Underestimate blockchain at your peril

Underestimate blockchain at your peril

Possibly. But how likely is that to actually happen?

Anyway, in real life, it is the intent behind a contract which counts in the end, not the language of the contract. “Smart contracts”, though, are all about the language of the contract, and implementation bugs make it likely that the “smart contract” does not accurately represent the intent of the contracting parties but can't really be fixed. Actual real-life contracts, OTOH, usually contain provisions that arrange for unenforceable bits of the contract to be replaced by such enforceable bits that are closest to the intent of the parties (where what is enforceable and what isn't may only come out after the fact, e.g., because the regulatory framework changes). How is that dealt with in “smart contracts”?

(It also turns out that “smart contracts” can in fact – surprise! – be changed or voided retroactively if the people in charge of the smart-contract platform would otherwise lose money or dislike the contract for other reasons, as in the “The DAO” incident on Ethereum. Not a good sign.)