@charlesshosk This is a great article, well researched and well thought out but I have one question for any of you who believe in the "code is law" argument.
When was the last time you had your meds checked?
Really? That long ago? Go seek help.
Immediately!
The viewpoint that "code is law" is exactly the same view point as "Police are the law"
Police are not the law, code is not the law. They are merely enforcers of a code of conduct.
Substitute police for code in any of your arguments, because it is EXACTLY the same thing.
Here's the deal. A machine cannot enter into a contract, only people can. The wording of the contract is almost irrelevant. The words are there to convey intent in the event of a dispute.
A contract which is illegal is unenforcable. Those who try to enforce an illegal contract because "contract is law", will serve the same jail time regardless of if they execute the contract by force, i.e. killing someone for money. Or allowing a bomb to go off because "blockchain immutability means code is law".
You think a judge is going to buy that?
Screw that, you think any reasonable person is going to buy that?
Juries are chock full of people.
If someone loses money because of code you choose to run knowing full well it's flawed. You are just as liable as if you stole from them yourself.
There isn't an argument to be made about "dispassionate execution", because the point of the law is to restore passion, humanity and equilibrium to processes that are already dispassionate.
Don't think that just because someone who can barely code, is running around saying things that give your inner anarcho-sadist a woody, that it will somehow absolve you of culpability for criminal actions and intent the moment you become aware that a criminal act may be occurring.
We determined a long time ago that machines are not responsible for crime. Criminals are.
Code is not law, even law is not law.
Code is the police.
People are law.
Have a nice day!
Nailed it .
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you could draft your thoughts into an article worthy of standing alone, and I'd read it, you make many valid points. With some experience in law I agree that a contract which is unlawful, a hit for example, would not become lawful if it were translated into code. A contract must be within the confines of the laws where it is drafted.
That said, if a contract is valid when written, in word or in code, it will be upheld as "law" regardless of the outcome. If it allows a withdrawal and that withdrawal is made, arguing that the author of the contract didn't intend that outcome won't change it, and there will be no legal recourse. Those who write vague ambiguous code or contracts cannot rewrite history and steal their funds back. That action is at the heart of the debate, in my opinion.
So Code is not law, I agree. Reality is law. Re-writing history because you didn't intend it to work out the way it did is arrogance at the level of demi-gods.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@notyomomma
Thanks! I appreciate the commentary.
I get more exposure looking for quality posts like his and providing counterpoints.
My average post barely makes $0.50 and it takes a lot more effort than simply posting a comment like this.
Remember that under the law, contracts are whatever people agree to.
However any contract which is illegal is prima facie invalid.
One affirmative criteria when deciding that a contract is illegal is that the contract allows for unjust enrichment.
But the law requires that you take affirmative steps though in order to preserve your rights.
This has been the core of my argument on the DAO.
The logic is this...
When taken as a whole, Ethereum is a contract enforcement network.
Mining is enforcing.
The DAO was a contract that allowed one party to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Ergo the contract was rendered invalid the moment this was discovered.
Since each miner is operated by individuals, they are each severally liable for attempting to enforce an illegal contract. Like a bill collector who keeps trying collect on bad debt.
The solution was actually to remove IP of ETH away from the code base of ETH and spin a new ETH codebase which "unmade" that section of the blockchain. Essentially redacting the section of the contract which allowed for unjust enrichment. This new codebase became the "real" ETH the moment the IP holders decided to grant that code those rights.
This induced a split. The split was originally just the DAO attacker's exit scam. But it ended up becoming a reality unto itself.
Because everyone seems pretty well happy with the split, and everyone ended up richer, the ETC/ETH illegality question is moot now. This is because everyone was made whole.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Law is what law enforcement enforces. Thus, police is law. Reality trumps philosophy, I am afraid.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit