exactly this. If the conditions were clear and unambiguous as to whether a contract's term was satisfied or not, there would be no need for lawsuits to enforce a breach.
It's precisely because of the enormous ambiguity in human affairs, even when both parties are acting entirely in good faith, that hundreds of years of contract law exists, and courts and lawyers and lawsuits and police to enforce them.
The OP's example -- publish three blog posts -- is so trivial that it's hardly even worth discussing as a contract. "Paint my house" is a typical example in first year contracts and it's fodder for all kinds of problems and issues and exceptions: was the house painted? On time? Proper color as specified in the contract ["that's not blue!" "of course it is, says so right here on the can" "No it's not" etc]?
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are interesting as a cheap escrow mechanism, but it still requires a neutral third party to verify that the conditions are satisfied and release the funds.
Actually the advantage of bitcoin escrow is that the third party only has to get involved if the first two parties have a dispute. Otherwise they can release the funds all by themselves.
It's precisely because of the enormous ambiguity in human affairs, even when both parties are acting entirely in good faith, that hundreds of years of contract law exists, and courts and lawyers and lawsuits and police to enforce them.
The OP's example -- publish three blog posts -- is so trivial that it's hardly even worth discussing as a contract. "Paint my house" is a typical example in first year contracts and it's fodder for all kinds of problems and issues and exceptions: was the house painted? On time? Proper color as specified in the contract ["that's not blue!" "of course it is, says so right here on the can" "No it's not" etc]?
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are interesting as a cheap escrow mechanism, but it still requires a neutral third party to verify that the conditions are satisfied and release the funds.