Are Smart Contracts indeed Smart???

[kaisa]

Do you really believe that Smart Contracts can replace a lawyer?

It seems that you have to go back to doing research, what is called a smart contract and what is its main function.
You cannot connect between smart contracts with lawyers, they are two things that are mutually contradictory. The function of lawyers is to provide services to make legal agreements based on state letters. While smart contracts are the rules for running the system.

And has anyone actually tried to have any kind of exchange and used one Smart contract?

Some exchanges that use smart contracts are those from the ICO. so that investors believe that the project runs according to the rules of the smart contract. You might be able to read some ICO based exchanges. for example, bancor protocol.

[plvbob0070]

I did some research regarding Smart Contracts and I can say I did not conclude to anything specific.
Do you really believe that Smart Contracts can replace a lawyer?
And has anyone actually tried to have any kind of exchange and used one Smart contract?

Thanks, everyone in advance who will answer! I would love to hear some opinions.
 

Smart contract is smart. It wasn't called SMART contract for no reason. The idea of "to replace lawyer" is a no for me although the use of smart contract is really efficient and can alleviate lives. It was made to make things easier and not to totally replace lawyers.

[Ains_sama]

in my opinion smart contact is indeed very smart, and because I believe that smart contact has very good benefits, and that can be very useful for the future.

[imstillthebest]

Smart contract is smart. It wasn't called SMART contract for no reason. The idea of "to replace lawyer" is a no for me although the use of smart contract is really efficient and can alleviate lives. It was made to make things easier and not to totally replace lawyers.

Smart contract is smart. It wasn't called SMART contract for no reason.

not sure if you already hear about other brands that was also called "smart" but they arent actually smart . one of them are just a brand of telco or telecomunication ( network service provider )

thats why i think smart contracts arent really smart . smart contract was just a brand name .

The idea of "to replace lawyer" is a no for me

same here . no one can replace the actual/real lawyers . they studied for many years just to got that profession . we must respect them  .

It was made to make things easier and not to totally replace lawyers.

yes that was thier purpose  , they didnt mean to replace anything  . they just help us to live easier  in the form on their service  .

[Aponkye1]

Well smart contracts have been deisgned to execute payment in between people so in a way it sort of plays just a portion of the lawyer's duties. Technology keeps advancing and we don't know what would come up in the near future.

[Kakmakr]

I do not think it was intended to replace lawyers.  It is just a smart technology to extend the payment options for Bitcoin users and to automate certain requirements before payments are done. You still have two parties that agree on these requirements and then one party configure this smart contract and the code handle the payment based on what was configured. 

I have yet to see any Bank offering such an automated payment feature to their client, without any intermediary.  That is what makes it so smart. 

[km4700ruda]

I think in the future with the development of technology, smart contracts may well replace some professions.

[kelz1]

Smart contracts are useful to the industry but they aren't smart enough to replace lawyers. For confirming payments or what projects are doing i.e locking funds into a release system it is a great product