> They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts.
That is not some that any of those quotes states. The thrust of those quotes is focused on the value of the blockchain as an immutable ledger, and doesn't mention "smart contracts" once.
The statement you are trying to dispute seems to be pretty widely accepted. Once you need to refer to physical world events, you need yo trust some entity to report those events accurately, removing the trustless aspect of "smart contracts" that is their primary selling point.
The most you can read into the quotes that you posted is that the judge sees a strong future for the UK judiciary in resolving disputes about trust when "smart contracts" have to interact with the offline world.
I would also point out that "smart contracts" are not literally contracts, but pieces of trustless software. Conflating those concepts does nothing to help the uphill reputational battle that faces the cryptocurrency ecosystem given all of it's shenanigans.
That is not some that any of those quotes states. The thrust of those quotes is focused on the value of the blockchain as an immutable ledger, and doesn't mention "smart contracts" once.
The statement you are trying to dispute seems to be pretty widely accepted. Once you need to refer to physical world events, you need yo trust some entity to report those events accurately, removing the trustless aspect of "smart contracts" that is their primary selling point.
The most you can read into the quotes that you posted is that the judge sees a strong future for the UK judiciary in resolving disputes about trust when "smart contracts" have to interact with the offline world.
I would also point out that "smart contracts" are not literally contracts, but pieces of trustless software. Conflating those concepts does nothing to help the uphill reputational battle that faces the cryptocurrency ecosystem given all of it's shenanigans.