IF you entered into an agreement then you make damn sure to put on the website which jurastiction is responsible for enforcement AND you make sure that the agreement is compatible with the smart contract by getting in competent lawyers OR you simply don't enter into a legal agreement by putting up a great big whopping disclaimer reminding people that it's a decentralised project and that they are interacting with a protocol which developers take no legal responsibility for.
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
Because the smart contract has one job and has been doing it well thousands of times over, as a matter of public record.
You wouldn't because you know nothing.
My great Aunt wouldn't step onto an escalator for the same reason.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
fwiw I agree with one thing qwerty says in that I don't share the Law Commission's confidence that the current system is well equipped to deal with smart contracts. I suspect that they underestimate the shit grifters would cause if smart legal contracts were ever to become a significant thing. They'll be keeping Molly White busy...
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Sounds like a hellscene tbh
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The law doesn't work like that. You can't just opt out of legal responsibility for stuff you do.
The crypto headbanger circle now includes Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Coca Cola, every single auditing firm you've heard of with 138,000 .ETH domain registrations a month.
You sound like one of those people that used to take the piss out of someone answering their mobile phone in the pub during the early nineties.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Because i messed up the quote before .. edited to make a new post instead. Not a long one...
...excuse me what?
...excuse me what?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Freeman on the Landers, Antivaxers and all kinds of sociopaths, they do it all the time. I guess we should just judge 'smart contracts' by the company they keep.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
The vast majority of the time, ordinary contracts also go off without a hitch. But occasionally they don't. Until we learn how to code a smart contract that's as smart as a human, there will always be a need for arbitration. Even then, humans (and therefore sapient smart contracts) can still be wrong for various reasons. Smart contracts haven't been around for nearly as long as non-smart contracts have, and despite you name-dropping big companies, they are still very much the minority of all contracts and agreements made across the world. We've got big companies like Tesla and Google working on self-driving cars, but manually driven vehicles still utterly dominate the roads.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Probably fair to say those companies don't have blind, unenforceable contracts. Just a guess but I'd say Microsoft, Coca Cola and Meta will know exactly who drafted, signed off and published every contract they run. Guaranteed they'll be enforceable under California law too. So, no, you can't have those.
You sound like one of those people selling the benefits of negative energy amulets.
Which is why many decide to go down the decentralised route.
The tech firms get it.
As qwerty said, some people here are trying to fit the old way of doing things with the new.
You have to start with a blank slate and an open mind. There's no point simply asking yourself how crypto would replace each operation in a business. It is far better to just find out what the technology can do and work out what is and isn't possible for an existing business from there.
Personally, I'm not very much interested in how DeFi really works.
I want to get into ID projects, in particular one killer app is proving to a website that you're over the age of 18, without giving away any personal details.
Another area I find exciting is the decentralised social media protocol called LENS. That's one genuinely want to develop websites with.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Of course they do, they're populated by hellnerds like you
Between qwerty and I, I think we've answered this concern about 4 times now.
Smart contracts and oracle's are very very good at arbitration but if everyone in an online community wants something more advanced for arbitration then there are justice DAOs that would do the arbitration.
This is the emergence of the network state, because everything is so decentralised that the whole lot just works well away from the jurastiction if any one country.
That of course doesn't stop nation states throwing a hissy fit, for example the United States Securities and Exchange Comission but it's possible to keep them at bay by being decentralised and not selling tokens.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Bullshit. If they were that good, they'd be used far more widely than they are now. Just like if driverless cars were genuinely better, then you could bet your arse that companies like Uber would have completely switched over. As it happens, they ended up shutting down their driverless car research.
What about the people not in "online communities", but in real industries, outside of the crypto hellnerd circle jerk? They're not using DAOs. They have no choice except to operate within the legal frameworks of the nation-states and economic unions within which they operate. If I'm a company making widgets in territory A to be sold in territory B, then I have legal and financial obligations that cannot be swerved by fucking off into the electronic ether.
There is no "network state" which isn't part and parcel of any already-established oldschool states. What you've just said is a complete fantasy. Where are the crypto armies? Where is the industrial base to support a real economy that isn't based on hellnerds bullshitting each other and wasting electricity?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Killer!
You’re mistaking “coercively enforceable” with “legally enforceable”. All kinds of things can be coerced. My Big Rob clause coercively enforces the contract. The point, however, is to ask whether that enforcement is legal? If it isn’t then the party claiming on the contract is answerable to the law for their illegal activity. The fact that a smart contract automatically enforces all clauses with no intervention point is therefore a weakness, not a strength. If the court decides a clause is not legally enforceable, the party taking advantage of the clause cannot prevent its illegal enforcement from taking place.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
What is he, the third or fourth evangelist on here so far? 12-year thread and we're still in the "it'll come good you just wait" stage. Meanwhile the grifts come and go, NFTs, going to the moon etc etc.
Not too long from now we'll be hearing from fellas who weren't even born when blockchain made its debut. Next big thing, this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires.
Not too long from now we'll be hearing from fellas who weren't even born when blockchain made its debut. Next big thing, this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
I googled for Microsoft and Smart Contracts and the first return was this page Introducing Enterprise Smart Contracts | Azure Blog and Updates | M...
This seems somewhat different from the advocated 'well it's on the blockchain' attitude and a lot more grounded in reality. There is a lot of negotiation and I assume legal advice, as well as testing and versioning, all that seems to be missing from the blockchain advocates. As well as the option keeping thing private.
It still seems very inflexible against unknowns that could affect the terms of the contract. but on the face of it, it seem somewhat workable, even if it's more complicated that traditional contract negotiation.
This seems somewhat different from the advocated 'well it's on the blockchain' attitude and a lot more grounded in reality. There is a lot of negotiation and I assume legal advice, as well as testing and versioning, all that seems to be missing from the blockchain advocates. As well as the option keeping thing private.
It still seems very inflexible against unknowns that could affect the terms of the contract. but on the face of it, it seem somewhat workable, even if it's more complicated that traditional contract negotiation.
A smart contract isn't a legal contract unless it's mentioned in a legal contract.
I've already outlined all the layers in this.
If you are going to argue about something in isolation, let's argue about about it in isolation.
A smart contract is a load of code the results of which are computed by thousands of computers. You don't know who wrote the smart contract.
Step away from that and we start talking about the websites that promote smart contracts and things can change, or not depending on what they do.
Criminal law is different. If a smart contract somehow breaks criminal law (It's bloody hard to, it's got to be tied to something blatently criminal such as a web3 website that incites violence/terrorism for example) then that is a differnt matter in which a government would be starting a man hunt.
Anyway, Good lawyers are useful. They keep one out of court.
Good smart contracts are useful. They also keep one out of court, because any party involved NORMALLY doesn't have to trust anything other than the smart contract.
One is not designed to replace the other. Smart contracts aren't there to replace laws, they are there to help people avoid falling foul of laws. Nothing wrong in that.
On a general forum such as this, do you expect us to start at the deep end explaining all of this, or in it's simplist forms?
If we are advocating blokchain technology to normal run of the mill people, then we're not going to show them out enterprises use blockchain, we are going to show them how people would.
So getting back to what regular people would use them for, what anyone who is all for postive social change would like them to use it for, is DAOs that would functional a lot like an unincorporated association.
In those scenarios there would not be legal agreements left right and centre.
Oh an even in the enterprise setups, it cuts down on the legal paperwork.
I mean… this just isn’t true. What’s your experience here in contact law?
So only lawyers know what a fucking legal contract is? You're fucking mad!
What next? I need to be a vet or choclatier to tell the differnce between a bar of Topic and pile of squirrel shit?!!
No. For example, I’m not a lawyer, but I deal with contracts regularly. However, you are making some very definitive statements about law here, and they do not accord with my own understanding of how the law works in this area, so I am asking what your actual expertise is?
Like, if I promise you that I will give you £1 tomorrow, that forms a legal contract. It’s not a very good one and I can probably avoid it, but it still nominally comes under contract law. You don’t need fancy wording that says, “this is a legal contract”
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
You quoted Microsoft as a user of blockchain, that's what I found, can you post the correct link to Microsoft?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Pfft. Your mistake here was to write that in English instead of in code. Obviously once it's written in code a court can't do anything.
So just break out your emacs or whatever and do something like this:
IF (date)=tomorrow THEN transfer £1 from [kabbes wallet] to [stakerones wallet]
And now it's untouchable. And when for some reason the transfer doesn't happen staker has no comeback...
I mean what are they going to do, sue the code??
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
So it's like a "standing order" that you can set up with your bank?
Similar threads
