>The world is larger than just your own country.

Not too much larger, considering that every major company and country has large amounts of assets and other financial interests that are subject to US jurisdiction. The government of Argentina recently learned that the hard way when American courts forced them to honor their sovereign debt, or have their US-based assets seized to pay them. The same applies if you want to do business in India, China, or Europe. Submit to their judgments or see your assets and interests in their jurisdiction confiscated or destroyed. Another recent example of this is French courts applying the "right to be forgotten" extraterritorially.

>No, a judge will never order anybody to enter into a different smart contract just like they don't order people into regular contracts today.

They certainly do, in effect. A court judgment very often creates new obligations between the parties. And if entering a new smart contract is the only way to right some legal wrong, then they can order that too. An American court, at least, can order just about anything it needs to in order to enforce its judgments.

Look, once more: I'm not saying smart contracts work at present. But if they work then judges would be without tools to do anything about it, that's a matter of definition, if you choose to define a smart contract in a way that does not agree with how the rest of the world views them then that's fine with me but it voids the discussion. Any contract that has all the outward aspects of being a smart contract but that allows a judge (or anybody else for that matter) to influence the outcome once it is activated is by definition a failed smart contract.

so the scope of smart contract in your definition can only cover areas not already governed by traditional regulatory system / laws. Imho that doesn't cover a lot.

or laws will have to be adapted to grant values to them. But then it isn't much different from today's contracts.

> so the scope of smart contract in your definition can only cover areas not already governed by traditional regulatory system / laws.

Correct, if you don't need a smart contract using one won't give you any advantages.

> Imho that doesn't cover a lot.

We're going to have to disagree on that.

> or laws will have to be adapted to grant values to them.

Absent a global government I don't see how that could be done.

> But then it isn't much different from today's contracts.

Well, it is, but not for most normal transactions.

if smart contracts can really be made to work they will be an enabler much like the laser, we didn't really have an application for those either when they were first invented.

But people are already getting creative with them and the DAO is a nice example of what could be done if smart contracts can be reliably built and executed.

I don't think this will happen in the near future because writing a regular contract is hard enough, a smart contract has to be perfect for it to be of value because any bugs will be beyond the regular safe-guards ability to be fixed, you will most likely simply lose your money or your goods without recourse.

> > or laws will have to be adapted to grant values to them.

> Absent a global government I don't see how that could be done.

What's so hard about the judge forcing you to form a new smart contract?

I have zero difficulty imagining a situation where a judge brings me in and says "Now unlock your laptop and sign this Ethereum contract that undoes the previous one".

not a lawyer, but i don't think you need a global government to have legislation covering contracts between two companies from different countries. I suppose the contract decides which juridiction will apply in case of trouble.

But if i understand your point, you see smart contracts just as some kind of tool that could be used in place of regular ones, whenever all the corner cases can be determined in advance and coded against, right ?

In which case we could have state decide which type of smart contract are legal under their juridiction and which aren't. If that's what you mean, that could be interesting indeed. I don't see how that would be applicable in practice : everything can be hacked or tricked, or fall apart, and human always are needed at some point in any autonomous system i know of.

> Any contract that has all the outward aspects of being a smart contract but that allows a judge (or anybody else for that matter) to influence the outcome once it is activated is by definition a failed smart contract.

I think the crux of your argument with Marco is that he is viewing the "outcome" in a larger scope than you are. You seem to be focusing on the "outcome" as only the output of the smart contract, while the is viewing the "outcome" as the real-world consequences of the entire situation, as embedded in our political and legal systems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's also worth pointing out that from the point of view of judges, people losing money on ETH are really losing abstract Internet points. Even if it all happened in the same jurisdiction, would a judge be willing to consider that a theft has happened?

I don't think that's the material issue, but it is definitely possible that a judge would consider the matter too abstract to make a ruling over. But as a plaintiff or a defendant in such a case I really would not want to base my case on that.

Considering that the US government has decreed that Bitcoin is an asset and capital gains taxes are due when they are sold/spent, I'm inclined to answer yes.