![]() The basis for this trust is the virtual 'overlay' legal framework of "whatever the software the majority of node operators decide to install says, goes." ![]() countries actively at war with one-another), to have a basis for trust allowing them to enter into contracts with one-another. Much of the economic value of blockchains comes from the fact that they allow private citizens of countries that have no trade/treaty compatibility (e.g. Think of it like offshore gambling, except that it's 'offshore' respective to every country on Earth, and there's nowhere a sufficiently-motivated Navy can send a bunch of boats to shoot at it, either. They can at most ban the network's nodes from being operated in their country - but people in that country can still continue to use the network through a VPN. > if a judge decides it's doing something illegal or unconscionable and issues injunctions to that effectĪ judge can't tell a distributed network that has equal presence in countries with mutually-antagonistic economies what to do. making certain contracts (or certain legal motions based on the wording of a contract) invalid, if they would be greatly damaging to one party in a way deemed unacceptable to "society." And they've both got the responsibility of enforcing, among other things, certain 'inalienable rights' - i.e. I meant that the abstract machine's behavior is dictated by the legislation of the "society" of node operators, in the same way that the judge's behavior is dictated by the legislation of the society you live in. You should have run your contract through a better (code) lawyer. If you left one in, and your counterparty exploits it? Too bad for you. For now.īut a smart contract used as a contract wouldn't have "bugs." It's a negotiated agreement negotiated agreements have loopholes. ![]() They're just using them as trusts/agents. Of course, nobody's actually using smart contracts as contracts. This is the same thing you're doing with a paper contract: by both signing it, you're agreeing that "what the paper contract says - as interpreted by a judge - is our explicit mutual intent, and damn any statement by either of us to the contrary." In practice, if using a smart contract as a contract, the way you'd use a paper contract, then two parties would sit down and negotiate draft the negotiated agreement into the form of a smart contract and then agree (signatures, handshake, multi-sig deployment, whatever) that "what the smart contract does - as executed by the network-consensus abstract machine - is our explicit mutual intent, and damn any statement by either of us to the contrary." Of course, this only works when the smart contracts perfectly meet a correctly defined spec and have no bugs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |