One thing I've realized is that it's best to think about crypto and smart contracts as a foundation to build upon. They're tools in our toolbox. What we build is up to us.

In the future, I don't think we'll see many monolithic contracts like you're describing (no USA smart contract). Instead I think we'll have a bunch of small, simple, and battle tested smart contracts that we can fit together like lego bricks.

This is what people said about objects in the context of object-oriented programming and it never really happened. Currently software doesn't really feel like lego bricks, it feels more like the mix of legos, mega blocks, duplos, kaplas and playmobiles that I played with when I was younger. You can build lots of stuff with it, and they can kind of go together, but not as easily as things from the same brand.

Have you checked your npm_modules folder lately?

Yes, and it's full of little packages that are made to make sure one package will work with the other. In my example, this would be duplo to lego connectors, duplo to mega blocks connectors, lego to mega blocks connectors, etc. I also often write myself glue code between two packages.

I agree, but that's assuming the whole concept survives to maturity and engenders public trust. At this point, I have my doubts.

A lot of people live in a world where the courts, police and politicians are corrupt. Using smart contracts is a tradeoff for lack of rule of law.

Its essentially people thinking "we're not getting a fair shake here from human law, let's try robot law".

Presumably those corrupt people will be the ones in charge of writing smart contracts as well if you're living somewhere so deeply corrupt.

I agree, you wouldn't want a world where either of those two scenarios you mention are possible. But are those examples inescapable risks inherent to having smart contracts? Or does the design of current smart contracts lack maturity in such a way that allows for problems similar to the ones you mention? Maybe better smart contract design could arise that prevents these issues.

I think the case that they are inescapable risks is pretty strong. I think the history of formal design and software engineering is pretty clear that the designing a foolproof system is effectively and practically speaking impossible except for extremely small, extremely isolated problem spaces.

I don't think smart contracts are in that space and I don't think any level of maturity is going to get you there.

The smart contracts you are seeing now are relatively simple programs and are woefully insufficient for nation-state level use.

Imagine a future with multiple levels of smart contracts that allow for court intervention and arbitration. It starts to resemble the checks and balances we have in place now, but the rules are public and codified.

But, if there is a "court intervention" clause that just lets you say "Transfer X money from Y to Z", then why bother with full blockchain/crypto? You have effectively central control.

I agree that would be a useless smart contract. If that is your intention, then don't use a smart contract.

If, however, there are a limited number of known possible outcomes, then smart contracts offer advantages over court-based settlements.

Can you give a concrete example? I can't think of anything where you wouldn't need a fallback "human takes control".

> but the rules are public and codified.

You mean like, say, the current system of laws we have? (:

Sure, laws are strange and arcane and require expertise to translate them into understandable terms, but any form of code has the exact same problem.

No. Better than the current system of laws we have.

Currently, the current system requires lengthy court intervention with interpretation done after the fact.

Smart contracts can allow for a fixed number of resolutions with a timeframe defined up front. Smart contracts won't work for everything, but they might be a better fit for some things.