4 ms·
The difference is that the ATM provider did not explicitly promise that the “code is law” which directly implies that they want to and aggressively argue that t
by Veserv 4y ago
The difference is that the ATM provider did not explicitly promise that the “code is law” which directly implies that they want to and aggressively argue that they are waiving their legal recourse as long as they were valid user inputs.
In contrast, basically nobody outside of the blockchain space would waive their legal recourse in such a manner and thus would have legal recourse if the intent of their system was bypassed.
To go on to then argue that a legal system should not allow one to waive those rights as it would be idiotic to do so is a perfectly valid legal/moral/justice position, but also directly contradicts basically the entire purported value proposition of everything in the blockchain space whose primary “positive” differentiating factor is that “code is law” and they have waived those rights. To not allow them to do so basically invalidates their entire purpose.
Essentially, either let people bind themselves to “code is law” and suffer the consequence of their choice, or ban it at which point you lose decentralized trust and censorship-resistance making them no different than traditional implementations except that they are slower with higher operational costs.
- sushid 4y agoWhere and when did the defi protocol in question explicitly state "code is law"? No one is waiving legal recourse when they're using Web3. I'm not a lawyer but I'd be very surprised if one could even "waive legal recourse" just because it's blockchain all the way down vs mySQL. I believe you're making this claim because _some_ crypto proponents believe "code is law" and because your personal logical framing is that web3 has no value add outside of being able to operate without legal recourse thus it must operate without legal recourse. First, even if web3 had no useful value add, it doesn't mean it ought not exist. I can create a SaaS company that does exactly the same thing another company does just with my own logo and API documentation. Does non-uniqueness invalidate my company's existence? What if I forked an open source SQL database and slapped my name on the repo? Have you heard about something called substitute goods? I don't see why Pepsi can't exist in a world where only Coke is the norm. Second, web3/blockchain/defi does have benefits outside of traditional web2/finance. The ability to not require depositing your funds into an account to transact on a protocol, for instance, is a clear value add. The ability to buy/sell NFTs without a middleman (if they choose to eschew a middleman) is a novel and potentially valuable value add as well. There are countless other applications of web3 that I won't delve into but these concepts can and should operate within bounds of legal recourse.
- hnfong 4y ago> No one is waiving legal recourse when they're using Web3. I've seen quite a few people do this. May not everyone, but a lot. The "commentary added by a random law firm" is the general sentiment I understood when people were hyped up on smart contracts. There's an industry of smart contract programmers who write code under the assumption that there may be no recourse (to the legal system) if they introduced bugs. If your attitude represents the sentiment of "web3" these days, it is really a very hilarious backtrack on the previous (hyperbole) claims...