I'm not sure if I understand much of the technical gobbledy gook of this thread;however, I do find this to be a very interesting concept that could potentially turn western common law practices on it's head in a variety of ways.
Well, yeah, bitcoin already does that; however, in this thread we seem to be referring to the possibility of creating a contract that initially may be within the control of the creator(s), but could be written in such a way that it falls out of the control of the creator(s), and thereby becomes executable upon the meeting of various conditions at some point in the future.
If I understand correctly, in western common law, no contract controlling the disposition of property (or assets) (frequently applicable in the area of wills and trusts) can be valid if it violates the rule against perpetuities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuitiesIn summary, a contract needs to be created and under the control of human beings and no longer than a measuring life plus 21 years in order to free up the title.. blah blah blah. The idea is that there is a societal value that property and assets remain controllable by living persons (rather than potentially completely controlled by someone who has been dead more than a measuring life plus 21 years (which may last 100 or more years).
If contracts are able to be created to tie up such property for longer periods of time, and neither the state nor any person has control of such tied up property, that could lead to very interesting difficulties and changes in the way we view certain kinds of property.. and ability of dead people to control property from their earlier execution of a contract that no longer can be controlled by anyone, including the state.
I do recognize that there are a lot of valid uses, and even that this whole technology could be very innovative and good, if the contracts are written well and people do not realize later that they fucked up the language of the contract and tied up the assets for a longer period than they had originally intended.
I would only argue that it could be a bad thing in the sense that it does have the potential to tie up property for very long periods of time and beyond any kind of reasonable period that any living people could want, when the contract may have been created by someone who either loses control over it because of death or wrote in a mistaken way that causes the property to be tied up and therefore outside of the control of people (which ultimately, in my view, should be the beneficiaries and able to control actual assets in the real world within reasonable periods of time after the creation of such contracts)
