|
|
|
|
|
by cadillion
1822 days ago
|
|
Agreed, forgive me for reposting from another comment, but here's our perspective: You are correct, for this smart contract to work you need defined rules around how the money is released should either party falsely claim success or failure, so you need to rely on automation or some third party to validate fulfillment of the contract. So you're back to an oracle problem, how do I know I can trust the validator? The nice advancement here is that anyone can be that third party! Your smart contract can explicitly identify a third party for multisig, or you can rely on a validator pool of mechanical turks instead of a licensed escrow agent, and accordingly the cost of escrow can decrease. The nice part is that this is customizable, and built into the very rails that move money. It's a much lower barrier to entry than trying to build something like that for ACH, and that's what excites us about cryptocurrency. |
|
In well functioning countries that’s not even an issue at all, physical possession of the money is not very relevant. The important part is to determine who owns them.
Of course, if there is a third party that both sides trust, then you can indeed use smart contracts, but that’s exactly the situation where you don’t need them.
I’m sure someone can come up with niche use cases where so-called smart contracts have a substantial advantage, but they will not revolutionize finance.