3 ms·

>and you can't reneg or claw it back in any way >it will cause the smart contract to settle incorrectly, and there's no recourse or claw back possible. "Smart

>and you can't reneg or claw it back in any way >it will cause the smart contract to settle incorrectly, and there's no recourse or claw back possible. "Smart" contracts are subject to applicable contract law, and are susceptible to all normal causes for invalidating or reverting a contract under such law. Try telling a judge in a contract dispute case that code is law and they have no authority to rule on the contract, maybe they'll thank you for the laugh. >but they don't depend on real world law enforcement to guarantee settlement. You're missing the parent's point: smart contracts can't teleport objects to you, or compel people to perform services for you. If you pay for a good or service and it's not delivered or performed, or you believe it wasn't adequately delivered or performed in accordance with the contract terms, you would go to court to enforce the contract as with any other. I will never understand why people believe these things have magic powers to alter the real world.

SkyMarshal 4y ago
> "Smart" contracts are subject to applicable contract law, and are susceptible to all normal causes for invalidating or reverting a contract under such law. Try telling a judge in a contract dispute case that code is law and they have no authority to rule on the contract, maybe they'll thank you for the laugh. Smart contracts are by default anonymous. Good luck taking an anonymous counterparty to court. That's the reason why smart contracts must be fully- or over-collateralized, because you can't rely on courts and contract law to back you up. Even if it's legally applicable, the actual ability to apply it may be difficult or impossible. > You're missing the parent's point: smart contracts can't teleport objects to you, or compel people to perform services for you. If you pay for a good or service and it's not delivered or performed, or you believe it wasn't adequately delivered or performed in accordance with the contract terms, you would go to court to enforce the contract as with any other. No I'm not, that's why I included discussion of the oracle problem. If you don't understand how oracles coordinate real-world delivery of a good or service to on-chain payment, then you need to go read up on this stuff some more. (I'm not advocating for oracles, I'm generally a skeptic, but any discussion of blockchain DvP must include them)
- LiquidSky 4y ago
  >No I'm not, that's why I included discussion of the oracle problem. Yes, you did. You're doing what blockchain enthusiasts always do, speak in abstract terms about how things should theoretically work, not how things actually operate in the real world. You lack even the most basic understanding of what contracts are or how they work. This is just the latest iteration of the oddly-pervasive belief that the online world is another universe disconnected from normal reality, and therefore not subject to real-world law or power. People are always shocked to find that it isn't true.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

> "Smart" contracts are subject to applicable contract law, and are susceptible to all normal causes for invalidating or reverting a contract under such law. Try telling a judge in a contract dispute case that code is law and they have no authority to rule on the contract, maybe they'll thank you for the laugh. Smart contracts are by default anonymous. Good luck taking an anonymous counterparty to court. That's the reason why smart contracts must be fully- or over-collateralized, because you can't rely on courts and contract law to back you up. Even if it's legally applicable, the actual ability to apply it may be difficult or impossible. > You're missing the parent's point: smart contracts can't teleport objects to you, or compel people to perform services for you. If you pay for a good or service and it's not delivered or performed, or you believe it wasn't adequately delivered or performed in accordance with the contract terms, you would go to court to enforce the contract as with any other. No I'm not, that's why I included discussion of the oracle problem. If you don't understand how oracles coordinate real-world delivery of a good or service to on-chain payment, then you need to go read up on this stuff some more. (I'm not advocating for oracles, I'm generally a skeptic, but any discussion of blockchain DvP must include them)

LiquidSky 4y ago
>No I'm not, that's why I included discussion of the oracle problem. Yes, you did. You're doing what blockchain enthusiasts always do, speak in abstract terms about how things should theoretically work, not how things actually operate in the real world. You lack even the most basic understanding of what contracts are or how they work. This is just the latest iteration of the oddly-pervasive belief that the online world is another universe disconnected from normal reality, and therefore not subject to real-world law or power. People are always shocked to find that it isn't true.