Parman - Activate OP_GFY now!! on Nostr: You like the idea of smart contracts on blockchains? Smart contracts are essentially ...
You like the idea of smart contracts on blockchains?
Smart contracts are essentially for replacing enforcement of ownership through the legal system (and the state, and violence) with a digital contract ("code is law").
For those who want to put their property on "the blockchain", when illegal immigrants invade and decide to occupy your house, you can throw the Ethereum "smart" contract in their face. That'll show them.
Now that you see the contract doesn't enforce ownership, you still need the law and the state, what was its initial purpose again? Oh, yeah, to replace the enforcement of ownership. LOL.
You see, digital contracts can only enforce digital things. They can never enforce real-world things. They can only prove you paid for something, or prove ownership, not enforce.
A simple contract on paper will do for that. Or a digital database, eg run by the government, the very people you rely on for enforcement of ownership. You don't need it to be "smart" and you don't need it to be decentralised - what are you trying to overthrow? The people you need to enforce your contract.
It's nonsensical to think you can replace the legal system. It is encoded in mountains of text and there are always new exceptions and situations arising. Who are you going to appeal to when a smart contract doesn't encode the subtleties of a new situation? Replacing the legal system with coding nerds is a stupid thing to hope for.
Smart contracts are essentially for replacing enforcement of ownership through the legal system (and the state, and violence) with a digital contract ("code is law").
For those who want to put their property on "the blockchain", when illegal immigrants invade and decide to occupy your house, you can throw the Ethereum "smart" contract in their face. That'll show them.
Now that you see the contract doesn't enforce ownership, you still need the law and the state, what was its initial purpose again? Oh, yeah, to replace the enforcement of ownership. LOL.
You see, digital contracts can only enforce digital things. They can never enforce real-world things. They can only prove you paid for something, or prove ownership, not enforce.
A simple contract on paper will do for that. Or a digital database, eg run by the government, the very people you rely on for enforcement of ownership. You don't need it to be "smart" and you don't need it to be decentralised - what are you trying to overthrow? The people you need to enforce your contract.
It's nonsensical to think you can replace the legal system. It is encoded in mountains of text and there are always new exceptions and situations arising. Who are you going to appeal to when a smart contract doesn't encode the subtleties of a new situation? Replacing the legal system with coding nerds is a stupid thing to hope for.