9 ms·

"this should create new prosperity for those who have been unable to enjoy access to fair courts and binding contracts. " This is the heady mythology of those

"this should create new prosperity for those who have been unable to enjoy access to fair courts and binding contracts. " This is the heady mythology of those who said 'Crypto would create XYZ for those who cannot'. Except it's been 10 years of Crypto popularity and they have no material function, are a huge drain of energy and human intellectual capital. Contracts are subject to legal oversight of a Judicial system, the credibility of which is require of a system to function. Digitization of a 'contract' really doesn't make sense so much at all in terms of it's 'legality'. The algorithm whether it's in regular code or Ehterium makes no difference. If someone really wanted to 'help those without legal recourse' they'd just use a foreign legal system for transaction record. So, contracts between 2 people in Haiti could be designated under 'Canadian Law'. But even that would be besides the point: It's not the 'legal system' that makes things work, it's the integrity of the system overall, maintained by a 'legal system'. Canada isn't rich because it has a 'legal system' - that's just one component. It's rich because people and groups act with integrity. The 'law' is involved very rarely. There's no technical utopia that will replace 'integrity'. Or frankly 'values'. Ehterium is a neat experiment, that's all it is for now.

andsoitis 4y ago
> There's no technical utopia that will replace 'integrity'. Or frankly 'values'. This is so important. If someone is trustworthy, you need fewer checks in balances to be able to be confident that transactions with them will go well. If, on the other hand, someone is not trustworthy, all the systems in the world cannot guarantee good outcomes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- strogonoff 4y ago
  In addition to not being fully effective and implicitly labeling[0] participants as untrustworthy, a system that forces everyone to play by the rules without removing the factors that make people abuse the system in the first place only makes the abuse more attractive, consequential and inevitable. The most attractive position in such a reality would of course be the position of those who set the rules (I suspect the field in question is bustling in part because many see themselves within that elite, if only they could make this future come true)—and, of course, the rule-setters are never immune to the motivation for abuse either (only they may get away without it being labeled as such). On the other hand, if those factors are addressed, an intricate system of verifications and hash checks is just unnecessary friction and a source of added complexity to maintain. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory
legutierr 4y ago
> But even that would be besides the point: It's not the 'legal system' that makes things work, it's the integrity of the system overall, maintained by a 'legal system'. Canada isn't rich because it has a 'legal system' - that's just one component. It's rich because people and groups act with integrity. The 'law' is involved very rarely. You have flipped the direction of the causal arrow here. The existence of functioning and accessible court systems in the western world is one of the reasons that western societies have higher levels of trust—not the other way around. It's much easier to trust someone when you know that if they cheat you, you have recourse to pursue justice in the courts. In my experience doing business in both developed countries and less-developed countries, there isn't much difference with regards to individual human beings' "integrity". In fact, in countries without functioning judicial systems, business owners might demonstrate more "integrity" toward their customers, vendors and partners than we see in the US—but this has more to do with incentives than it has to do with people's character. In countries without functioning and accessible judicial systems, people typically do business with people that they have done business with before, because doing business with strangers is so risky. Reputation matters a bit more. > There's no technical utopia that will replace 'integrity'. Or frankly 'values'. Yes, as a general matter, many of the problems that exist in the less-developed world originate from deficiencies of trust [0]. But again, this is largely attributable to there not being reliable ways for people in those societies to mediate disputes. This isn't about utopia. If smart contracts can take the place of functioning court systems in commercial transactions—or at least can reduce the complexity of legal disputes and narrow the discretion of judges to influence dispute outcomes—a real problem is solved and an impediment standing in the way of economic development is removed. Smart contracts allow for certain types of commercial transactions to be conducted without the existence of a reliable judicial system, which transactions would otherwise be too risky to undertake. This incremental improvement will have a material impact on people's lives. [0] https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-important-measures-that-most-people-have-never-heard-of-and-its-moving/ https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-im...
- jollybean 4y ago
  No, integrity was there before the legal system. My grandfather used to do business out of his wallet with cash and handshakes. He would do deals with farmers to make things in his workshop, and then get paid in pigs/parts of cows 6 months later. Farmers in particular are extremely reliable and credible people. People in agrarian areas didn't move around much and personal integrity was definitely a kind of currency. When you're dealing with industrial level trade and commerce, esp. with far flung traders and investors - yes, you're right. And you're right to point out the relationship on some level. But ultimately, Crypto is not going to add integrity to the system, and, integrity is essential. "Smart contracts allow for certain types of commercial transactions to be conducted without the existence of a reliable judicial system, which transactions would otherwise be too risky to undertake. This incremental improvement will have a material impact on people's lives." No - they do not. The naming of these things are a total misrepresentation. Contracts can only exist within the context of a Judical system, otherwise, they're not really contracts. No businesses on planet earth are going to allow their businesses to be managed outside the auspices of some kind of judicial oversight, and especially not in things that cannot be undone. The world is full of accidents, misinterpretations. Every situation we see a 'smart contract' there is probably room for a market maker, and/or just some kind of simple software that 'implements' a regular contact.
achr2 4y ago
Ethereum contracts 'enforce' integrity the same way (but better) as escrowed down payments on housing purchases 'enforce' integrity - they allow a consequence if one or both parties do not fulfill the terms. They can also automate the financial transaction. Why anyone would read more into it than that is beyond me. These are not meant to replace laws or writ.

andsoitis 4y ago

> There's no technical utopia that will replace 'integrity'. Or frankly 'values'. This is so important. If someone is trustworthy, you need fewer checks in balances to be able to be confident that transactions with them will go well. If, on the other hand, someone is not trustworthy, all the systems in the world cannot guarantee good outcomes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
strogonoff 4y ago
In addition to not being fully effective and implicitly labeling[0] participants as untrustworthy, a system that forces everyone to play by the rules without removing the factors that make people abuse the system in the first place only makes the abuse more attractive, consequential and inevitable. The most attractive position in such a reality would of course be the position of those who set the rules (I suspect the field in question is bustling in part because many see themselves within that elite, if only they could make this future come true)—and, of course, the rule-setters are never immune to the motivation for abuse either (only they may get away without it being labeled as such). On the other hand, if those factors are addressed, an intricate system of verifications and hash checks is just unnecessary friction and a source of added complexity to maintain. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

legutierr 4y ago

> But even that would be besides the point: It's not the 'legal system' that makes things work, it's the integrity of the system overall, maintained by a 'legal system'. Canada isn't rich because it has a 'legal system' - that's just one component. It's rich because people and groups act with integrity. The 'law' is involved very rarely. You have flipped the direction of the causal arrow here. The existence of functioning and accessible court systems in the western world is one of the reasons that western societies have higher levels of trust—not the other way around. It's much easier to trust someone when you know that if they cheat you, you have recourse to pursue justice in the courts. In my experience doing business in both developed countries and less-developed countries, there isn't much difference with regards to individual human beings' "integrity". In fact, in countries without functioning judicial systems, business owners might demonstrate more "integrity" toward their customers, vendors and partners than we see in the US—but this has more to do with incentives than it has to do with people's character. In countries without functioning and accessible judicial systems, people typically do business with people that they have done business with before, because doing business with strangers is so risky. Reputation matters a bit more. > There's no technical utopia that will replace 'integrity'. Or frankly 'values'. Yes, as a general matter, many of the problems that exist in the less-developed world originate from deficiencies of trust [0]. But again, this is largely attributable to there not being reliable ways for people in those societies to mediate disputes. This isn't about utopia. If smart contracts can take the place of functioning court systems in commercial transactions—or at least can reduce the complexity of legal disputes and narrow the discretion of judges to influence dispute outcomes—a real problem is solved and an impediment standing in the way of economic development is removed. Smart contracts allow for certain types of commercial transactions to be conducted without the existence of a reliable judicial system, which transactions would otherwise be too risky to undertake. This incremental improvement will have a material impact on people's lives. [0] https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-important-measures-that-most-people-have-never-heard-of-and-its-moving/ https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-im...

jollybean 4y ago
No, integrity was there before the legal system. My grandfather used to do business out of his wallet with cash and handshakes. He would do deals with farmers to make things in his workshop, and then get paid in pigs/parts of cows 6 months later. Farmers in particular are extremely reliable and credible people. People in agrarian areas didn't move around much and personal integrity was definitely a kind of currency. When you're dealing with industrial level trade and commerce, esp. with far flung traders and investors - yes, you're right. And you're right to point out the relationship on some level. But ultimately, Crypto is not going to add integrity to the system, and, integrity is essential. "Smart contracts allow for certain types of commercial transactions to be conducted without the existence of a reliable judicial system, which transactions would otherwise be too risky to undertake. This incremental improvement will have a material impact on people's lives." No - they do not. The naming of these things are a total misrepresentation. Contracts can only exist within the context of a Judical system, otherwise, they're not really contracts. No businesses on planet earth are going to allow their businesses to be managed outside the auspices of some kind of judicial oversight, and especially not in things that cannot be undone. The world is full of accidents, misinterpretations. Every situation we see a 'smart contract' there is probably room for a market maker, and/or just some kind of simple software that 'implements' a regular contact.

achr2 4y ago

Ethereum contracts 'enforce' integrity the same way (but better) as escrowed down payments on housing purchases 'enforce' integrity - they allow a consequence if one or both parties do not fulfill the terms. They can also automate the financial transaction. Why anyone would read more into it than that is beyond me. These are not meant to replace laws or writ.