4 ms·

This is not true. Let me quote the UK's Head of Civil Justice: 6. The theory is to dispel the myth that blockchain is a fringe technology used only by those wa

This is not true. Let me quote the UK's Head of Civil Justice: 6. The theory is to dispel the myth that blockchain is a fringe technology used only by those wanting to risk their livelihoods or possibly make their fortunes on volatile cryptoassets like Bitcoin. 7. The blockchain is now at a stage in its development equivalent to where the internet was in or around 1995. The internet was unstoppable in 1995 and blockchain technology is unstoppable now. It will become ubiquitous in all major industrial and financial sectors, simply because it allows for the immutable recording of data, thereby reducing friction in commercial and consumer transactions and obliterating the scope for dispute as to what has occurred. 8. As the Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales, I hold an office that pre-dates modern trade in derivatives and reinsurance, even steam engines, powered flight, and certainly the internet. I am particularly and obviously concerned about the reputation and development of English law and the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 9. Many people do not realise that English law governs trading in €600 trillion of OTC derivatives annually, in €11.6 trillion in metals trading, in £250 billion in M&A deals, and in £80 billion in insurance contracts every year – just to take a few examples. My hope is that English law will prove to be the law of choice for borderless blockchain technology as its take up grows exponentially in the months and years to come. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-MR-to-Smarter-Contracts-Report-Launch-Lawtech-UK-UKJT-Blockchain-Smart-Contracts.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-M...

dinkumthinkum 4y ago
I don’t think this makes the case that you are claiming. Smart contracts are not the equivalent legal contracts, it’s a very good word. As for #6, I think people are more interested in more complicated rug-pulls involving NFTs then just trading BTC.
shkkmo 4y ago
This seems like a non-sequitor. It is not clear what you are disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make with that quote, besides that a top UK lawyer is pro-crypto.
- leashless 4y ago
  I was responding to "Anything that connects to the physical world makes little sense at the moment as it defeats the purpose of such a smart contract." That's why the judge's quote is relevant. They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts. I'm simplifying slightly (see Ricardian Contracts if you want the detail).
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts. That is not some that any of those quotes states. The thrust of those quotes is focused on the value of the blockchain as an immutable ledger, and doesn't mention "smart contracts" once. The statement you are trying to dispute seems to be pretty widely accepted. Once you need to refer to physical world events, you need yo trust some entity to report those events accurately, removing the trustless aspect of "smart contracts" that is their primary selling point. The most you can read into the quotes that you posted is that the judge sees a strong future for the UK judiciary in resolving disputes about trust when "smart contracts" have to interact with the offline world. I would also point out that "smart contracts" are not literally contracts, but pieces of trustless software. Conflating those concepts does nothing to help the uphill reputational battle that faces the cryptocurrency ecosystem given all of it's shenanigans.

dinkumthinkum 4y ago

I don’t think this makes the case that you are claiming. Smart contracts are not the equivalent legal contracts, it’s a very good word. As for #6, I think people are more interested in more complicated rug-pulls involving NFTs then just trading BTC.

shkkmo 4y ago

This seems like a non-sequitor. It is not clear what you are disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make with that quote, besides that a top UK lawyer is pro-crypto.

leashless 4y ago
I was responding to "Anything that connects to the physical world makes little sense at the moment as it defeats the purpose of such a smart contract." That's why the judge's quote is relevant. They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts. I'm simplifying slightly (see Ricardian Contracts if you want the detail).
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts. That is not some that any of those quotes states. The thrust of those quotes is focused on the value of the blockchain as an immutable ledger, and doesn't mention "smart contracts" once. The statement you are trying to dispute seems to be pretty widely accepted. Once you need to refer to physical world events, you need yo trust some entity to report those events accurately, removing the trustless aspect of "smart contracts" that is their primary selling point. The most you can read into the quotes that you posted is that the judge sees a strong future for the UK judiciary in resolving disputes about trust when "smart contracts" have to interact with the offline world. I would also point out that "smart contracts" are not literally contracts, but pieces of trustless software. Conflating those concepts does nothing to help the uphill reputational battle that faces the cryptocurrency ecosystem given all of it's shenanigans.