[WnZ39p0Dgydaz1]

Yes, you will always need humans to make human judgements but they don't need to be part of a court or central authority. With reputation and consensus incentive systems in place, these judgements can be made by trusted 3rd parties and feed back into the smart contract without the need for a single central authority.

The point isn't to get rid of humans or trusted 3rd parties. It's to get reduce the reliance on a single centralized entity that may be corrupt, inefficient, or malicious.

[smt88]

> It's to get reduce the reliance on a single centralized entity that may be corrupt, inefficient, or malicious.

This makes sense only in places with very corrupt legal systems.

But if the legal system is corrupt in favor of one side (let's assume it's the landlord), why would the landlord mutually agree to arbitration?

Please provide a very specific example of something that happens now that a smart contract would fix. I can't think of anything.

[kodah]

> Please provide a very specific example of something that happens now that a smart contract would fix. I can't think of anything.

They already did, asking again isn't going to get you the answer you want.

You described the renting market as having a high threshold for bias in order to be ineffective. I don't really think this is true, it's quite difficult in most states to go to court to seek damages for rental property. Even the eviction process is not straight forward and requires the participation of both a court and a marshal to serve notice. What smart contracts replace is a lot of the court mechanisms that are low hanging fruit. It takes some stress off of the system, but certainly not all, and that seems like it could be "good enough".

[smt88]

> They already did, asking again isn't going to get you the answer you want.

The person I was responding to gave only generalities.

> What smart contracts replace is a lot of the court mechanisms that are low hanging fruit.

What court mechanisms?

Let me give you a specific example.

I'm a landlord with a rental contract. In my state (as in many states), there are hundreds of statutes dictating the boundaries of this contract. There are also thousands of cases in common law that influence what I can and can't contract. For example, my tenant cannot contract away certain rights, even if they sign a legal document saying that they did it.

Scenario A: I use a smart contract stipulating that if there are damages, I can hold the security deposit.

Scenario B: I have a paper contract stipulating the same (although in many states there are statutes that say this, so the contract is just repeating existing law).

Now let's say I find "damage" and the renter disputes it.

How has the smart contract helped me? What difference did it make? In many situations, the smart contract enforcing itself without 100% understanding of the physical world or existing law would violate the law.

So that's how specific I'm asking you (or anyone) to be: give me a specific scenario where the smart contract enforces something in a reliable, efficient way that is significantly better/safer for either party.

[kodah]

> So that's how specific I'm asking you (or anyone) to be: give me a specific scenario where the smart contract enforces something in a reliable, efficient way that is significantly better/safer for either party.

And I'll doubt you'll get that specific of answers because those implementations are fairly new. You'll likely see proof of concepts developed to streamline or back up existing processes first, the underlying technology adjusted to fit the usecases, rinse, and repeat. All that to say, it's not going to holistically solve every problem for you up front, as the commenter pointed out.

What I can see is that it streamlines some of the mediation and court intervention processes. What our notable gains from that would be remain to be seen, but for my parents who are landlords that have had to evict tenants it could mean that simple cases don't require a court. Maybe they get some review by someone who would best be described as an auditor or mediator to check the outcome.