You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I might suggest “self-executing” rather than “self-enforcing”
I distinguish between verifying (and thus, in combination with control of assets, incentivizing) performance, and automating performance. A vending machine, for example, verifies the user's perf (did user input a sufficient sum of money?) and automates the vendors' perf.
1/ Yes fair enough and makes sense to address these different elements separately. I know you have thought of this already, but I would propose that a separate dimension here is how much AUTONOMY/INDEPENDENCE the mechanism has. In the case of the vending machine, I trust
2/ the machine roughly as much as I trust the company that owns it. But take the case of a bond that is supposed to pay out at monthly intervals. Scenario A is that the software "automates performance" but does NOT have much autonomy. So, it's basically an automatic payment
You can trust the machine somewhat or much more than you trust the company if (a) it's made all of clear plastic & you or someone you trust has skill to examine its workings (analogous to public code on a blockchain), or (b) you can observe it often working for others, or both.
If your conception of “smart contract” is now about maximizing % of performance (internal compliance pulls, etc.) then just call it that. Drop the references to “enforcement” altogether. Is that what you’re saying?pic.twitter.com/40n0mMBGST
1/ I read "enforcement" here to mean "recourse to a lawsuit in a court." The point is that if a smart contract is properly constructed then performance will -- usually -- be automatic, and so, relative to a traditional contract, it is far less likely that either party will
2/ have need to "enforce" the contract, i.e. bring a lawsuit against the other, and/or arbitrate a claim. So, this means that "enforcement costs" i.e., costs of preparing for and managing a lawsuit will, overall drop significantly.
We hear you, Adam -- the key question isn't just "performance incentivization" but as your own thread points out (+ "autonomy"/"ind."), there are no theories on the exact mechanisms of action by which this "breach minimization" is supposed to occur.https://twitter.com/adamdavidlong/status/1051678234088095744 …
We're asking the same exact thing that you are, how exactly do "smart contracts" maximize performance, minimize breach? What are the methodologies for analyzing that? Please note the deafening silence at the end of your thread, and ours. That's telling.https://twitter.com/CleanApp/status/1051683665959415809 …
1/ So, ok, I'll take give you my take, fwiw. Imagine two worlds, "regular world" and "smart contracts world." In regular world, the carpenters use regular contracts for the renovation jobs. And, some percentage of the time, say 10%, the customer doesn't pay, and so
2/ the carpenter's only option is to "enforce" the contract by bringing a lawsuit or arbitration. Now, contrast that with "smart contracts world." In Smart Contracts world, every time customer hires a carpenter, the money gets put into escrow controlled by the smart contract.
3/ and when the job is done, then the SMART CONTRACT pays the carpenter. [LOTS of technical issues that I am skipping over here -- how, for example, does the smart contract verify that the job was done, but I'm tabling those for now]. Now, in Smart Contracts World there are
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
