It's not about whether or not it should, I'd be happier living in a world where they can be, but since the whole goal is that it can't and there are people working really hard on trying to achieve that goal it would be more realistic to adjust to the eventuality that it will at some point be done.
The biggest stick that governments have is that they could make it illegal for their constituents to engage in smart contracts with some kind of very large penalty.
But other than that I don't really see what could be done about it once they are a fact.
Just like laws of nature do not care about what a judge thinks math does not either. Trying to overrule smart contracts from the bench is if they actually work roughly akin to outlawing math.
And yes, murder for hire is a serious potential problem, but murders for hire already happen in the world as we have it today so the existence of smart contracts is not going to be an enabler in this respect, hiring someone to kill for you is illegal, whether you use a smart contract or a verbal agreement is not really relevant to that, it's the act that is illegal, not the means of codifying the arrangement.
Smart contracts are not laws of nature, they are contracts. I totally agree you could come up with a few examples where enforceability would be a practical impossibility, but that's also the case with standard contracts.
Just like the Arizona law I cited restricting use of smart contracts for "fire arm tracking", the law could restrict smart contracts in all sorts of ways to protect the public. Examples:
-drafters of smart contracts must be licensed and bonded/insured
-parties to smart contracts must purchase insurance to coverage sufficient to cover losses in full
-criminal liability when marketing materials are inconsistent with the smart contract itself (see: DAO)
-just like many contracts, deeds, trusts must/can be filed with the state...the states could require the same of smart contracts
Now I understand such laws undermine the purpose/intent of many smart contract opponents, but my point is judges/legislature are not powerless insofar as the laws of nature.
> Smart contracts are not laws of nature, they are contracts.
No, they are software. And the participants to such a contract have agreed that the execution of that software is the entirety of their transaction. If one of the parties changes their mind after the fact they will have to convince a judge first that even though they initially agreed that the execution of the contract was the entirety of the agreement that now this is no longer the case and that what they said was un-ambiguous before is now ambiguous and needs overriding.
So now you have a fairly complex situation:
- you will have to convince the judge that you entered into that contract and now wish to back out of the defining clause on something that is not classed as 'regret' (which is never a reason to annul a contract)
- you will have to find a way to communicate the judge what relief you feel will compensate you at a level that the judge will be able to enforce (this could be very difficult)
- and on top of that you will have all the usual issues you have to deal with in a lawsuit possibly complicated by your counterparty being anonymous and/or in an entirely different jurisdiction
States don't really matter here, smart contracts are software and are global, that changes their nature in a material way which will make it hard (possibly impossible) for a judge to enforce them one way or the other.
You just described how the adjudication of all contracts works. Smart contracts are no more above the law than paper contracts are.
> And the participants to such a contract have agreed that the execution of that software is the entirety of their transaction.
How would such an agreement be communicated or enforced? The same thing happens with paper contracts: when you sign on the dotted line, it's understood that the contract encompasses the entirety of your transaction. However, there always remains the possibility of appealing to the judicial system later to argue that the contract is void/unenforceable.
You're saying no amount of evidence could show someone intended to abide in a way other than how the smart contract says they must abide, because their intention is part and parcel of what the smart contract says. True.
Your partner in this conversation is saying: You might have agreed to something illegal. It's not that the smart contract drifted from the contract's intention, it's that you weren't allowed to agree to that contract in the first place. And they're right: in such a case, the courts won't give an F what conclusions the smart contract comes to. Also true.
> the participants to such a contract have agreed that the execution of that software is the entirety of their transaction
This is where the law could disagree with you. If you and I agree that you are my slave, that agreement is null and void. Similarly, the law does not automatically recognise the supremacy of smart contracts just because the parties thereto said so. If a dispute arose, damages could certainly be ordered by a court of law.
The biggest stick that governments have is that they could make it illegal for their constituents to engage in smart contracts with some kind of very large penalty.
But other than that I don't really see what could be done about it once they are a fact.
Just like laws of nature do not care about what a judge thinks math does not either. Trying to overrule smart contracts from the bench is if they actually work roughly akin to outlawing math.
And yes, murder for hire is a serious potential problem, but murders for hire already happen in the world as we have it today so the existence of smart contracts is not going to be an enabler in this respect, hiring someone to kill for you is illegal, whether you use a smart contract or a verbal agreement is not really relevant to that, it's the act that is illegal, not the means of codifying the arrangement.