4 ms·

Ok so then why even have cash? Why not just write IOU's and let the legal system decide? If I'm accepting cash there's no difference, as I don't know whether or

Ok so then why even have cash? Why not just write IOU's and let the legal system decide? If I'm accepting cash there's no difference, as I don't know whether or not you legally own the cash. Obviously, the answer is that cash is a good "first layer". The legal system is there to resolve disputes, not facilitate transactions. Reversibility on a technical level and legal ownership are totally different things, it seems like many folks conflate them.

RandomLensman 5y ago
Depending on where you are, the legal system might already block or complicate larger cash transactions, i.e., legal system already intervening on the transactions level.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Complicate how though? Can they backdoor the transfer to reverse it (or can another party do this for them)? Or only try to force the receiver to send the funds back with threats of punishment / physically take the funds? My point is that those two things are fundamentally different.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    You might need to establish ID, source of funds, etc., or beyond a certain limit cash transactions might just not be legal. Failure to comply might then lead to all sorts of unpleasantness.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      Yup of course, what's your point though? I don't think this conflicts with what I'm saying.
      - RandomLensman 5y ago
        My point was that the legal system is not just there for disputes but it also expresses things about what/how transactions should be done, i.e. it facilitates some and blocks others.
        thebean11 5y ago
        Oh got it, yeah I agree that the scope of the legal system is more than just resolving disputes, I was thinking of the legal system's role in finality specifically.
avianlyric 5y ago
> The legal system is there to resolve disputes, not facilitate transactions. Disputes without transactions don’t mean much. The legal system (at least the civil portion of it) exists solely to facilitate transactions, it’s just that normally those transactions are formalised in contracts. Providing an adjudication service who decisions can be enforced with state violence, makes it much easier for people to have confidence in the value of contracts, and thus perform more complex transactions. The civil courts provide exactly this service, for the pure purposes of making transactions between private individuals easier and more enforceable without individuals resorting to vigilante justice.
- thebean11 5y ago
  Would having the contract defined in immutable, executable code also allow performing more complex transactions with confidence, in your opinion?
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    No. Immutable executable code can’t turn up at my house and take my possessions, nor can it easily validate my behaviour in meatspace.

RandomLensman 5y ago

Depending on where you are, the legal system might already block or complicate larger cash transactions, i.e., legal system already intervening on the transactions level.

thebean11 5y ago
Complicate how though? Can they backdoor the transfer to reverse it (or can another party do this for them)? Or only try to force the receiver to send the funds back with threats of punishment / physically take the funds? My point is that those two things are fundamentally different.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  You might need to establish ID, source of funds, etc., or beyond a certain limit cash transactions might just not be legal. Failure to comply might then lead to all sorts of unpleasantness.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Yup of course, what's your point though? I don't think this conflicts with what I'm saying.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      My point was that the legal system is not just there for disputes but it also expresses things about what/how transactions should be done, i.e. it facilitates some and blocks others.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        Oh got it, yeah I agree that the scope of the legal system is more than just resolving disputes, I was thinking of the legal system's role in finality specifically.

avianlyric 5y ago

> The legal system is there to resolve disputes, not facilitate transactions. Disputes without transactions don’t mean much. The legal system (at least the civil portion of it) exists solely to facilitate transactions, it’s just that normally those transactions are formalised in contracts. Providing an adjudication service who decisions can be enforced with state violence, makes it much easier for people to have confidence in the value of contracts, and thus perform more complex transactions. The civil courts provide exactly this service, for the pure purposes of making transactions between private individuals easier and more enforceable without individuals resorting to vigilante justice.

thebean11 5y ago
Would having the contract defined in immutable, executable code also allow performing more complex transactions with confidence, in your opinion?
- avianlyric 5y ago
  No. Immutable executable code can’t turn up at my house and take my possessions, nor can it easily validate my behaviour in meatspace.