Nothing annoys me more than arrogant ignorance. It's like, pick one! You speak as if these are handled as federal matters, and they are not. Contract disputes are handed as local matters, usually in a local district court.

Furthermore, when you talk about the court you're talking about a Judge. The Judge gets final say and they can take their sweet time, regard or disregard anything they want. In local matters, Judge's act without restraint. Appellate court, the state bar, the judicial qualification board, federal court, all gets involved so rarely they can be ignored. Additionally, these Judges are no stars of the legal profession: cohorts of lawyers will often rig elections and appointments to favor a well-connected but bad lawyer, because being a judge is actually really easy.

So, yeah, it mostly depends on who the judge likes better, and whether society is better or worse if this dispute is decided this way or the other way. I can't stress enough the arbitrariness, and supreme unaccountably, of a local judge's decisions.

You'll have to back this up with evidence. You can file complaints about local judges to judiciary committees, administrative judges, you can appeal their decisions, and if you actually go to trial you get a jury unless you specifically waive it (along with all other parties).

I don't see how they're unaccountable, or how contract disputes mostly depend on a judges disposition.

> I can't stress enough the arbitrariness, and supreme, unaccountably, of a local judge's decisions.

Exactly. Code-contract signers hate this, and go out of their way to avoid the possibility of this interference.

Judges should tell crypto cases to get rightfully fucked.

If I appear and sue a drug dealer for giving me fake 100's, I'd get laughed at.

Considering crypto is just an massive abstraction layer to hide the online drug trade, the courts should similarly laugh at these _technical_ exploits, in the context of Euth-shit code. Because it's sole explicit purpose of existence is to conduct business without arbitration.

> If I appear and sue a drug dealer for giving me fake 100's, I'd get laughed at.

Is that actually true? On the criminal side, I served on a grand jury, and a lot of the cases we saw were criminal-on-criminal crime. I guess the idea driving the crime was that criminals make easier targets as they're less likely to go to the police. But some did.

Fine, make crypto outside the legal system. Gains can't be taxed and failure to apply AML/KYC can't be prosecuted, but you get no protection from the courts for theft. I'd take that bargain.

If that were true, it would not be possible to run a sustainable business in any industry. Legal systems need to generate consistent results with respect to contract law in order for commerce to be successful and efficient.

Cite? No, the way it works is that you pay lawyers who know enough to play it out in their heads and determine who has to pay whom to make it go away. If one side is stubborn and ignorant, then they pull the trigger and the years-long, extremely expensive lottery play has begun.

Your assumptions about the law, about judges, and about rationality, rhetoric, and the justice system in general are about to be destroyed. The lawyers know the high variance of court and generally want to avoid court like the plague.

(The justice system is badly broken, obviously. The core issue is that it takes far too long to judge a case, and a big reason for that is a) the rules are too complicated and b) not adopting better tech. We should have trials that start a week after filing, with online juries, online judges, and real-time access to data. The attorneys can finally earn their ridiculous wages by learning how to fly through information and present it in a compelling way.)

The median lawyer salary is $122K. Whether that's ridiculous is a matter of opinion, but it's only a little higher than software developers. And the average lawyer has more education.

Some civil court hearings are already conducted online.

No that's not how it works. The same basic rules of contract law apply in federal, state, and local courts with only minor variations.

It is how it works. The rules don't matter; the attorneys know what words to say to give a judge reasons to either admit or reject application of any rule. The coin that remains in a case is likeability and making the judge's life easier.

The net result is a system where attorneys are falling over themselves to prove who is more obsequious to all the judges. If you become a problem in one case, you will suffer in your other cases, too, so individuals with legit complaints against the court can and will be ignored.

The net result is a court that ignores all but the most mechanical rules (and loves to stall on those when it can, because it approximates the appearance of "work"), and has no mechanism for correction. I'm sorry, but the rules don't really matter, to anyone.

That comment is just deranged. I assume you had a bad experience with legal system at some point but you clearly don't understand how it actually operates, especially at the appeals levels.

>routinely

And they routinely admit that some cases are not clear cut. But crypto has no grey zones, by design - you either have the keys, or you don't. And that is the explicit agreement code-contract signers agree to when they go out of their way to DeFi their agreements.

Obviously legal precedents and statutes are not fitted for this purpose yet, because they are reactive, not proactive.