> I think the point is that if mutability and trusted third party oversight is actually usually a necessary and desired fraud prevention feature in a payments system, there's probably not huge demand to replicate all that using blockchains whose most-touted virtue is immutability and trustlessness
I'd argue that rarely in meatspace finance is the consensus mechanism considered separately from the other aspects of a currency that matter. Consensus at changing aspects of a currency typically fall upon a government organization which has its own politically-driven, non-transparent consensus mechanism.
In meatspace, we have things like bankruptcy law and its derivatives to help preserve order when contracts unwind.
Of course, provisions for unwinding an agreement in an orderly way are part of any sophisticated financial deal. Meatspace contracts bootstrap on existing legal interpretations and regulations, but those things mainly add convention, repeatability, and predictability to the behavior of the contract.
So when (if ever) does the consensus mechanism in a fiat currency actually matter? I'd argue that it matters when the sh*t hits the fan, when there is an economic shock and widespread demand for action. This is when the stupidest decisions get made and the rule of law is the weakest.
Hedging against these stupid decisions adds tremendous cost and friction to meatspace financial deals. While it may feel right for regulators to "make whole" certain parties, that is not necessarily in the interest of the rule of law. It's far better if the various contingencies are addressed before the fact so that they can be priced in accurately.
Systems like Ethereum have the potential to create (over time) a set of useful and inviolable rules that can allow transactions to take place without the costly hedging against stupid, knee-jerk decisions by regulators.
In order for parties to willingly enter into contracts, the desirable state is not that later some wise overlords will take a look at the contract and make a fair decision about some yet-to-be-determined aspect of it. The desirable state is for the contract itself to be 100% trustworthy.
Of course, with the infamous hard fork, Ethereum failed at this once, but ETC exists now in tandem, so the two governance approaches can compete on their merits.
Distributed blockchain consensus give us a more transparent consensus mechanism than ever before, which is crucial to democracy. On this bedrock, it will likely be possible to create a world where we truly have the rule of law, not the rule of men.
The point here is not that smart contracts are "law", it's that the execution of a contract should take place in an unbiased VM, and the transparency and consensus mechanism of ETH ensures that.
I'd argue that rarely in meatspace finance is the consensus mechanism considered separately from the other aspects of a currency that matter. Consensus at changing aspects of a currency typically fall upon a government organization which has its own politically-driven, non-transparent consensus mechanism.
In meatspace, we have things like bankruptcy law and its derivatives to help preserve order when contracts unwind.
Of course, provisions for unwinding an agreement in an orderly way are part of any sophisticated financial deal. Meatspace contracts bootstrap on existing legal interpretations and regulations, but those things mainly add convention, repeatability, and predictability to the behavior of the contract.
So when (if ever) does the consensus mechanism in a fiat currency actually matter? I'd argue that it matters when the sh*t hits the fan, when there is an economic shock and widespread demand for action. This is when the stupidest decisions get made and the rule of law is the weakest.
Hedging against these stupid decisions adds tremendous cost and friction to meatspace financial deals. While it may feel right for regulators to "make whole" certain parties, that is not necessarily in the interest of the rule of law. It's far better if the various contingencies are addressed before the fact so that they can be priced in accurately.
Systems like Ethereum have the potential to create (over time) a set of useful and inviolable rules that can allow transactions to take place without the costly hedging against stupid, knee-jerk decisions by regulators.
In order for parties to willingly enter into contracts, the desirable state is not that later some wise overlords will take a look at the contract and make a fair decision about some yet-to-be-determined aspect of it. The desirable state is for the contract itself to be 100% trustworthy.
Of course, with the infamous hard fork, Ethereum failed at this once, but ETC exists now in tandem, so the two governance approaches can compete on their merits.
Distributed blockchain consensus give us a more transparent consensus mechanism than ever before, which is crucial to democracy. On this bedrock, it will likely be possible to create a world where we truly have the rule of law, not the rule of men.
The point here is not that smart contracts are "law", it's that the execution of a contract should take place in an unbiased VM, and the transparency and consensus mechanism of ETH ensures that.