Even without the "binding contract" aspect, the very concept of "put important code in the blockchain (where it can never be patched without the agreement of the entire community)" seems ... spooky. "Unpatchable code" is probably one of the most terrifying two-word phrases in the English language.
> The court orders the company to give back the money the contract gave them. They refuse.
This seems to have nothing to do with blockchains; the same situation could occur (and its consequences are important to investigate!) no matter what the circumstances that led up the court order.
Yes but with the difference that without blockchain the corporations bank will then do the deed and push the money back on court order. And if not possible the company will (to my knowledge in german legal code) be dissolved, assets sold and the profits go to the other side until the damage is covered, which is usually not the case and the winning party still looses money.
With blockchain there is no bank and if the company doesn't want to, the next option is nuclear as above.
With blockchain there is no way for the party to obtain what is rightfully theirs other than to nuclearize the other party.
Without there are options because banks and other intermediaries can intervene and correct.
Your second sentence is a non sequitur as well as being ageist and possibly mocking of people with Alzheimer's disease.
That's quite a lot for one sentence.
The quote he's spoofing is from Reagan, and there is a not small group of Americans who think the original quote was unduly harmful to politics and by extension social and cultural mores in the US.
