/biz/ - Business & Finance

>discuss
Pee pee poo poo
not sharing data with you

>>14887721
What about exveptionally complex contracts that aim to screw people over through technicalities?

I expect demo's or tests of smart contracts to be available with dummy info before people agree to them.

>>14887724
There is no data to be shared, this is simply an opinion based thread regarding the implications of a smart based economy on society as a whole. But I like that your post rhymes

>>14887731
That's is one of my concerns, because in a normal contact that is complex, you can go to court and challenge certain terms. But in a smart contract these are automatically executed before you can do anything.
>demo's or tests
So like a trial period? But what if the contract will screw you over after a certain set of time? Still a good idea to start with

>>14887740
>qualitative data is no data
what are focus groups. Pay the attendants for it or leave it be

>>14887873
My dude this is a place to discuss things

Go back to faggit, take the plebbitors here with you

>>14887721
repoasting

>smart contracts as the enslavement of the common man

As it currently stands, western institutions enforce a fair and just legal system. On first glance one is led to believe that if two or more parties come to a contractual agreement it will be upheld in a court of law and the terms therein be enforced to their fullest extent. This is, however, not always the case.
In actual fact, there are many problems that make contracts inefficient, though law should in theory force all parties to comply with the terms. The first, and most glaring, is that a party may agree to a contract without intending to comply with the terms, or perhaps once already in agreement may be forced to renounce such terms due to some unexpected crisis which now demands their resources.
Common folk often contract loans with predatory lenders, signing themselves into debt without making adequate provision for the eventual repayment of that debt. Should they default on their debt and the lender take them to court we come to the second major problem: the judge would not only look at the terms of the contract itself but apply certain ethical and moral criteria to his judgement. Furthermore, the validity of the contract would itself be scrutinized under the law of the day.

interactions would become more nature-like that's for sure

>>14887721
A smart contract based society would definitely make things more robotic. Someone on UBI or welfare will have allocations of how many of their tokens they are allowed to spend on certain things. No more unemployed alcoholics outside of the barter system.

Ultimately the robotic workforce is where we have been heading for a long time. If you read through your company policies and procedures, it reads like a programming language. All a smart contract does is remove interpretation, trust and human's weakness toward manipulation.

There's no reason that you can't program "reasonability" into a contract. Like, say your pay gets docked if you're late, you could have it so that it doesn't dock your pay unless you are more than 30 minutes late on one day, or more than average 5 minutes late per day for the entire work week. You can also program in a clause that a HR personnel has to action a recommendation of a smart contract.

It's not going to completely change the face of the way we work, things are pretty fucking bad as is, but it will increase productivity tenfold and automate a lot of middleman jobs such as payroll/HR/office worker jobs.
Well, that's just to do with employment structures anyway. Ultimately if the conditions are unacceptable then humans will refuse.
On eliminating fraud, yes. It will reduce serious fraud by 90-99%. Look into SWIFT fraud, some transactions customer to customer are handled by 5-10 people in a chain, any one of them capable of acting independently to enact fraud. That entire chain of people will be automated out. SWIFT suffer some serious fucking fraud.

>>14887956
Smart contracts shift power to the contract maker rather than the taker. Suddenly, one has no need for an authority to act as settler. Suddenly, the common man has no recourse to that authority to plead his case. Worse yet, the common man is entirely at the mercy of the terms of the contract. Perhaps worse still, the contract maker, or rather the superior party, once the contract is signed, has no ability to alter the outcome. Once the terms are set and all parties in agreement it is impossible for the contract to ‘settle’ in any other way than was stipulated. Contracts between two individuals can still be settled ‘after-the-fact’, I suppose, however contracts between, for example, an individual and an organisation, where the organisation is so far removed from the individuals within it as to sever all ties of personal responsibility, will only ever settle upon the prespecified terms.

For the common man, who has no will nor inclination to educate himself; who is credulous and all-too-trusting; whose more pressing needs weigh more heavily in his thoughts than his probable circumstances months and years hence; for the common man in question will be modern-day slavery, for he opens his doors and betrays his secrets to sign a contract in the mistaken belief that he is secure from harm should he fail to comply with the agreement, only to receive a shock once the terms are violated and rapine descends upon him to satisfy his creditors. And if such measures, abstracted away from all personal responsibility, are not enough to satisfy the debt? Then penal interest and financial penalties drive him into debt bondage forevermore. He can no longer recourse to a higher authority, nor flee his creditors, for smart contracts will surely prevent his escape.

>>14887762
Sergey has stated it doesn’t make sense to make everything a smart contract.

Well, this could provide the answer...

https://coinbase.com
/earn/eos
/invite/k9zgbfj2

1: Blockchain protocol for fast scalable transactions
2: Delegated proof of stake
3: Fast free transfers
4: Stake EOS tokens
5: Upgradable smart contracts

https://coinbase.com
/earn/xlm
/invite/d4fqbmxw

1: A decentralized protocol that unites the world's financial
infrastructure.
2: Facilitating low-cost, universal payments.
3: Transactions are fast, inexpensive, and global.
4: To issue, exchange, and transfer tokens quickly and efficiently.
5: It relies on the cooperation of trusted nodes to confirm transactions.

yeah pretty much, it gets more reliable yet unforgiving. Fair and just, yet brutal

>>14887964
Is it not possible to plug a contract variation clause input into a contract?

>>14887970
Sure it doesn't, that won't stop people from doing so.
>>14887964
>>14887956
This is a nice explanation thanks desu
>>14887962
Your post has an optimistic viewpoint, similar to mine. I honestly wish that it would play out in a way to eliminate fraud because fraud never works out in the end.

>>14887721
godly thread just needs a dapp shill
pic related

>>14887964
>He can no longer recourse to a higher authority
Why fucking not? The society of today doesn't just fucking vanish. Just like very little is written in stone in today's legal environment, so shall little be written in stone in tomorrow's. The smart contract just simplifies the bullshit and allows more focus on what matters.

>>14887964
>>14887962

The common man's nominal income won't change. See Keynes and Hitler and Freedman *all* agreeing on the point: men do not stand for nominal wage reduction, and will riot, even though they placidly accept real wage reduction (i.e. inflation) without thought.

However, the dramatic reduction in systemic corruption will increase real wages so quickly that things like rent and eggs will comprise a much smaller proportion of wagie expenses compared to income.

This wealth will be used to rapidly pay off debt, resulting in a more robust and happy wojak.

>>14888248
That's some good hopium right there.

The thing i'm concerned about is smart contracts making crime more prolific. Extortion, blackmail, ransoms. It's a lot harder to refuse demands when the outcome is inevitable.

>>14887721
You can use if for good and bad, but the most effective use is to cut out the middleman. I don't think it will make things more robotic, quite the opposite, it would make interacting with complex systems more natural because you'll get quick and uncorrupted feedback.

>>14887721
The real question is, what will happen as automation starts to render mass amounts of the population redundant at the very same moment when resources start to become more scarce?

If you already subscribe to a hyper-accelerationist view, then LINK will facilitate this. But we should be wary on how it will potentially entrench the ruling power's ability, by removing human links.

It is difficult to imagine how our society would change, because despite how our society has currently changed in the past 50 years, we still operate 'face-to-face' in a way. All that has changed is transportation (cars, planes, trains, internet). The internet is a form of transportation, if you like. Groups of people, which were formally localised within a single area for many generations, are suddenly dispersed away by a sort of mandatory economic exodus to work within this system. This has caused a lot of social apathy.

But, as I said, most of this contact is still human contact. Blockchain tech, and smart contracts, will erode this further, and make it almost automated. People will no longer necessary. Most white collar disciplines will be curbed. Fact is, society is not prepared for this transition. The apathetic destruction of our traditional culture slipped through only due to the busy, hyper-stimulating, wagie focus that our current world creates. Ironically, despite making transactions quicker, I think crypto (LINK) will slow things down. People will contemplate just how fucked this world is. What will they do then? (((Market makers))) think it will help them. But I think pic realted