undefined | Better HN

0 pointsw44y ago0 comments

> Code is law.

Law is law, code is code. They're two very different things. Code can't prevent someone from using violence to force you to overturn a smart contract's decision. The law can because it's enforced by the state. You could certainly choose to build a system of law that uses code, but code by itself cannot substitute for law.

> only interpretable by lawyers who charge $600/hr.

What do you think the going hourly rate would be for software engineers capable of writing bug-free smart contracts? If adoption takes off I'd bet that it will look a lot like the hourly rate of a good lawyer, or even exceed a lawyer's hourly rate given the impossibility of an appeal if the smart contract is poorly coded.

Also lawyers don't interpret contracts. They draft them and advocate on behalf of their clients in disputes. Judges interpret contracts, and are available as a public service paid for by taxes.

0 comments

jkhdigital4y ago

There's a reason it's called a legal code--both computer code and legalese are formal languages. The difference is that computer code is deterministically executable by a machine, while a legal code requires humans to carry out the actions it specifies (and humans are not deterministic machines, obviously).

The point where the two realms intersect is challenging but needs to be handled appropriately. It would be great if some of the terms of legally binding contracts could be delegated to automated systems. And when two parties do not actually share a common legal system, then code-based contracts can facilitate transactions that would otherwise probably never happen.

ArcticCelt4y ago

>Code can't prevent someone from using violence to force you to overturn a smart contract's decision.

You can hit the developers and the computer has much has you want but no amount of violence will fix the "_share_price > 0".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse