Giving more keys out in the process and removing a prime benefit of the NFT, that they are “secure”. If a party in the nth party contract is untrustworthy or maybe they just use a bad password now your property can be stolen with little recourse. As has already happened with many smart contract implementations.
Best case scenario, you end up before a judge who ends up voiding the NFT all together.
You have to consider how access would flow. Every time a new county clerk is elected or judge is appointed you have an event where access to modify the contracts needs to be updated.
Oh and this doesn’t solve the problem of repossession. If you write the contract but explicitly excluded government entities because “ain’t no government taken my truck!”. Now you have a conflict where if the government wants your truck, they are taking it and no digital contract will stop that. And not for malicious reasons, but instead “you stopped paying child support”.
At which point, you should be asking “what problem did this solve over a standard title?”. To approach usability you’d need a standard contract that had provisions in it to allow the local government to rewrite the details. But good luck with that because I’m sure the Canadian government won’t be too thrilled with the access requirements of the Greek government. Or even Texas’s access requirements vs the federal government.
Of course you can ignore all this, but then you have a contract with no enforcement. That is, you have no contract.
The reason every nation has such complex legal systems is life is complex. And with that complexity comes dispute over ownership. Things are never as clear or simple as you’d like to bake into a smart contact.
This strikes me as (a sort of) goalpost moving. First the criticism is given that there’s not enough room given for state intervention. I point out that you can trivially add that. I get a reply that there’s too much room for state intervention. What I said (assuming which comment you replied to, sorry lemmy is bugging) is you can have arbitrary ways to modify the state, involving as many arbitrary parties as you want and any mechanism that you want. If you actually wanted to incorporate a state into the decision around title, you certainly could, you’d have to encode whatever regulatory agencies, chain of courts going up through appeals and supreme, etc. Though the whole idea is that you can encode better mechanisms than that.
Goalpost is the same. What happens when the crypto assets/contracts doesn’t match reality?
You are saying “we can make the contact modifiable!”. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
Reality is that judges not even born today can interpret, modify, or revoke contracts written today. You that all smart contracts will take that fact into consideration?
It’s also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
And what if existing contracts/assets that didn’t or don’t want to take those issues into account.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. “What happens when crypto doesn’t match reality?” “We can make crypto modifiable!” “And what are the realities of making it modifiable” “that’s shifting goalposts!”.
I do believe you’re debating in good faith. If you feel like my questions are bad faith, that’s fine, I don’t believe they are. I simply remain unconvinced that the solutions proposed are practical, safe, or better than the current system.
Do me a favor and please don’t add "!"s to my messages. Also I didn’t say “we can make [contracts] modifiable”, I said we can modify them, those are two different things (pre-deployment and post-deployment).
You are saying “we can make the contact modifiable!”. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
The extent of that “security hole” basically ties to the level of centralization. If you want a single signature with the ability to override anything in the contract, yes, that’s a big security hole, about on par with the one a state possesses over the situation in non-smart-contract world. If you want to require thirty “signatures of peers”, it starts to act more like a jury. Not gonna go through every (infinite) possible mechanism but suffices to say you can put whatever you want, and people are free to use or not use it accordingly, versus a state which enforces its own legal mechanism universally.
It’s also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
Smart contract is just a record of state. How people are bound by that in the real world is a second question. An important one, but still a second one. If the contract has a mechanism determining ownership, you can kind of treat it like the rules of governance for an organization, that interacting with the contract acts an agreement towards. Like, by entering your assets into this system, you agree to the outcome. In terms of a way to treat that that’s more or less compatible with Western law.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. “What happens when crypto doesn’t match reality?” “We can make crypto modifiable!” “And what are the realities of making it modifiable” “that’s shifting goalposts!”.
Re: goalposts - I was referring specifically to the complaint being first that it was not overridable enough by a state, to which I replied you can put in any mechanism for controlling the contract state, and then I got a response it’s too overridable. Smart contracts can be written to have essentially any mechanism for controlling state (with some constraints like functional purity), so the objections coming from every side of “too much centralization” or “not enough centralization” are a bit nonsensical.
In terms of a way to treat that that’s more or less compatible with Western law.
Western law recognizes the existence of illegal contacts and regularly voids them. In an extreme example, you can’t write a contract to sell your kids into slavery.
This is the problem I have with smart contracts, you may have willingly entered the contact, yet the contact could be illegal. When that happens, even though the contact may automatically transfer the digital ownership, the real world ownership could never follow.
the objections coming from every side of “too much centralization” or “not enough centralization” are a bit nonsensical
Just a reality. To make these contacts work and be enforced by a government, you’d need too many backdoors. If you don’t have those backdoors, no government will support the contact. It’s a catch 22.
The benefit of the digital ledger comes when it represents reality. When reality diverges then the smart contracts become worthless. Nobody will want to live by a hacked contract and no government will respect a contract that didn’t consider emmenant domain.
That is why I wrote “more or less”, at the moment, yes, you would need an explicit & binding agreement to that effect.
Just a reality. To make these contacts work and be enforced by a government, you’d need too many backdoors. If you don’t have those backdoors, no government will support the contact. It’s a catch 22.
Giving more keys out in the process and removing a prime benefit of the NFT, that they are “secure”. If a party in the nth party contract is untrustworthy or maybe they just use a bad password now your property can be stolen with little recourse. As has already happened with many smart contract implementations.
Best case scenario, you end up before a judge who ends up voiding the NFT all together.
You have to consider how access would flow. Every time a new county clerk is elected or judge is appointed you have an event where access to modify the contracts needs to be updated.
Oh and this doesn’t solve the problem of repossession. If you write the contract but explicitly excluded government entities because “ain’t no government taken my truck!”. Now you have a conflict where if the government wants your truck, they are taking it and no digital contract will stop that. And not for malicious reasons, but instead “you stopped paying child support”.
At which point, you should be asking “what problem did this solve over a standard title?”. To approach usability you’d need a standard contract that had provisions in it to allow the local government to rewrite the details. But good luck with that because I’m sure the Canadian government won’t be too thrilled with the access requirements of the Greek government. Or even Texas’s access requirements vs the federal government.
Of course you can ignore all this, but then you have a contract with no enforcement. That is, you have no contract.
The reason every nation has such complex legal systems is life is complex. And with that complexity comes dispute over ownership. Things are never as clear or simple as you’d like to bake into a smart contact.
This strikes me as (a sort of) goalpost moving. First the criticism is given that there’s not enough room given for state intervention. I point out that you can trivially add that. I get a reply that there’s too much room for state intervention. What I said (assuming which comment you replied to, sorry lemmy is bugging) is you can have arbitrary ways to modify the state, involving as many arbitrary parties as you want and any mechanism that you want. If you actually wanted to incorporate a state into the decision around title, you certainly could, you’d have to encode whatever regulatory agencies, chain of courts going up through appeals and supreme, etc. Though the whole idea is that you can encode better mechanisms than that.
Goalpost is the same. What happens when the crypto assets/contracts doesn’t match reality?
You are saying “we can make the contact modifiable!”. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
Reality is that judges not even born today can interpret, modify, or revoke contracts written today. You that all smart contracts will take that fact into consideration?
It’s also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
And what if existing contracts/assets that didn’t or don’t want to take those issues into account.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. “What happens when crypto doesn’t match reality?” “We can make crypto modifiable!” “And what are the realities of making it modifiable” “that’s shifting goalposts!”.
I do believe you’re debating in good faith. If you feel like my questions are bad faith, that’s fine, I don’t believe they are. I simply remain unconvinced that the solutions proposed are practical, safe, or better than the current system.
Do me a favor and please don’t add "!"s to my messages. Also I didn’t say “we can make [contracts] modifiable”, I said we can modify them, those are two different things (pre-deployment and post-deployment).
The extent of that “security hole” basically ties to the level of centralization. If you want a single signature with the ability to override anything in the contract, yes, that’s a big security hole, about on par with the one a state possesses over the situation in non-smart-contract world. If you want to require thirty “signatures of peers”, it starts to act more like a jury. Not gonna go through every (infinite) possible mechanism but suffices to say you can put whatever you want, and people are free to use or not use it accordingly, versus a state which enforces its own legal mechanism universally.
Smart contract is just a record of state. How people are bound by that in the real world is a second question. An important one, but still a second one. If the contract has a mechanism determining ownership, you can kind of treat it like the rules of governance for an organization, that interacting with the contract acts an agreement towards. Like, by entering your assets into this system, you agree to the outcome. In terms of a way to treat that that’s more or less compatible with Western law.
Re: goalposts - I was referring specifically to the complaint being first that it was not overridable enough by a state, to which I replied you can put in any mechanism for controlling the contract state, and then I got a response it’s too overridable. Smart contracts can be written to have essentially any mechanism for controlling state (with some constraints like functional purity), so the objections coming from every side of “too much centralization” or “not enough centralization” are a bit nonsensical.
Western law recognizes the existence of illegal contacts and regularly voids them. In an extreme example, you can’t write a contract to sell your kids into slavery.
This is the problem I have with smart contracts, you may have willingly entered the contact, yet the contact could be illegal. When that happens, even though the contact may automatically transfer the digital ownership, the real world ownership could never follow.
Just a reality. To make these contacts work and be enforced by a government, you’d need too many backdoors. If you don’t have those backdoors, no government will support the contact. It’s a catch 22.
The benefit of the digital ledger comes when it represents reality. When reality diverges then the smart contracts become worthless. Nobody will want to live by a hacked contract and no government will respect a contract that didn’t consider emmenant domain.
That is why I wrote “more or less”, at the moment, yes, you would need an explicit & binding agreement to that effect.
See above, I don’t think it’s that simple at all.