I never got why we call those things "smart". It just seems like a dumber, more pedantic kind of contract.
The kind that can take into account intent via the courthouse mechanism is smarter.
The kind that can take into account intent via the courthouse mechanism is smarter.
Truly sorry for the digression, just wanted to know what others think, and not blaming you or anything. Spoken languages are weird, even weirder than cryptocurrency contracts with accidental bad logic - the weird logic in spoken languages seems somehow desired.
These things tend to happen.
There's lots of names that have acquired negative stereotypes before. In my lifetime the name "Mike" at one point basically meant asshole (not so much anymore) and "Bob" basically meant boring, and "Patel" was a catchall negative for anyone from India.
There's even research on some of the nuances of the phenomenon. [1]
This isn't an aspect of internet mobs, it's an aspect of human nature, or at least society in general.
The Internet may shine a light on our flaws, and provide some new outlets for them, but it doesn't really create new ones, we brought them with us, like settlers from Europe going to the "New World" to escape the plague only to find they brought it with them.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1996.97...
Like always you can insult and hurt people with "clean" language and use vulgar words in non-offensive ways. But say what you want, I'll keep calling "smart" technology trash ;)
Of course, I don't want a bulletproof contract imposed on me. It's better if "our standard contractual terms" are vague, so that I can sue suppliers. But if it's a private, custom contract, then I really need to know beyond doubt what it means.
My problem with blockchain "contracts" is that they don't seem to be able to affect (or be affected by) the real world - fiat bank accounts, delivery of goods in working order, etc. They only seem to affect digital pictures of monkeys. I suppose that simply means I don't "get it".
The vast majority of business is performed under implicit or explicit contracts without any disputes whatsoever. We’re talking billions of interactions per day.
Courts are there for the rare occasion when a dispute occurs. There are many kinds of disputes, but one occurs when there is a complex agreement that was drafted either vaguely or incorrectly. This happens because human beings are imperfect; unforeseeable events occur; and because the language in which the contract was drafted might be vague or capable of multiple interpretations. Court hearings give the litigants the opportunity to provide evidence and context so that a judge can decide the fairest outcome.
So we don’t need courts to do business, but they exist because we need some peaceful way of resolving disputes. The alternative is violence.
There is a whole industry of arbitrators for hire. They are usually specialised in some field of business, so they don't need bringing up to speed. And they're all experienced lawyers. The work is nearly all paperwork - submissions, affidavits, disclosures. There is rarely a face-to-face hearing. It's more like doing accounts-receivable than sueing someone's ass.
"Just business", as some mobster might have said.