I was thinking about #smartcontracts and #NFTs. Like, I guess you could use them to transfer titles/deeds with less overhead, which, yeah, probably: less ink and stamping once you have some template contracts. However, I've read suggestions that these things enable cross-borders trust... that's B.S. though. Two parties could agree on terms in a smart contract and with whatever terms, but one or the other party could still renege and it would still devolve onto some state to enforce the provisions, which is the state of affairs now.
@2ck
The whole remaining problem here is deciding whether a contract has been violated. This doesn't necessarily require a state, but at this point at least some third party that is already trusted. (Except contracts the terms of which can be evaluated automatically, but this is a category so constrained that it borders on uselessness.)
Blockchains only provide enough synthetic trust to work as currencies, and barely any more. Other applications still require research.
@timorl Yep. I think you could build in some other actors to the contract. Like, some compliance verification free-lancer who can give access to options for redress. You could have a refund (with interest or damages even), but there's more to consider about certifying the compliance officer, options of "specific performance" (back to the enforcement). Still, if the alleged infringer wanted to contest, you still need some kind of judge...I just keep ending up at <you need a government> or <you need to completely restructure society>. I get the feeling crypto-anarchists would be like, "yeah, the second one" 🙄