|
|
|
|
|
|
by phreezie
1547 days ago
|
|
|
It's not the signing that OP criticizes. It's that the "something" is defined by an URL whose destination can change, and otherwise none of the "something"'s content (like, for example a hash) is in the contract. I doubt a court would consider such a vague definition of content as "real". |
|
|