It's occurred to me that the only real application, in theory, for blockchain-enforced "smart contracts" would be something like international security guarantees.
For instance, if you want a Palestinian state to agree to be demilitarised, sure, if there's a system such that an attack by Israel would ⋅immediately and automatically⋅ trigger a comprehensive sanction regime, stop all international bank transfers in and out of Israel, invalidate all trade licences, etc.
Apart from political feasibility, it's not practical, of course. What ⋅exactly⋅ would be the triggers? Who gets to decide whether and when to roll back? Besides, whatever anyone tries to tell you, blockchain's are NOT safe from manipulation, even in principle, especially when we are talking about state actors.
Just in terms of if there WERE a use case, that's what it would be.
Bilal Barakat 🍉
Unknown parent • • •@funbaker
This was not a proposal. We can flush all "blockchain technology” down the toilet today and lose nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
I was trying to work with the premise of people who try to make the case for "smart contracts" (that are predicated on a system where, yes, certain actions are algorithmically ⋅enforced⋅) to see what might conceivably be a valid use case at least in theory.
Bilal Barakat 🍉
in reply to Bilal Barakat 🍉 • • •@funbaker
In other words: the fundamental premise of "smart contracts" is that there are situations where you need an agreement between parties who you cannot ask to trust each other, so they can instead trust the algorithm. And I was just noting that asking a Palestinian state to be demilitarised fits that description. But since, as you correctly note and I also pointed out, it wouldn't work even then, that just shows that actually there is no use case.