I do not understand 'decentralized oracles', yet 'smart contract' speaks for itself... IF you are a New York lawyer.
Would you explain, Amanda ?
...what might your objective be, here ?
Yeah, yeah -- by "decentralized oracles," I mean this video
by Evan describing how masternodes can and should one day serve as oracles. This seems like it certainly serves at least part of the uses that people have gotten so excited about "smart contracts" for -- in that 7 or 10 masternodes all agreeing upon the stock price of something, for example, could remove the doubt and uncertainty for parties trying to agree on a single source of their business information.
And by "smart contracts," my meaning is much less clear. I've been trying to ask Ethereum people about this, and have yet to receive a crystal-clear answer. What is a use case -- a real one from the real world -- where it is practically inevitable that the cost savings and ease-of-use will cause people who would either have A) operated on a loose agreement, or B) have hired lawyers and written contracts -- would use a smart contract instead? I've yet to receive a solid answer, so I thought maybe I'd get one here.
BUT, HERE IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT: in the recently posted Charles Hoskinson presentation at Coinscrum
, he describes crypto 1.0 as a value transfer system, crypto 2.0 as a smart contract system, and crypto 3.0 as a governed, self-funding system. His third description is an uncanny description of how Dash currently works, though he doesn't mention Dash -- don't know why. But I'd like to nail down if, with the implementation of decentralized oracles and arbitration services, the whole "crypto 2.0 smart contract" thing will have been essentially covered, as well, giving Dash check-marks in all three boxes. The only crypto with check marks in all three boxes.
Lemme know if any of that is unclear.