'd need a solicitor? Please, explain.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        In my country at least, the government charges lots of money (several thousands) to change ownership of real estate in a government managed ledger. That obviously could be replaced by crypto, which (in its basic form) is a distributed ledger. Ownership can be proven via the blockchain.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > That obviously could be replaced by crypto Could. So far you've been using the present tense, "the [dumb] contract replaces the solicitor", or such. Obviously it doesn't. Or could you tell me in which countries in the world you won't, at present, have to pay the government to register real estate ownership changes in its ledger just because you paid the seller in a crypto-"currency"?
        lottin 5y ago
        > That obviously could be replaced by crypto It's not obvious at all that it could be replaced by crypto.

lottin 5y ago

If the borrower and the lender sign a loan agreement with an intermediary, or among themselves, then sure, but this is conventional finance, not decentralised finance. In this situation the dumb contract becomes redundant. It doesn't do anything.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
In the case of real estate, it replaces the solicitor. And it facilitates the money transfer, so it also replaces the bank.
- lottin 5y ago
  No. A dumb contract doesn't replace a solicitor and it doesn't replace a bank. You're just saying things now.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    That's why you use smart contracts. You are just unwilling to consider any possibility that crypto could be useful.
    - lottin 5y ago
      You use a dumb contract in a situation where otherwise you'd need a solicitor? Please, explain.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        In my country at least, the government charges lots of money (several thousands) to change ownership of real estate in a government managed ledger. That obviously could be replaced by crypto, which (in its basic form) is a distributed ledger. Ownership can be proven via the blockchain.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > That obviously could be replaced by crypto Could. So far you've been using the present tense, "the [dumb] contract replaces the solicitor", or such. Obviously it doesn't. Or could you tell me in which countries in the world you won't, at present, have to pay the government to register real estate ownership changes in its ledger just because you paid the seller in a crypto-"currency"?
        lottin 5y ago
        > That obviously could be replaced by crypto It's not obvious at all that it could be replaced by crypto.