In the context of ordinary contracts, the entire court and legal system exists to determine whether a given event happens. Moreover, the legal system isn't int

In the context of ordinary contracts, the entire court and legal system exists to determine whether a given event happens. Moreover, the legal system isn't intended as merely a means to determine whether a contract is fulfilled. It's also intended as a institution for preventing "cheating" and it has a concept of cheating. IE, me just satisfying a proxy for my end of a contact while not fulfilling the actual intent will not result in a judgement that the contract isn't fulfilled but also penalties of various severity if I intended to defraud a customer. If I build a bridge out of cardboard and, say, show pictures as proof of my supposed actions, I may well go to prisoner for fraud rather than prospering, even if it takes a while. Smart contracts, in contrast, inherent can't distinguish between a proxy-value and a real situation - and their inability to do so is seen by their naive proponents as being their appeal. Equivalently, they have no concept of cheating. Thing considered "Hacks" and "fraud" have been prevent in etherium sure but by the opaque actions of governing boards, much less transparently than the ordinary courts. And you can't make the problem go away with a reputation system since if the benefit lying gets higher than the cost of losing reputation anyone may lie with no other repercussions. And reputation always leaves the possibility of hacks to systems open - as the article shows.