The premise of smart contracts is flawed. A piece of computer code =! trust between contracting parties. If you need code to trust someone (because they are not a high-trust person from North Europe or Japan) then they will cheat/fail you in other ways, either outside the code or with it.
A smart contract piece of code, even full AI, can not replace the fullness of necessary trust in a commercial relationship.
seriously nothings going on on /pol/ tonight? that memo shit seemed like a dud
What advocates of smart contracts actually believe: >Smart contracts are executed once a certain set of circumstances are in place and, once a smart contract is executed, the fact that it exists in a decentralized network means that no party can alter its code or interfere with its execution. By preventing alteration, smart contracts bind all parties to an agreement as executed, thereby creating a type of relationship that does not rely on trust in any one party.
Yeah a piece of code will turn Africans (or Greeks) into Norwegians and enable commercial relationships to flourish in low-trust societies. Trust is a much broader concept than what is envisioned to be inside of a smart contract.
better tell zeppelin_os and swift that they're making a big mistake, i'm sure they'll listen and everyone will dump their link
don't you have some ecelebs to jack off to /pol/? we're busy making/losing money here
You're fucking dumb as fuck, bruh, but I'm not going to correct you because you deserve to lose out.
Thanks, (((user))). I'll definitely go back to /pol/ and stay there in concentration, like it's my very own camp.
What is this picture even based on?
by the way dipshit, smart contracts (and most legitimate cryptocurrencies) are inherently trustless by design, so your considerations of "high trust" are completely meaningless, but you're probably too much of a normie brainlet to fully understand the implications of the word 'trustless'
i hate normies that come in here from /pol/ completely out of their depth and start spouting off
some youtube thot i'm not going to give free publicity/can't be assed to look her up name
>/pol/tard gets btfo and leaves thread coool
What I never understood is how anyone believes that a smart contract would know that its conditions have been fulfilled in THE REAL WORLD Especially in low trust situations
Chainlink my nigga
I sure hope you never use a point-of-sale terminal fucking retard.
>Japs are trustworthy 1 billion in crypto lost, and counting...
Because the signatories signed off on them, thus automatically releasing the attached result of the fulfilled condition. And you'll know you can trust a signatory because of the law of repeated dealings, rather than the law of "does this meatsack belong to a statistically higher or lower trust ethnic group". It's actually really interesting to watch tech illiterate bloomers and political science majors stumble around with this shit. Your perceptions are so primitive you are incapable of even imagining that reality is more complex than they encapsulate.
>FUD that targets newfag /pol/ brainlets
I like it, but it literally makes no sense. "smart contracts won't work because people can't be trusted like whites/honorary aryans!"
That's literally why you have a smart contract, contracts are designed so low trust pajeets and mega giga nigga kikes can't dick you. Code can't be cheated because its fucking code. Work on it a little bit more.
/pol/ needs to stop being so picky Although maybe pickiness is just in its blood You insult this women (whom I've never even heard of) even though she is openly fashist or whatever Like who the hell will support you in real society? Hitler even only had something like 33% support and approval and got in through somewhat of a loophole
>/pol/ is even dumber than I thought
The whole point of the code is so that you don't have to trust anyone dipshit.
The application to contracting is different to the application to currency tranfers. Contracts are significantly more complex. Trust is a necessary part of functional commercial relationships that can not be erased by code.
You sound like a bright guy, you should become a missionary. Please go to Africa and teach them about smart contracts.
dw they'll die in a few generations when they realise there are no full-blood aryans left to procreate with
Brace yourself for a flood of dumb erc20 me too token bag holders to come and insult you.
And so wha's the utility? A smart contract is not necessary between high-trust parties, and a smart contract between low-trust parties will be unproductive/fail regardless.
A smart contract introduces problems of immutability (non-variability) and in real world terms does not replace or solve tge trust problem in contracting. Code will not transform low-trust parties into high-trust or trust-agnostic parties.
But trust between parties is more than can be put into the code of a smart contract. It's more than the hypothetical limits of AI. That's the point. See OP pic for some of the other elements of trust that can't be coded into a smart contract.
Low-trust people will cheat/fail in commercial relationships outside of the smart contract, and within it.
You really seem like a sub 80 IQ guy. You are pointing out the obvious; trust will never be completely substituted by smart contracts as a telephone didn't substitute business trips, but it definitely helped a lot.
It was a jew ( sorry, a (((frenchman)))... Just look at the fag he's obviously a kike ), not a nip.
>law of repeated dealings Only something high-trust people follow. You already incoperate several high-trust concepts that: >the current deal will be successful >you will have future dealings >the entity you're dealing with will exist in the future
Can smart contracts stop people from reneging on their end of the deal? If yes, they are a revolution. If no, then they are only a minor improvement to what currently exists, but will not significantly improve the lives of our congoid brothers and sisters.
Lawyers will need to start learning programming in the future as a new part of their job.
But it introduces a host of problems user and doesn't actually innovate for most real world uses. Real world contracts need to be able to be varied. Real world business relationships will always have disputes and ongoing issues that are settled by contract variation.
So your thesis is that Africans are inherently untrustworthy, therefore something that helps mitigate counterparty risk and lowers the minimum threshold of trust required to conduct business (i.e. a smart contract) is therefore bad.
Okay then. Noted.
Excellent fud, user. Now leave.
Think of ways you can cheat or fail a smart contract >not peform >have cost overruns >have the original scope change >false performance not easily detected (i.e. trick the oracles, put poison protein in the milk powder etc.) >IP security >delayed performance in time critical applications >supply on credit terms and recovering payment from parties How does a smart contract help the trust issues in any of these cases? It specifically hinders practical business relationships (variables/additions/delays) in many.
I'm saying all of those things are meaningless if you don't first have trust between the parties. The code can not replace the necessity of trust. It's magical thinking.
Fucking nonsense. There exist decentralized escrow apps RIGHT NOW that you can use. Do some goddamn reading instead of sitting on /pol/ all day.
But even there conventional escrow there has benefits above smart contracts piece of code: a high-trust human central authority, commercial courts of arbitration etc.
Escrow is a niche for contracting with low-trust parties by inserting a high-trust central authority.
>a decentralized smart contract is a high-trust centralized authority
I was backpacking in Asia 2 years ago, met a Norwegian and travelled with him for around a week, literally fed him that entrie period, and then one day he just disappeared from the guesthouse, not before stealing my GoPro and phone charger High trust my ass
I don't understand why people think smart contracts will replace real ones
The only way they could is if they removed the ability to renig. I think they could possibly happen in the future, but it's not like these companies are keeping contract money in escrow for the smart contract to take or give from
Do any of you tards have an example, even theorhetically?
>Do any of you tards have an example, even theorhetically? Smart contract escrow'd drone delivery.
>have the original scope change Literally impossible on a smart contract. >not peform See above. >false performance not easily detected (i.e. trick the oracles, put poison protein in the milk powder etc.) Nothing to do with smart contract issues. >IP security Youre more likely to have your online banking app in your mobile phone hijacked by someone sniffing on a 4g network which is vitually impossible. >delayed performance in time critical applications Which is an issue smart contracts SOLVE. >supply on credit terms and recovering payment from parties See above.
Do you know anything about what youre saying at all or is this some kind of meta-fud so someone spoon feeds you the answers?
>removed the ability to renig
You mean like Michael Jackson?
Current law doesn't use escrow for a delivery, that's retarded
Another point: You can't codify principles of equity law into a smart contract. In the event one party satisfies the strict terms of a contract but in a way that violates the principles of equity (unconscionable conduct etc.) the aggrieved party can withhold consideration and rely on equity law to withdraw from enforcment of the contract terms.
Back to ESL class
>private couriers don't exist lol
Smart contract doesnt require trust to be executed...which is why it is perfect for these ponzi schemes.
Rage After Storm, some youtuber
You still don't use escrow for the courier, you're basically paying the courier for insurance and labor
The payment is usually worked out in the contract but there are defaults under the ucc
You're not comprehending. Reread the bottom part: >How does a smart contract help the trust issues in any of these cases? It specifically hinders practical business relationships (variables/additions/delays) in many.
Repeat: >How does a smart contract *help these trust issues* above and beyond a conventional contract?
Already you admit it's inferior for variations and change of scope, which are incredibly common needs of IRL commercial relationships. And that it can not force a party to perform or perform competently (i.e. does not replace the need to have trust in who you are contracting with).
No it doesn't force people to perform in time critical applications, it's not a gun to their head, it doesn't replace the need to be able to trust the other party to perform. And it has no way of costing delays into a contract other than pass/fail. Real world contracts negotiate compensation or variations for part-performance or delays, often after they arise. You can't go into a big contract and have no ability to renegotiate for delays and part-performance other than all or nothing. It's not real world.
>you're basically paying the courier for insurance and labor Sounds like a perfect use case for smart contracts to reduce costs.
Doesn’t matter. Trump gets to use it (and any other dud memos) as get out of Russia free cards for the next 8 years :^)
Which part of the courier would be replaced by a blockchain?
If the smart contract going to fly your Dragon dildo itself? Is it teleporting so as to eliminate the risk of loss?
Smart contract has uses, but it's funny because the retards here just say it's going to replace lawyers and never name the specific uses
>>How does a smart contract *help these trust issues*
A smart contract helps trust issues in the case of ChainLink by being decentralized meaning no untrustworthy source can simply alter the data how they want.
Your examples either have nothing to do with smart contract issues or are literally things the implementation of a decentralized smart contract service like ChainLink will help.
Why dont you ask why Logistics technology doesnt help schoolkids buy icecream from an icecream truck next?
>Which part of the courier would be replaced by a blockchain? Lol I'm not feeding you any more ideas brainlet.
>Trust is a necessary part of functional commercial relationships that can not be erased by code. depends on the situation. sometimes thats true. other times a trustless contract will do. it's just another tool, one that replaces the need to trust anyone in some situations. how many situations and how far smart contracts can or will go remains yet to be seen. we're still in the early days of figuring out what can and can't effectively use a smart contract
>If the smart contract going to fly your Dragon dildo itself? Is it teleporting so as to eliminate the risk of loss? trustless smart contract will be used to move critical data between quantum entangled states. downloading the dildos data to the finest degree while collapsing its wave function potential to non-existance and then materializing it directly into your butthole through the blockchain.
You have a script determining a swap of goods/services/obligations/whatever. Which serves as a middleman between a seller and a buyer?
>but why would you need a smart contract?
To avoid getting scammed. That's it. Literally all there is. The whole selling point of Ethereum are brainlet fail safes.
And that's stupid. You're talking about a literal fool copying and pasting a contract script that prevents him getting parted from his money.
That's >anti >evolutionary
like it's essentially enforcing regulation into a free protocol. Not security, but actual regulation.
And what did it give birth to? To ICO scams (one-upping brainlet fail safes aka smart contracts), to thousands of useless shitcoins, and of course kriptokitties.
But perhaps I am failing to see something here.
t. holding more ETH than BTC
>ctrl f /pol/ >1/fucking9 jesus fucking h christ user just fuck off with that shit
Thus the viability of smart contracts should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
However there should be more than enough high trust contractual relationships that would benefit from having smart contracts. If you cannot grasp that you're not very bright.
go back to /pol/ then
>/pol/ claims to be against unwanted immigration from low IQ undesirables >/pol/ incessantly agitates for their right to immigrate to other boards where they aren't wanted and shit up the place with low IQ and low-content posts aahh hummmm yes... i see....really makes u ponder..... huh.... . so this is the power of being politically incorrect........
are you really comparing your wife's chechen bull invader
to an idea on a textboard? are you that much of a jackass? you're a nazi as much as they are
It looks like you're the one who needs to go back to /pol/ you fucking dipshit holy fuck you have mental problems.
>viability of smart contracts should be reviewed on a case by case basis
but won't be
it's in no one's interest to review then use my contract if an already trusted organization/company has a competing contract
it's a centralizing solution to a decentralized solution of a centralized problem
I agree with /pol/ on a lot of things but you need to fuck off and stay on your eceleb board, it's painfully obvious when /pol/ is leaking.
I smell a scared junior data entry fag in insurance/banking or a box carrier in a law firm. Get in the third ark and fuck off OP
>I agree with /pol/ >you need to fuck off >you
You're talking to the wrong person. You should be shooing yourself, and stop shitposting in this thread.
You said literally nothing.
Smart contracts don't solve a single thing, and are a vehicle for centralization.
>Your examples either have nothing to do with smart contract issues The premise of the smart contract advantage is that it mitigates trust issues. It does not. All lf those issues are trust issues that smart contrcts don't solve.
>are literally things the implementation of a decentralized smart contract service like ChainLink will help How? How do they help above any beyond conventional contacts and logistics software.
>*silence on the problems smart contracts introduce because of immutability & inflexibility to deal with real world issues of delays, part-performance, change of scope, variations, negotiation etc.* Smart contracts may have niches, but those niches are small. Smart contracts are premised on fundamental misconceptions of what trust in commercial relationships is, and what contracts are; an ongoing process not an immutable stone tablet.
And still no mention of the gorilla in the room, the (attempted) erasure of equity principles & remedies
thats bs nobody actually trusts the first deal.
There are some niches for it, gambling-type contracts seem the main one.
You just proved that anyone who says "eceleb" is some fucking cuck faggot who isn't from /pol/. Tell your faggot friends to fuck off and stop shilling against every WN figure on the internet.
>The premise of the smart contract advantage is that it mitigates trust issues. It does not. All lf those issues are trust issues that smart contrcts don't solve.
But the issues you brought up are either issues a DECENTRALIZED oracle DOES solve or have nothing whatsoever to do with Smart Contracts.
>kriptokitties I unironically see this and other cryptotoys & cryptogames as the main legitimate use for this. Gambling/betting, scams, and ICO shitcoin scams the other uses.
In a high-trust society you do. I trust a White business/operator to perform as promised.
but you dont know how well he does until the end. if he does a bad job you dont want to use him again
You're not comprehending, I'll repeat. The premise of a smart contract is that it mitigates trust issues in contracting. It does not. All of the trust issues remain. It's a fundamental misconception of what trust in commercial relationships and contracting are.
Well yeah obviously, high-trust societies also develop mechanisms to weed out bad actors like professional bodies, regulators, objectve justice systems etc. In smart contract crypto land he'll just assume a new wallet ID and rinse repeat.
im not really sure how you would cheat the terms of a smart contract. they are watertight in so far as the terms dictate. as blockchain tech becomes more utilised, smart contracts gain greater scope. there is no digital information you cannot put on a blockchain
Including the opportunity cost of failed/bad performance? Listed some of the ways off the top of my head hereLow-trust people will be able to cheat or fail outside of the smart contract too in IRL applications.
And there is the big issue of bad code and bugs which conventional contracts don't suffer from (in contract law mistakes are generally not enforceable).
>including opportunity costs yes, smart contracts can execute punishments for failure
>stop right there eth scamming scum >nobody violates the smart contract on my watch >i'm confiscating your wallet >now perform the contract or it's off to jail
>all you have to do to scam /pol/tards is be white top kek
more like >you have now been charged 100000 dollars for failing to meet the contract
Smart contracts will start in their obvious niches and go from there. I'm skeptical they'll have widespread applications outside of that.
No you're not comprehending, i've refuted your point several times and you just keep repeating your original point over and over again.
>You're not comprehending, I'll repeat. The premise of a smart contract is that it mitigates trust issues in contracting. It does not.
A decentralized oracle and smart contract system, ie; ChainLink solves this issue exactly. That is the entire point of a decentralized oracle.
To solve trust issues.
Thats the main thing that it does.
Its what it is designed to do.
Sergey literally gave a 20 minute speech outside a fucking toilet block explaining this to you.
You said that.
>Think of ways you can cheat or fail a smart contract >not peform >have cost overruns >have the original scope change >false performance not easily detected (i.e. trick the oracles, put poison protein in the milk powder etc.) >IP security >delayed performance in time critical applications >supply on credit terms and recovering payment from parties
Which are all things that ChainLink solves by providing a decentralized oracle service.
Youre entire argument dwells on the premise that decentralized smart contracts dont solve the issue that decentralized smart contracts solve.
>doesn't pay You're not going to get people to enter into contracts if they have to put up collateral first. If you recover penalties for failed performance through the conventional court system they why do you need a smart contract over a conventional one?
POW proof of whiteness
blockchains applications can extend to all digital information on the internet. everything. and it will happen.
I feel bad for """"people"""" who will never live in a high-trust society. Must be a hell on Earth.
any company that deals with a bank deals with collateral
we could register skin tone and nose length on the blockchain to create a crypto that doesn't need smart contracts because you have to be white to use the coin anyways. we'll call it the caucasyen
How? You're making empty assertions. A decentralised oracle service doesn't solve those trust issues. It doesn't force performance. You still need to be able to trust the person you are contracting with to perform. And all the issues of (to repeat) remain: >have cost overruns SC are immutable and can't be varied >have the original scope change SC are immutable and can't be varied >false performance not easily detected (i.e. trick the oracles, put poison protein in the milk powder etc.) How's are the oracles going to test for poison milk better? >IP security Recover penalties from an SC party after contract completion? >delayed performance in time critical applications SC are immutable and can't be varied >supply on credit terms and recovering payment from parties Can't recover goods/services already delivered on credit terms, can't drain an empty crypto wallet from a bad creditor
Please offer arguments or don't bother replying. All of these issues are inherent to commercial relationships and contracting generally, and conventional contracts either solve them better or smart contracts have no better alternative. Add in no equity law remedies to SC, unlike real world contracts.
I can't believe no one here actually answered you this question.
You question has no meaning. There is no "trust" in smart contracts. Trustless. That variable is completely taken out. Taking out that variable causes other effects that we can leverage to our advantage.
Take for example, a SWIFT message takes days for it to confirm whenever a bank sends a payment to another bank that's around the world. The reason why it takes so long is because SWIFT messaging sends those messages from one bank to another until it reaches the destination bank. Each bank has to verify that the SWIFT message is authentic and valid. That's why it takes 2 days for your money to deposit in another country. There are other checks that have to happen as well. For example, checking the receiver and sender information if they are on some terrorist list. Or report more than $10k transactions to certain parties like the government. A lot of this stuff doesn't happen automatically. It gets checked and verified by humans.
This is where smart contracts come in. All this human work of checking and validating can be cut right out. Smart contracts can verify and validate data better than any human can. Not only that. Before smart contracts Bank A has to check the message when they send it and Bank B has to Recheck it when they receive it then check it ONE MORE TIME whenever they send the message. With smart contracts that happens all automatically. So something that would’ve taken two days to complete with a lot of overhead extra costs, with smart contracts now you can do all that with much less time.
Smart contracts will be used in other industries as well like insurance. Lets say for example, you pay $30/month to some company to maintain a firewall for you. They guarantee that it will be up 24/7. Without smart contracts, you will still pay $30/month flat fee even if the firewall went down for 10 minutes. With smart contracts, you can now penalize the insurance company. Instead of paying $30/month flat fee, you can now have a smart contract that checks the status of the firewall every 10 minutes. If its down, it wont pay the insurance company. If the status is A-OK it will send a payment to the insurance company.
This goes on and on. Adjusters for example wil be useless. Their jobs will be gone. Lawyer. Same thing. Lots and lots and lots of jobs will be automated because of blockchain tech (DLT is what the research community calls it). There is plenty of research over this. Check out IC3 Initiative and read their research. Take the intro to blockchain course on PluralSight. They will tell you why Ethereum and DLT research is going to be big. Its for free if you sign up to Microsoft Dev Essentials.
This is pretty good FUD, I bet OP has at least 20k LINK.
That's the point. All contracts & commercial relationships need trust. Smart contracts don't offer trust but are premised, falsely, on making trust irrelevant to a contract. That's the mistake at the core.
Another huge use case which you probably felt in your own life if you traded stocks. Whenever you buy or sell a stock, it actually takes about 2 days for that payment and buy and sell of stock to actually takes place. That’s why it takes 2 days to “settle”. Smart contracts will make this automatically that itll be done in less than 10 minutes instead of 2 days. That man labor during those two days are all cut away because of smart contracts.
Another use case. This is a company that’s actually out with a product in Germany. This is a real product. There is no ICO for it and its useless to buy its token. But they are using blockchain technology to run their company. Its called Share&Charge. Google it on Medium. Its an interesting use case that’s actually out as a live product that people are using. This is blockchain tech.
They are making it irrelevant because it can't be cheated any more. You cannot cheat the code. The code for a contract is shared by all participants. They can see and audit the code. They all TRUST the code is 100%. That's where the faith slides to. It goes from trusting humans to trust code that humans agree is A-OK.