> You’re never going to find a binary function that tells you if something is legal or not, in the end it’s up to a human judge to decide.
... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system. That's presumably based on a belief that you can write code that behaves the way you intend, regardless of whether you really can do that or not.
So perhaps the judge should decide "Well, you signed up for that when you tried to opt out of having human judgement govern your deals. Have a nice day.".
And in fact perhaps there should be formal statutory law that makes it clear that's what the judge is supposed to decide in any case that isn't itself "borderline" somehow. Which the case at hand shouldn't be.
> ... but the whole point of cryptocurrency, or at least of smart contracts and "DeFi", is to reject that and try to build a parallel system.
No, it isn't. It might be some peoples desire around it, but by no means all (or even most).
That's neat, but the bitcoin whitepaper opens with:
> Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?
> Why do you think you can dismiss the obvious claim that cryptocurrencies are a form of decentralized finance with a "no, it isn't"?
They are or can be a form of decentralised finance. That doesn't mean a system that is totally parallel to the legal system. And, again, different people intend different things with it. It's definitely not all "code is law" people.
What "intended uses" are there for it other than being an unregulated options market with constant scams and a "code is law" tool?
I would imagine any other legitimate use would be served better by traditional database/finance systems.
It doesn't add any other value whatsoever, so I'm having trouble with that assertion.
If I put up a sign „trespassers will be enslaved“ on my property and then force people who trespass to work for me, would that be fine because they knew what they were getting into? You can’t just create your own justice system which contradicts the real one by making contracts.