• cogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      See above, I don’t think it’s that simple at all.