Yeah, but what if that decentralized network of trustless computers already exists, and transactions costs relative to costs you would otherwise incur are very low?

The premise of your argument is that building a clearinghouse is cheaper and easier than using a blockchain. That seems laughable, honestly.

If you use the Blockchain you still need to legislate such that whatever is on the chain is legally binding then create an agency to enforce it.

This should be possible to do only through standardizable contracts, with enforcement through arbitration and/or the courts.

> Yeah, but what if that decentralized network of trustless computers already exists, and transactions costs relative to costs you would otherwise incur are very low?

Sure and what if unicorns were real? Horses would seem pretty boring then I bet.

> The premise of your argument is that building a clearinghouse is cheaper and easier than using a blockchain. That seems laughable, honestly.

I guess it’s good that we are both laughing at each other then.

"hey let's facilitate this transaction on Ethereum"

"no, that's ridiculous, let's build a clearinghouse, get a bunch of lawyers and have paper contracts drafter, ad deal with differences in international law."

Lmfao. What is this straw man transaction that can be settled on ETH (keep in mind, you’re already completely leaning on sunk cost fallacy) but needs a lawyer off chain?!

Like, either the terms are known and you put them in a smart contract or they’re unknown and you need lawyers anyway.

I dig the energy, but at least be sort of realistic in your “owns”

I'm just going along with everyone else's rebuttal of "just use a lawyer", "just use a clearing house", "just pay someone to balance/record your own books", and whatever else they mention to avoid a solution that exists.

It's a bit like hearing people dismiss email and saying "just use snail mail", "just have a scribe write the letter for you", "just use a personal carrier so it's faster".