21–30 of 85 posts
The fact that people are making Ponzi schemes and calling them Ponzi schemes tells you everything you need to know about the gullibility of the cryptocurrency community.
Why is 'human arbitration as a last resort' not on this list?
In real contract law, there are three elements of a contract.
1. a meeting of the minds: the parties must agree on what is being exchanged
2. an actual exchange, in both directions, it's called "consideration"
3. at least one of the parties must behave as if they are relying on the contract, a party must "make a move" and begin to deliver on the contract.
There may be all sorts of guarantees written into contracts to enhance the security of the either of the two sides. So, these mathematical smart contracts are completely OK under contract law; however, the smart contracts and the surrounding activity must still meet the requirements of a contract.
It is not "a meeting of the minds" for one side to drain the other side of their total balances, and it violates "consideration" as well since nothing is being exchanged for the extra money. So there is ample reason to claim that these were not valid contracts and should be rolled back.
Cuz that's how contracts work, it's the only way they work.
IRL, contract law and courts take precedence over schemes like Ethereum and the DAO, just like arrest warrants do, money laundering regs, etc. Whether this is good or bad, it just is. In real contract law, there are three elements of a contract. 1. a meeting of the minds: the parties must agree on what is being exchanged 2. an actual exchange, in both directions, it's called "consideration" 3. at least one of the par…
I disagree. From the Explanation of Terms and Disclaimer[1] on the DAOhub site:
"The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation."
The Code is Law. All parties knew, and accepted this before 'investing'. The contract performed exactly as designed.
Ethereum/DAO would be much less of a tire fire embarassment if the management had taken some time to learn anything about the basics of contracts and law, instead of making it up as they go and assuming the entirety of centuries of civilization has no clue what they were doing.
assuming the entirety of centuries of civilization has no
clue what they were doing
> The reason for this fundamental conclusion is as follows. All instances of smart contract theft or loss – in fact, the very definition of smart contract theft or loss, is fundamentally about differences between implementation and intent. This is, I think, to its core the fundamental problem with any kind of rigid language in contracts. It's nice to see an acknowledgement of its existence, but disappointing to see n…
I can imagine a future where blockchain-based logic is used to drive robots, bridging the gap with the real world. To me, blockchains seem like a proto-DNA set to evolve as a base for AI; perhaps we are at ground zero for the primordial soup of future digital lifeforms.
> The reason for this fundamental conclusion is as follows. All instances of smart contract theft or loss – in fact, the very definition of smart contract theft or loss, is fundamentally about differences between implementation and intent. This is, I think, to its core the fundamental problem with any kind of rigid language in contracts. It's nice to see an acknowledgement of its existence, but disappointing to see n…
If a judge accepts that argument, then contract law would not apply to smart contracts, and the usual considerations of intent in contract law would not be relevant. Of course the intent underlying the code that implements the smart contract would remain relevant, but unless the "contracting" parties agreed on meta-provisions for arbitrating disagreements about the intent of the code (legal or otherwise), it seems reasonable to accept the default interpretation supported by many members of Ethereum's community: what the code says goes.
In short, legal arguments may not be dispositive, because smart contracts may not be legal contracts. In that case, determining the intent behind the code may be a morass best avoided as many assumed it would be, by ignoring it and letting the code decide.
(Of course, the ideal form of arbitrating meta-provision is code compiled against a spec enforced by a tool-chain that includes formal verification—both because it is self-enforcing and because it bridges the gap between intent and what the code actually does. But that seems a long way off.)
> The reason for this fundamental conclusion is as follows. All instances of smart contract theft or loss – in fact, the very definition of smart contract theft or loss, is fundamentally about differences between implementation and intent. This is, I think, to its core the fundamental problem with any kind of rigid language in contracts. It's nice to see an acknowledgement of its existence, but disappointing to see n…
> You can't possibly create a smart contract to purchase a house, because at the end of the day the person that physically occupies the house is in the position of power I can imagine a future where blockchain-based logic is used to drive robots, bridging the gap with the real world. To me, blockchains seem like a proto-DNA set to evolve as a base for AI; perhaps we are at ground zero for the primordial soup of futur…