3 ms·

You're talking about dumb contracts and off-chain legislative systems of a random country. That's not what we're talking about. The question isn't, "once we ge

You're talking about dumb contracts and off-chain legislative systems of a random country. That's not what we're talking about. The question isn't, "once we get these people in a room, how do we (as a legislative body) decide who owns what and compel the parties into cooperating?" The question is, "these parties are assumed to retain perfect anonymity, and they operated according to the design of the consensus-based system that we (as miners) agree to; are we ok with the outcome? Should we come to a consensus on an adjustment to the design?" Smart contracts are unambiguous by definition. What you're describing is PEBKAC at best.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
How is it good public policy for contracts executed at gunpoint (for example, considering the duress case) to be considered good? Such contracts are not, to my knowledge, consider valid anywhere in the world and for obvious reason and need to be undone. It doesn't matter whether the contract is unambiguously written if you sign it with a gun in your mouth. There's no way to do this in code. You need a judicial system to make determinations on them based on facts. There is no "adjustment to the design" other than incorporating some kind of arbitrary undoing capability into smart contracts that defers to a legal oracle that consumes decisions of courts and applies them into the chain.
kybernetikos 5y ago
Maybe that's your question but people who have lost money are entitled (and should be entitled) to ask the other question and attempt to make it come to pass through trying to unmask the identity of the presumed anonymous actors and suing anyone who acted deceptively or negligently in the situation that led to an unexpected loss. From the little I know of this case it seems likely that this should have been governed under securities law and all participants should have been kyc'd. If that didn't happen then it looks like someone was committing securities fraud.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

How is it good public policy for contracts executed at gunpoint (for example, considering the duress case) to be considered good? Such contracts are not, to my knowledge, consider valid anywhere in the world and for obvious reason and need to be undone. It doesn't matter whether the contract is unambiguously written if you sign it with a gun in your mouth. There's no way to do this in code. You need a judicial system to make determinations on them based on facts. There is no "adjustment to the design" other than incorporating some kind of arbitrary undoing capability into smart contracts that defers to a legal oracle that consumes decisions of courts and applies them into the chain.

kybernetikos 5y ago

Maybe that's your question but people who have lost money are entitled (and should be entitled) to ask the other question and attempt to make it come to pass through trying to unmask the identity of the presumed anonymous actors and suing anyone who acted deceptively or negligently in the situation that led to an unexpected loss. From the little I know of this case it seems likely that this should have been governed under securities law and all participants should have been kyc'd. If that didn't happen then it looks like someone was committing securities fraud.