= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Are smart contracts AI-complete? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (46)
But that isnt even true. If two people enter into a contract they are governed by law, regardless of whether it is a paper contract or computer code. I highly doubt there is any legal language in the computer code saying that the agreeing parties waive any US legal rights.
The code is not the contract, but rather a vehicle to effect the contract. You can have the exact same setup without the code.
On top of that, there is some legal questions as to what the DAO stuff actually is as a legal matter.
Just to clear some things up:
In some contexts, 'smart contract' is a misnomer: it's just a computer program that resembles a legal contract but does not interact with the government in any way. It just moves money according to agreed-upon rules. I don't think it's common to use both a legal contract and a 'smart contract' to enforce the same agreement.
In the specific case of the project known as 'TheDAO', the terms of service does indeed waive all legal rights and says that whatever the computer program says supersedes all human-world stuff. (https://daohub.org/explainer.html)
All of this stuff is so experimental that there's an exception to everything at this point.
Typically speaking, a legal contract does not interact with the government - only a very small percentage of contracts are adjudicated by a court or reviewed by any government body.
In other words, moving around money, tangible objects, services, and intangible rights is a reasonable shorthand for > 80 % of the things the law would call a contract.