[faeriechangling]

If the law is held to have supremacy over “smart contracts” and implicit intent is held to be more important than explicit terms, than this undermines not just a major argument for smart contracts but a major argument as to why crypto as a whole is valuable.

Enforcing a contract through a written contract & traditional finance vs a smart contract becomes a mere implementation detail since in either case somebody can come crying to the courts when they lose money. Smart contracts are only interesting if they’re a form of binding arbitration. If smart contracts are not binding, they just become poorly written contracts.

Smart contracts being binding honestly might need to be legislated.

[TameAntelope]

Yes, that's exactly the problem with smart contracts and why people are interested in resolving the case.

[xur17]

> If the law is held to have supremacy over “smart contracts” and implicit intent is held to be more important than explicit terms, than this undermines not just a major argument for smart contracts but a major argument as to why crypto as a whole is valuable.

No, it really doesn't. There are 2 questions that you are conflating here:

1. Can the courts force a user to return funds made via a valid smart contract transaction?

2. Can the courts force a blockchain to reverse a transaction that was made.

> Enforcing a contract through a written contract & traditional finance vs a smart contract becomes a mere implementation detail since in either case somebody can come crying to the courts when they lose money. Smart contracts are only interesting if they’re a form of binding arbitration. If smart contracts are not binding, they just become poorly written contracts.

Can you elaborate on why this would be the case? To me there is a large difference between a system (like credit card settlement) that can have transactions revoked easily after settlement, and one that can only be revoked by another separate transaction that the sender makes. To me it comes down to a mix of probability of reversal, and who can actually do the reversal (only the sender in the case of a blockchain system).

[faeriechangling]

>2. Can the courts force a blockchain to reverse a transaction that was made.

The courts already can't necessarily force a transaction to be reversed as it is. The money can be gone long before they get involved.

>To me there is a large difference between a system (like credit card settlement) that can have transactions revoked easily after settlement, and one that can only be revoked by another separate transaction that the sender makes.

There's a good deal of irreversible transactions, such as inter-bank transfers in traditional finance. It's also my understanding that most "Reversals" are just new transactions or cancellations of pending transactions. I don't see a HUGE difference in how an inter-bank wire transfer works and how sending somebody crypto works except that in the case of crypto it's the wallet/account holder in full control.

I'll acknowledge there are differences, which impacts the probability of reversal and who can do the reversal, but I still feel it borders on the edge of "implementation detail". It only feels like a truly profound difference if you want to make a transaction a bank would normally interfere with, like a ransom payment, payment for fraudulent goods/services, drug deal, money laundering, funds being sent to political dissidents, or similar. Whereas the idea of smart contracts bypassing the expense of the courts entirely seemed like a much more broadly useful notion.

[otterley]

Courts will try to figure out a way to make a plaintiff whole even if the transaction can’t technically be reversed.

[antiterra]

Even then, a binding contract is still subject to what is contractually enforceable, which could break the functionality and purported benefit of a smart contract.