After reading @VladZamfir’s article fully I’m more convinced that we need @NickSzabo4 principles to avoid having populist Blockchain takeovers by absurdist trolls since you never know what they will come up with next.
-
I suggested a middleware layer between existing legal systems and cryptoprotocols.
@NickSzabo4 has suggested similar in the past in unpublished work. Classic enterprise solution and reduces catastrophic failure potential.
Indeed, an optional middleware layer for people who want their smart contracts to be reversible by third parties. I'm all for it.
-
-
Especially if you can define the third parties you trust as arbitrators in the middleware layer. Then you also potentially have more robust rollout possibility since you can release betas with rollback options for immature software.
-
Like a trustless decentralized oracle network?
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
@NickSzabo4 suggested the same. Smart context can define if and what “wet law” integration layer it wants to use. Still no response to concrete suggestions from@VitalikButerin and co. -
The concrete suggestion seems to be reasonable & clear — don’t rock the boat & don’t make grandiose claims about
#Immutability &#alegality if you can’t back them up with real socio-technical breakthroughs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes. We can't possibly predict what savy contracting parties want or need in deal making. Every deal is different. Options are good. Nick is it possible to read more of your thoughts on the middle layer somewhere?
-
On my part it's only an idea, not a worked-out architecture. I do imagine a "choice of forum" , the addresses of the adjudicators, n-out-of-m of their keys can reverse the smart contract, distinct from "choice of law", instructions for adjudicators on what rules they should use.
-
The nice thing is this is likely to be compliant with the
@SEC_News@SEC_Enforcement DAO ruling. Remember their problem was the centralized front end curation of@The_DAO_Project that undermined the principle of decentralization.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That sounds more achievable by the design of the contract itself rather than abstracting it out to a middle layer which can handle reversals. I think formally verified contract templates is more of a viable solution with middleware which purely handles data and trigger points.
-
With all the political lobbying to make smart contracts reversible, I'm surprised that more people haven't written more code into their smart contracts to make all or some of their actions reversible. It is probably harder than it sounds though and a library would be useful.
-
The DAO fork was certainly a right move within the Ethereum community context. It would have been handle better with a more transparent and auditable community decision within the ETH ledger itself.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hilarious. An optional contracting layer to make contracts reversible... enforced by irreversible contract. The depths you have to stoop to to communicate with the willfully ignorant.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Of course 3rd part arbitration, etc, was always a part of the smart contract idea. But the part that is not in wet code shouldn’t be reversible. Otherwise it’s really just wet code itself.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.