undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowaway_isms5y ago0 comments

>This sounds like a technology problem for which a public blockchain is but one possible solution.

I don't disagree, and "blockchain" as used sort of is misleading because at this point their are many solutions within the blockchain technologies and it is still rapidly evolving.

>If a court says your ex owns half of the shares in $WALLET, but the blockchain doesn’t, and $COMPANY which issued the shares is also subject to the whims of the court, then what are we to do about this?

You could hold a non-complying party in jail/contempt of court for one, this happens with real world assets that do not get turned over now.

But again there are implementation of blockchain solutions, where say the Company that issued shares did so on a smart contract and with a Court order they could burn half the tokens/stock in the wallet mint that same number and transfer them to the wife per the Court order.

0 comments

atweiden5y ago

> You could hold a non-complying party in jail/contempt of court for one, this happens with real world assets that do not get turned over now.

This doesn’t appear to resolve the issue of the blockchain reflecting a different reality than that decided by a court.

> But again there are implementation of blockchain solutions, where say the Company that issued shares did so on a smart contract and with a Court order they could burn half the tokens/stock in the wallet mint that same number and transfer them to the wife per the Court order.

How would this hypothetical court order be verified without the involvement of trusted third parties? Presumably judges in many places could be bribed or coerced into rubber stamping such an order.

This seems ripe for abuse.

throwaway_ismsOP5y ago

>This seems ripe for abuse.

You proposed the hypothetical starting with the Court. If you want blockchain to preempt any court involvement your hypothetical needs to start at that point.

I think it is possible through the prisoners dilemma. Have husband and wife have a joint wallet from the beginning governed by smart contract with agreed upon prenuptial terms. Marital assets could go in and then upon divorce they be equally split, the husband and wife could be required signatures, but if only 1 signs the funds/assets are locked until both sign. Maybe in rare instance you get one partner willing to lockup the funds and sacrifice their own finances, but that the entire point of blockchain/miners and the prisoner's dilemma.

atweiden5y ago

What about people being sued for damages, or creditors laying claim to the assets? There are endless cases where a court can unilaterally decide your assets are not your assets any longer.

Also, your hypothetical solution to the blockchain not reflecting court orders in the narrow case of divorce law is to ensure every married buyer of a crypto equity has a prenuptual agreement in place in their crypto wallet. Can you think of any problems with that plan?

throwaway_ismsOP5y ago

I can think of a problem when someone poses a hypothetical with a given set of facts, you propose one of many potential solutions, then they change the facts of the hypothetical. For example, someone asking about a dissolution of marriage and then complaining the solution was limited to "narrow case of divorce law" and adding in addition 3rd party creditors. Its well beyond the scope of any limited good-faith discussion on this forum but the court does not have jurisdiction and is not concerned about 3rd party creditor rights in a dissolution of marriage action, they may consider the debts themselves, but not the actual interest of the creditors vis-a-vis the marital assets. Though, at least in the US, there are 50 states with 50 different legal standards governing. I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, good luck.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

atweiden5y ago

> You could hold a non-complying party in jail/contempt of court for one, this happens with real world assets that do not get turned over now.

This doesn’t appear to resolve the issue of the blockchain reflecting a different reality than that decided by a court.

How would this hypothetical court order be verified without the involvement of trusted third parties? Presumably judges in many places could be bribed or coerced into rubber stamping such an order.

This seems ripe for abuse.

throwaway_ismsOP5y ago

>This seems ripe for abuse.

You proposed the hypothetical starting with the Court. If you want blockchain to preempt any court involvement your hypothetical needs to start at that point.

atweiden5y ago

What about people being sued for damages, or creditors laying claim to the assets? There are endless cases where a court can unilaterally decide your assets are not your assets any longer.

throwaway_ismsOP5y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse