5 ms·

>In the world of smart contracts code is indeed law, but that doesn't change the fact that in the real world law is law I think some confusion arises because t

>In the world of smart contracts code is indeed law, but that doesn't change the fact that in the real world law is law I think some confusion arises because that "smart contracts" only make sense if code really is law, in the sense that any transaction executed by the contract -- even unexpected, surprising transactions -- is considered to be fully consented to by all parties interacting with the contract. I agree that that's a terrible idea - bugs can always exist, and having no recourse when millions of dollars are lost due to a coding error is a huge and unreasonable risk. But otherwise -- if, ultimately, courts can force "smart contract" transactions to be unwound if they are found to be exploitative, unintended or otherwise invalid -- then what's the point of having smart contracts in the first place? What's the value proposition? Why not just use regular contracts?

verdverm 4y ago
Most people will be coerced into returning funds if the alternative is hard jail time Smart contract is really the misnomer. In reality, they are automations of contractual obligations and cannot automate complete contract clauses.
IanCal 4y ago
> Why not just use regular contracts? It's just code, so the same reason we use APIs rather than doing everything by lawyers.
greycol 4y ago
The same argument could be made about an escrow account. Just because the account gets payed to one party by the third party doesn't mean that the second party couldn't sue the first for the money back. Assuming the third party made a mistake or (more in line with smart contracts) if the escrow was set up in a way were the pay out was just with relation to the escrow terms but wasn't in line with the contract terms between the 1st and 2nd party they'd be likely to get redress. There's still a very real use for smart contracts in that you change what bad actors can do to act badly. Before they may have been able to breach a contract by ignoring invoices now they breach a contract by exploiting a smart contract loophole. Basically your shuffling the trust and risk around which can be a useful tool. i.e. it can be quite costly to enforce (and do due diligencece on) a contract with someone in another country so the cost and technical risk of setting up a smart contract may be much more preferable than the posisbility of having to legally enforce redress for breach in a regular contract.

verdverm 4y ago

Most people will be coerced into returning funds if the alternative is hard jail time Smart contract is really the misnomer. In reality, they are automations of contractual obligations and cannot automate complete contract clauses.

IanCal 4y ago

> Why not just use regular contracts? It's just code, so the same reason we use APIs rather than doing everything by lawyers.

greycol 4y ago

The same argument could be made about an escrow account. Just because the account gets payed to one party by the third party doesn't mean that the second party couldn't sue the first for the money back. Assuming the third party made a mistake or (more in line with smart contracts) if the escrow was set up in a way were the pay out was just with relation to the escrow terms but wasn't in line with the contract terms between the 1st and 2nd party they'd be likely to get redress. There's still a very real use for smart contracts in that you change what bad actors can do to act badly. Before they may have been able to breach a contract by ignoring invoices now they breach a contract by exploiting a smart contract loophole. Basically your shuffling the trust and risk around which can be a useful tool. i.e. it can be quite costly to enforce (and do due diligencece on) a contract with someone in another country so the cost and technical risk of setting up a smart contract may be much more preferable than the posisbility of having to legally enforce redress for breach in a regular contract.