People who keep touting smart contracts as "simplifying contracts" don't understand that litigating contracts is expensive because of human interpretation, not because someone forgot to write something down and get it notarized
-
-
You still have to sue to enforce those
-
I think this post by
@eiaine describes a decent example of how burden of lawsuit mattershttps://elaineou.com/2017/09/10/r3-should-have-used-a-smart-contract/ … -
I'm not seeing what couldn't be done there with a traditional contract? There are plenty of existing mechanisms to transfer ownership at a variety of points during the lifetime of the contractual relationship.
-
existing mechanisms to transfer ownership rely on the counterparty to take affirmative steps to transfer ownership. you can avoid that reliance by using an escrow service, which a smart contract automates.
-
Right. There are also scenarios that can’t be defined in terms of simple prepayments, such as options
-
I'm still failing to see what can't be done through existing mechanisms, with the benefits of better reversability, more human fail-safes, etc.
-
reversibility and human oversight are bugs, not features!
- 4 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
tradtract: "Here's what should happen. If it doesn't, you can sue." SMRTract: "Here's what WILL happen. If you want to change that, you can sue."
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.