The missing bit: arbitration


#21

You don’t get a refund. That’s it.

If you want humans in the loop, arbitrating or whatever, you already have that in the fiat system. Use that.


#22

Says who?!

What refund? You have a conflict. How do you resolve it?

You are assuming you are the tenant; if you reverse the roles, would you want the same outcome?

There’s a million situations that are not described in your contract, and either party could be right or wrong.

If you’re over 5 years old, you do understand that there is a reason for the dispute resolution institutions to exist, don’t you?


#23

I don’t care about the slogans or how to pay, I want a truly complete solution for the smart contracts.

Ever since 1980s serious software uses exceptions, it’s more than unwise to rely on goodwill or chance where financial transactions are concerned.

If you have a super-duper intelligent AI judge, great. But last time I checked they weren’t invented yet, and rock/paper/scissors may not always yield the correct outcome.


#24

Lets deal with something concrete that exists right now, instead of something hypothetical.

I send my ETH to a smart contract to get Dia (USD stable coin), the ETH is held in the SC as collateral, should the value of Dia drop, the collateral will be automatically sold.

There are no what-ifs or maybes, or jurisprudence or lawyers. It’s mechanical. It doesn’t matter what I want, or what is “fair”. Code-Is-Law.

I have no idea how long you have been in this space, but you don’t understand it, at all.

One of the founding principals is to get humans out of the way. The genesis block of Bitcoin has inscribed on it, a reference to the government bailing out financial corporations because “the greater good” - do you understand?


#25

How on earth is that “hypothetical”?.. It’s the most cookie-cutter situation of one of the most cookie-cutter transactions ever. Heck, they mention rental contracts in every damn primer on smart contracts!

If you are looking at Cardano as another Bitcoin, sure.

My primary interest in first Ethereum, then Cardano was specifically to provide a solid solution for smart contracts. I read one of the first pitches of Vitalik years ago, way before the speculative gold rush and that caught my interest.

You know what, I’d be even happy if it ran on a fiat currency-based blockchain. Except due to various factors the fiat-based smart contract platform would not survive.

That’s a simple exchange transaction, a “contract” only by name.

You’re basically saying that 5 x 4 is “hypothetical” but look how the system can handle 2 + 2. Ain’t it cool?

Are you seriously saying that smart contracts are limited to simple exchange transactions?

Then why bother with first Ethereum’s Turing-complete abominations, and in case of Cardano, Haskell?

Why all the fancy blocks that Charles H proudly presents in his tweets?

Do explain, Mr. guru. Cardano sells itself as a 3rd generation platform for smart contracts, doesn’t it?

Since 2016, and my primary interest is smart contracts on a blockchain.

You sound like you have no real answer to a legitimate question.

Moreover, I am wondering how you can claim that there is “no jurisdiction” if you still live physically on planet Earth and (presumably) pay taxes in your jurisdiction.

What I really don’t understand is a dogmatic mindset of people who come across a suggestion they don’t even bother to understand and then start shouting slogans.

Ugh. It is not a “founding principle”, it is one of the dogmas and buzz phrases. The beauty of the logic equating humans with “government” and “corporations” (always, ALWAYS financial! That sounds more evil) also does not escape me.

Regardless. The ideology is completely beside the point.

Cardano runs smart contracts, no contract is complete without a way to resolve disputes.

Simple as that. The irony is, because no smart contract platform today has a defined way to handle disputes, the dispute resolution is delegated to the same government structures you hate so much, and which, ironically, I propose to avoid.


#26

Technically you could code a SC such that certain people held a veto over it, so if you want that, you can have that - right now. Although I do not think that is what most people here are aiming at.

Nope, not by default, the SC executes and that’s that… this is the point of decentralised systems, they are outside government control.

I won’t touch a blockchain that governments, or some central authority controls. I think Ripple has good tech, but for this exact reason, I stay far away from it.

Feel free to fork (or create) your own blockchain with a group of “wise elders” to judge, oversee, and reverse out SCs, but I do not think you will find much support here. Remember Charles favoured ETC Classic in the DAO fork. You might get more traction over at Ethereum, but probably you should start your own chain…

MommyChain - because mommy knows best.


#27

the entire 90 minutes of this interview are pretty interesting but if you listen at minute 5:34 it sounds like Cardano’s technology (layers and sidechains) will let us create sidechains and contracts with and without regulatory and arbitration properties.


#28

OK, that’s a surprisingly reasonable reply. You get a credit for actually reading the proposal, which seems to be beyond the capacity of most people here.

Having said that,

I am going to be harsh here, but this is an unfortunate collective delusion.

Take something that already happened: ICOs. Vast majority of them turned out to be outright fraud.

Why?

Exactly because of this naive approach: the software giveth, the software taketh. The result is by far worse than these governments and lawyers that people complain about here. People got scammed, period. Is that your happy ending? The crooks get away with your life’s savings, but hey, at least the government does not take 5% extra, right?

Sort of defeats the point of your dogma, doesn’t it?

That’s not the end of the story though. The scammers are now wanted by law. The stupid law somehow does not know that the scammers are, as you say, “outside government control”. They believe they have the jurisdiction, they will freeze the silly fiat legal tender that the scammers have to use to pay for stuff like food, and will use physical force to apprehend the perpetrators.

So the current situation is literally the worst of both worlds.

And once again, there is nothing centralised about a proposal to allow people choose arbitration. Because right now they can’t choose, and the central authority eventually decides, like with the ICOs. Do you at least get that?

So why are you looking at Cardano, with the governance structures and focus on compliance with the law?


#29

Thanks - EXACTLY what I was looking for.

Apparently, there are some startups that are already working on the concept. One of them is Sagewise. Looks like it’s pretty close to what I’m proposing. (Much more advanced, in fact, with the proof-of-intent, just like the courts in the real world try to determine.)

I wonder if they support Cardano.


#30

You obviously have no idea how this works.


#31

You obviously have no idea how life works.

Just because something isn’t labeled the same way, doesn’t mean it’s not the same. But you’ll grow up, and (maybe) understand.

Meanwhile, I suggest you read a bit on the basics of corporate governance, and try to compare with the Cardano’s voting principles.


#32

@cattleherder I like the idea of arbitration, and i believe a contract could be written with it in mind, might be good for publicity if a company wanted to award their customers a little insurance.
I can see that alot of problems would come with such a clause being written into a SC, take paypal for instance, so many people are scammed through paypal and all it takes is one side to say they never received the product, but a SC contract that could be used like paypal where people could contest a transaction would surely be useful and even assist in mainstream adoption.
I think I would recommend the use of such a contract if someone was to purchase items online from unknown vendors, everyone likes a little insurance, and there is no saying that for sure your product will show up in the mail.