Ricardian contract: Difference between revisions
Removed implementations section, it was sourced to primary sources, press releases, unreliable sources per [[WP:RSP] like Forbes Contributors and so on. Couldn't find any reliable sources suitable to substitute in. |
Tagged citations needing added/improved, or removed where unusable. Removed "Programming pattern" section as it was unsourced and had been marked as needing sources for a long time. |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The '''Ricardian contract''', as invented by Ian Grigg in 1996, is a method of recording a document as a [[contract]] at law, and linking it securely to other systems, such as accounting, for the contract as an issuance of value.<ref name=Grigg2004>{{cite journal |first=Ian |last=Grigg |title=The Ricardian Contract |journal=Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting |pages=25–31 |publisher=IEEE |date=2004 |doi=10.1109/WEC.2004.1319505 |isbn=0-7695-2184-3 |url=http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3085682 |title=What is a Ricardian Contract? |journal=Cyberspace Law eJournal |publisher=Social Science Research Network |date=11 December 2017|ssrn=3085682 |last1=Chohan |first1=Usman W. }}</ref> It is robust through use of identification by [[cryptographic hash function]], transparent through use of readable text for legal prose and efficient through [[markup language]] to extract essential information. |
The '''Ricardian contract''', as invented by Ian Grigg in 1996, is a method of recording a document as a [[contract]] at law, and linking it securely to other systems, such as accounting, for the contract as an issuance of value.<ref name=Grigg2004>{{cite journal |first=Ian |last=Grigg |title=The Ricardian Contract |journal=Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting |pages=25–31 |publisher=IEEE |date=2004 |doi=10.1109/WEC.2004.1319505 |isbn=0-7695-2184-3 |url=http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3085682 |title=What is a Ricardian Contract? |journal=Cyberspace Law eJournal |publisher=Social Science Research Network |date=11 December 2017|ssrn=3085682 |last1=Chohan |first1=Usman W. }}</ref> It is robust through use of identification by [[cryptographic hash function]], transparent through use of readable text for legal prose and efficient through [[markup language]] to extract essential information. |
||
A Ricardian contract places the defining elements of a legal agreement in a format that can be expressed and executed in software.<ref name=Clack>{{cite book |last1=Clack |first1=Christopher D. |last2=Bakshi |first2=Vikram A. |last3=Braine |first3=Lee |title=Smart Contract Templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions |date=2016 |arxiv=1608.00771}}</ref> The key is to make the format both machine-readable, such that they can easily be extracted for computational purposes, and readable as an ordinary text document such that lawyers and contracting parties may read the essentials of the contract conveniently. |
A Ricardian contract places the defining elements of a legal agreement in a format that can be expressed and executed in software.<ref name=Clack>{{cite book |last1=Clack |first1=Christopher D. |last2=Bakshi |first2=Vikram A. |last3=Braine |first3=Lee |title=Smart Contract Templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions |date=2016 |arxiv=1608.00771}}</ref> The key is to make the format both machine-readable, such that they can easily be extracted for computational purposes, and readable as an ordinary text document such that lawyers and contracting parties may read the essentials of the contract conveniently.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to lecture notes which did not support any of this|date=November 2022}} |
||
From a legal perspective, the use of [[markup language]] embedded within a mostly legal prose document |
From a legal perspective, it has been claimed the use of [[markup language]] embedded within a mostly legal prose document can lead to reduced transaction costs, faster dispute resolution, better enforceability and enhanced transparency.{{Better source needed|reason=Sources are both decades old papers that do not provide evidence this claim is true in practice.|date=June 2022}}<ref name=NagaShakel/><ref name=Nagy2006>{{cite journal |last=Nagy |first=Daniel A. |title=On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems |date=2006 |journal=Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Business and Telecommunications |series=Communications in Computer and Information Science |volume=3 |pages=26–38 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-75993-5_3 |isbn=978-3-540-75992-8 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-75993-5_3 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> From a computing perspective, the Ricardian contract is a [[software design pattern]] to digitize documents and have them participate within financial transactions, such as payments, without losing any of the richness of the contracting tradition.{{Citation needed|reason=Can't find a reliable source describing it as a software design pattern|date=November 2022}} Publication of the content and reference to that content by the unique [[cryptographic message digest]] is claimed to prevent frauds based on multiple presentations.{{Better source needed|reason=Citation is old theoretical paper, we should have a citation demonstrating fraud actually being eliminated in practice.|date=November 2022}}<ref name=Nagy2006/> |
||
The method arises out of the work of Ian Grigg completed in the mid-1990s in contributions to Ricardo,<ref>{{cite conference |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers |conference=Proceedings of Financial Cryptography Conference 2000 |location=Anguilla, British West Indies |date=February 2000 |publisher=Springer Verlag |series=LNCS |volume=1,962 |url=http://iang.org/papers/fc7.html}}</ref> a system of assets transfers that was built in 1995-1996 by Systemics and included the pattern. The system and the design pattern was named after [[David Ricardo]] in honour of his seminal contribution to [[international trade theory]]. |
The method arises out of the work of Ian Grigg completed in the mid-1990s in contributions to Ricardo,<ref>{{cite conference |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers |conference=Proceedings of Financial Cryptography Conference 2000 |location=Anguilla, British West Indies |date=February 2000 |publisher=Springer Verlag |series=LNCS |volume=1,962 |url=http://iang.org/papers/fc7.html}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=Citation is primary source by creator of the concept.|date=November 2022}} a system of assets transfers that was built in 1995-1996 by Systemics and included the pattern. The system and the design pattern was named after [[David Ricardo]] in honour of his seminal contribution to [[international trade theory]]. |
||
==Definition== |
==Definition== |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Diagram== |
==Diagram== |
||
The Ricardian contract separates the agreement of parties across time and domain. On the left of the "Bowtie" representation,{{clarify|date=June 2018}} the negotiation and formation of a legally binding contract leads to a single parent document that defines all of the intent of that agreement. On the right, the performance of that agreement might involve many transactions to be accounted for, logically separated from the meaning of the issue. |
The Ricardian contract separates the agreement of parties across time and domain. On the left of the "Bowtie" representation,{{clarify|date=June 2018}} the negotiation and formation of a legally binding contract leads to a single parent document that defines all of the intent of that agreement. On the right, the performance of that agreement might involve many transactions to be accounted for, logically separated from the meaning of the issue.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation only mentions Ricardian contracts in passing and doesn't support this|date=November 2022}} The join between the legal world and the accounting world is formed by the hash — each transaction locks in the terms and conditions of the precise deal of the parties by including the hash of the contract in every relevant transaction record, yet the operation of the transactions and the issuance of the contract are cleanly separated and thus perverse incentives are eliminated.<ref>{{cite book |last=Franco |first=Pedro |chapter=14.5 Open Transactions |title=Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |date=2014 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YHfCBwAAQBAJ |isbn=978-1-119-01916-9 |pages=240–241}}</ref> |
||
[[File:RC-bow-tie.png|thumb|500px|right|BowTie diagram of Ricardian contract elements & generatives]] |
[[File:RC-bow-tie.png|thumb|500px|right|BowTie diagram of Ricardian contract elements & generatives]] |
||
==Legal relationship== |
==Legal relationship== |
||
The role of the Ricardian contract is to capture the contractual relationship between contracting parties to assist later performance of that contract by programs. |
The role of the Ricardian contract is to capture the contractual relationship between contracting parties to assist later performance of that contract by programs.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to self-published blog post|date=November 2022}} In its contractual form, it is the recording of an offer from an issuer to a holder. The offer is signed digitally within the format by the offerer, typically using a plaintext digital signature such as provided by [[OpenPGP]]. |
||
The acceptance of the [[contract]] is typically formed by signing/agreeing to a transaction that refers to the hash of that contract. Within the context of a high-performance payment system, a secure payment will cite the hash of the contract of the instrument being paid, as well as paying and payee parties and a quantity of units.<ref>{{cite web |last=Howland |first=Gary |date=1996 |title=Development of an Open and Flexible Payment System |url=http://systemics.com/docs/sox/overview.html |publisher=Systemics}}</ref> In a [[smart contract]]s system, the acceptance would be performed by operating the contract's code to move the state of the agreement forward. |
The acceptance of the [[contract]] is typically formed by signing/agreeing to a transaction that refers to the hash of that contract. Within the context of a high-performance payment system, a secure payment will cite the hash of the contract of the instrument being paid, as well as paying and payee parties and a quantity of units.<ref>{{cite web |last=Howland |first=Gary |date=1996 |title=Development of an Open and Flexible Payment System |url=http://systemics.com/docs/sox/overview.html |publisher=Systemics}}</ref> In a [[smart contract]]s system, the acceptance would be performed by operating the contract's code to move the state of the agreement forward. |
||
===Signing and intent=== |
===Signing and intent=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Typically, the signing of the contract by any party is overtly performed by use of a private key. The original offerer's signature is typically over the original document, and is then appended to form a fully binding, readable offer for the assets described in the document. |
Typically, the signing of the contract by any party is overtly performed by use of a private key. The original offerer's signature is typically over the original document, and is then appended to form a fully binding, readable offer for the assets described in the document.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to a blog of a dead crypto company, not a RS|date=November 2022}} |
||
Later participation by parties in the contract such as payments or smart contract performance will typically sign over a hash identifier (as generated by a [[cryptographic hash function]]) over the signed original document. In contrast to the initial signature, the use of the hash of the contract within following transactions also signals intent, and forms a covert signature over the contract. Although private key signatures are well studied and are subject of legal frameworks such as the European digital signature directive, Grigg suggests that the trail of hashes – entanglement – forms a more effective evidence of intent<ref name=Grigg2004/> than a private key signature. |
Later participation by parties in the contract such as payments or smart contract performance will typically sign over a hash identifier (as generated by a [[cryptographic hash function]]) over the signed original document. In contrast to the initial signature, the use of the hash of the contract within following transactions also signals intent, and forms a covert signature over the contract. Although private key signatures are well studied and are subject of legal frameworks such as the European digital signature directive, Grigg suggests that the trail of hashes – entanglement – forms a more effective evidence of intent<ref name=Grigg2004/> than a private key signature. |
||
==Programming pattern== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
As a pattern in design, the Ricardian contract is like a reference–object [[tuple]] from the tradition of [[object-oriented programming]]. |
|||
The reference is a [[cryptographic hash function]], and the object is formed by writing classes that handle the type of contract needed; a [[factory (object-oriented programming)|factory]] would typically read enough of the text of the document to figure out which class type is involved, and then construct an object of that specific class over the text. |
|||
Once an object is constructed, it can be interrogated for contents: the hash, name of issuer, nature of issue, keys and signature status. |
|||
==Variations== |
==Variations== |
||
{{Verification|date=November 2022}} |
|||
If the agreement is more complicated than a single document can describe, the documents can be chained: An acceptance of an offer can be a Ricardian contract that includes the hash of the offer, or the acceptance can include the entire contents of the earlier phase, a design pattern known as Russian dolls |
If the agreement is more complicated than a single document can describe, the documents can be chained: An acceptance of an offer can be a Ricardian contract that includes the hash of the offer, or the acceptance can include the entire contents of the earlier phase, a design pattern known as Russian dolls{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to a wiki, not a RS|date=November 2022}} used by both OpenTransactions and [[OpenBazaar]]. These referral patterns can be conducted multiple times to create a chain or hierarchy of elements. |
||
==Formats== |
==Formats== |
||
{{Verification|date=November 2022}} |
|||
A relevant decision is choosing a representation of the text such that [[markup language|markup]] can be included to assist the software agent while maintaining readability. |
A relevant decision is choosing a representation of the text such that [[markup language|markup]] can be included to assist the software agent while maintaining readability.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to a dead self-published source, not a RS|date=November 2022}} To be a Ricardian contract, it has to be parsable both by the program and by a human reader.<ref name=Wörner>{{cite document |last1=Wörner |first1=Dominic |last2=von Bomhard |first2=Thomas |last3=Schreier |first3=Yan-Peter |last4=Bilgeri |first4=Dominic |title=The Bitcoin Ecosystem - Disruption beyond Financial Services? |date=2016 |url=https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/248647}}</ref> |
||
"Readability" is necessarily defined relative to some viewing interface. Embedded markup systems such as XML are commonly viewed not as "raw source", but with much richer formatting applied. Jurists need not view "raw" JSON, LaTeX, or XML any more than Web users must view raw HTML or hexadecimal PNG images. Some visually impaired readers necessarily use very different interfaces. Even "plain text" editors differ in the treatment of [character sets] and [character encodings], OS-specific line-ends, fonts, tabs, wrapping of long lines, etc. Even a simple text editor can be hacked to mis-display text in a desired way, just like any other software can. But with standard, non-binary data representations underneath users can compare multiple viewing solutions, and with text-based representations as opposed to [[binary file]]s it is practical to check the source document directly when desired (or, as commonly done, to view fully-formatted and raw views simultaneously). |
"Readability" is necessarily defined relative to some viewing interface. Embedded markup systems such as XML are commonly viewed not as "raw source", but with much richer formatting applied. Jurists need not view "raw" JSON, LaTeX, or XML any more than Web users must view raw HTML or hexadecimal PNG images. Some visually impaired readers necessarily use very different interfaces. Even "plain text" editors differ in the treatment of [character sets] and [character encodings], OS-specific line-ends, fonts, tabs, wrapping of long lines, etc. Even a simple text editor can be hacked to mis-display text in a desired way, just like any other software can. But with standard, non-binary data representations underneath users can compare multiple viewing solutions, and with text-based representations as opposed to [[binary file]]s it is practical to check the source document directly when desired (or, as commonly done, to view fully-formatted and raw views simultaneously). |
||
| Line 57: | Line 53: | ||
[[LaTeX]] and [[XML]] are suitable because their source is generally readable by humans, and they have widely-available renderers. XML also has a standardized [[Canonical XML]] form which is specifically designed to facilitate cryptographic hashing, and neutralizes minor syntactic variations such as insignificant whitespace, platform-specific line-ends, order of attributes, etc. |
[[LaTeX]] and [[XML]] are suitable because their source is generally readable by humans, and they have widely-available renderers. XML also has a standardized [[Canonical XML]] form which is specifically designed to facilitate cryptographic hashing, and neutralizes minor syntactic variations such as insignificant whitespace, platform-specific line-ends, order of attributes, etc. |
||
Popular formats such as [[JSON]] and [[Semantic Web]] formats are often, though not always, much less readable in raw form to non-programmers such as jurists, and much more subject to unbounded syntactic but not semantic variation.<ref name=Webfunds>{{cite web |work=Webfunds |title=Ricardian Implementations |date=2016 |url=http://webfunds.org/guide/ricardian_implementations.html}}</ref><ref name=Batlin/> |
Popular formats such as [[JSON]] and [[Semantic Web]] formats are often, though not always, much less readable in raw form to non-programmers such as jurists, and much more subject to unbounded syntactic but not semantic variation.<ref name=Webfunds>{{cite web |work=Webfunds |title=Ricardian Implementations |date=2016 |url=http://webfunds.org/guide/ricardian_implementations.html}}</ref><ref name=Batlin/>{{Better source needed|reason=Self-published article, not a RS.|date=November 2022}} |
||
==Relationship to smart contracts== |
==Relationship to smart contracts== |
||
[[Smart contract]]s, as defined in the work of [[Nick Szabo]] are an abstract concept relating to the automated performance of an already agreed contract,<ref>{{cite web |last=Szabo |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Szabo |title=Smart Contracts |date=1994 |url=http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html |accessdate=2016-06-13 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306112751/http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html |archivedate=2016-03-06}}</ref> whereas the Ricardian contract is a design pattern to capture the intent of the agreement of the parties, before its performance. |
[[Smart contract]]s, as defined in the work of [[Nick Szabo]] are an abstract concept relating to the automated performance of an already agreed contract,<ref>{{cite web |last=Szabo |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Szabo |title=Smart Contracts |date=1994 |url=http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html |accessdate=2016-06-13 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306112751/http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html |archivedate=2016-03-06}}</ref> whereas the Ricardian contract is a design pattern to capture the intent of the agreement of the parties, before its performance.{{Citation needed|reason=Previous citation was to a self-published crypto blog|date=November 2022}} |
||
By means of hashes within as references or links to external documents, above, the Ricardian contract form easily extends to refer to code.<ref name=Clack/><ref name=Grigg2015>{{cite web |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=The Sum of all Chains – Let's Converge |date=2015 |work=Coinscrum |url=http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001556.html}}</ref> The explicit referral to the code can pass legitimacy from overarching legal prose to the code, thus implementing the concept of the smart contract.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Brown |first1=Richard Gendal |last2=Carlyle |first2=James |last3=Grigg |first3=Ian |last4=Hearn |first4=Mike |title=Corda: An Introduction |date=2016 |url=http://r3cev.com/s/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606024011/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f73743e4b051cfcc0b02cf/t/57bda2fdebbd1acc9c0309b2/1472045822585/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf |archivedate=2017-06-06 |url-status=dead}}</ref> |
By means of hashes within as references or links to external documents, above, the Ricardian contract form easily extends to refer to code.<ref name=Clack/><ref name=Grigg2015>{{cite web |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=The Sum of all Chains – Let's Converge |date=2015 |work=Coinscrum |url=http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001556.html}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=Self-published transcript of a talk, not a RS.|date=November 2022}} The explicit referral to the code can pass legitimacy from overarching legal prose to the code, thus implementing the concept of the smart contract.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Brown |first1=Richard Gendal |last2=Carlyle |first2=James |last3=Grigg |first3=Ian |last4=Hearn |first4=Mike |title=Corda: An Introduction |date=2016 |url=http://r3cev.com/s/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606024011/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f73743e4b051cfcc0b02cf/t/57bda2fdebbd1acc9c0309b2/1472045822585/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf |archivedate=2017-06-06 |url-status=dead}}</ref> |
||
Refactoring to describe blockchains and to integrate references to smart contract logic created a hybrid version of the Ricardian contract.<ref name=Grigg2015/><ref>{{cite web |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=On the intersection of Ricardian and Smart Contracts |date=2015 |url=http://iang.org/papers/intersection_ricardian_smart.html}}</ref> This form proposes a tuple of {prose, parameters, code} where the parameters can particularise or specialise the legal prose and the computer code in order to create a single deal out of a template or library of components.<ref name=Clack/> Also known as a Ricardian triple, it can describe blockchains, smart contracts, IoT devices and persons. |
Refactoring to describe blockchains and to integrate references to smart contract logic created a hybrid version of the Ricardian contract.<ref name=Grigg2015/><ref>{{cite web |last=Grigg |first=Ian |title=On the intersection of Ricardian and Smart Contracts |date=2015 |url=http://iang.org/papers/intersection_ricardian_smart.html}}</ref> This form proposes a tuple of {prose, parameters, code} where the parameters can particularise or specialise the legal prose and the computer code in order to create a single deal out of a template or library of components.<ref name=Clack/> Also known as a Ricardian triple, it can describe blockchains, smart contracts, IoT devices and persons. |
||
Revision as of 09:43, 10 November 2022
 | This article has an unclear citation style. (May 2018) |
The Ricardian contract, as invented by Ian Grigg in 1996, is a method of recording a document as a contract at law, and linking it securely to other systems, such as accounting, for the contract as an issuance of value.[1][2] It is robust through use of identification by cryptographic hash function, transparent through use of readable text for legal prose and efficient through markup language to extract essential information.
A Ricardian contract places the defining elements of a legal agreement in a format that can be expressed and executed in software.[3] The key is to make the format both machine-readable, such that they can easily be extracted for computational purposes, and readable as an ordinary text document such that lawyers and contracting parties may read the essentials of the contract conveniently.[citation needed]
From a legal perspective, it has been claimed the use of markup language embedded within a mostly legal prose document can lead to reduced transaction costs, faster dispute resolution, better enforceability and enhanced transparency.[better source needed][4][5] From a computing perspective, the Ricardian contract is a software design pattern to digitize documents and have them participate within financial transactions, such as payments, without losing any of the richness of the contracting tradition.[citation needed] Publication of the content and reference to that content by the unique cryptographic message digest is claimed to prevent frauds based on multiple presentations.[better source needed][5]
The method arises out of the work of Ian Grigg completed in the mid-1990s in contributions to Ricardo,[6][better source needed] a system of assets transfers that was built in 1995-1996 by Systemics and included the pattern. The system and the design pattern was named after David Ricardo in honour of his seminal contribution to international trade theory.
Definition
A Ricardian contract can be defined as a single document that is[1]
a) a contract offered by an issuer to holders,
b) for a valuable right held by holders, and managed by the issuer,
c) easily readable (like a contract on paper),
d) readable by programs (parsable like a database),
e) digitally signed,
f) carrying the keys and server information, and
g) allied with a unique and secure identifier
Diagram
The Ricardian contract separates the agreement of parties across time and domain. On the left of the "Bowtie" representation,[clarification needed] the negotiation and formation of a legally binding contract leads to a single parent document that defines all of the intent of that agreement. On the right, the performance of that agreement might involve many transactions to be accounted for, logically separated from the meaning of the issue.[citation needed] The join between the legal world and the accounting world is formed by the hash — each transaction locks in the terms and conditions of the precise deal of the parties by including the hash of the contract in every relevant transaction record, yet the operation of the transactions and the issuance of the contract are cleanly separated and thus perverse incentives are eliminated.[7]
Legal relationship
The role of the Ricardian contract is to capture the contractual relationship between contracting parties to assist later performance of that contract by programs.[citation needed] In its contractual form, it is the recording of an offer from an issuer to a holder. The offer is signed digitally within the format by the offerer, typically using a plaintext digital signature such as provided by OpenPGP.
The acceptance of the contract is typically formed by signing/agreeing to a transaction that refers to the hash of that contract. Within the context of a high-performance payment system, a secure payment will cite the hash of the contract of the instrument being paid, as well as paying and payee parties and a quantity of units.[8] In a smart contracts system, the acceptance would be performed by operating the contract's code to move the state of the agreement forward.
Signing and intent
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2022) |
Typically, the signing of the contract by any party is overtly performed by use of a private key. The original offerer's signature is typically over the original document, and is then appended to form a fully binding, readable offer for the assets described in the document.[citation needed]
Later participation by parties in the contract such as payments or smart contract performance will typically sign over a hash identifier (as generated by a cryptographic hash function) over the signed original document. In contrast to the initial signature, the use of the hash of the contract within following transactions also signals intent, and forms a covert signature over the contract. Although private key signatures are well studied and are subject of legal frameworks such as the European digital signature directive, Grigg suggests that the trail of hashes – entanglement – forms a more effective evidence of intent[1] than a private key signature.
Variations
| This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2022) |
If the agreement is more complicated than a single document can describe, the documents can be chained: An acceptance of an offer can be a Ricardian contract that includes the hash of the offer, or the acceptance can include the entire contents of the earlier phase, a design pattern known as Russian dolls[citation needed] used by both OpenTransactions and OpenBazaar. These referral patterns can be conducted multiple times to create a chain or hierarchy of elements.
Formats
| This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2022) |
A relevant decision is choosing a representation of the text such that markup can be included to assist the software agent while maintaining readability.[citation needed] To be a Ricardian contract, it has to be parsable both by the program and by a human reader.[9]
"Readability" is necessarily defined relative to some viewing interface. Embedded markup systems such as XML are commonly viewed not as "raw source", but with much richer formatting applied. Jurists need not view "raw" JSON, LaTeX, or XML any more than Web users must view raw HTML or hexadecimal PNG images. Some visually impaired readers necessarily use very different interfaces. Even "plain text" editors differ in the treatment of [character sets] and [character encodings], OS-specific line-ends, fonts, tabs, wrapping of long lines, etc. Even a simple text editor can be hacked to mis-display text in a desired way, just like any other software can. But with standard, non-binary data representations underneath users can compare multiple viewing solutions, and with text-based representations as opposed to binary files it is practical to check the source document directly when desired (or, as commonly done, to view fully-formatted and raw views simultaneously).
An ideal document format should also support a canonical form hash (cryptographic hash function), that is, have a way of delivering a hash over contents that does not change due to common serialisation and transmission artifacts. LaTeX and XML are suitable because their source is generally readable by humans, and they have widely-available renderers. XML also has a standardized Canonical XML form which is specifically designed to facilitate cryptographic hashing, and neutralizes minor syntactic variations such as insignificant whitespace, platform-specific line-ends, order of attributes, etc.
Popular formats such as JSON and Semantic Web formats are often, though not always, much less readable in raw form to non-programmers such as jurists, and much more subject to unbounded syntactic but not semantic variation.[10][11][better source needed]
Relationship to smart contracts
Smart contracts, as defined in the work of Nick Szabo are an abstract concept relating to the automated performance of an already agreed contract,[12] whereas the Ricardian contract is a design pattern to capture the intent of the agreement of the parties, before its performance.[citation needed]
By means of hashes within as references or links to external documents, above, the Ricardian contract form easily extends to refer to code.[3][13][better source needed] The explicit referral to the code can pass legitimacy from overarching legal prose to the code, thus implementing the concept of the smart contract.[14]
Refactoring to describe blockchains and to integrate references to smart contract logic created a hybrid version of the Ricardian contract.[13][15] This form proposes a tuple of {prose, parameters, code} where the parameters can particularise or specialise the legal prose and the computer code in order to create a single deal out of a template or library of components.[3] Also known as a Ricardian triple, it can describe blockchains, smart contracts, IoT devices and persons.
Intellectual property
The Ricardian contract is free of any intellectual property restrictions, other than the request that any implementations cite the author and link to the paper.[16] It was fully published as design and implementation in 1996, and was described in an academic paper presented in 2004. No patent or other intellectual property mechanism was ever asserted by its inventor, Ian Grigg nor by Systemics.
References
- ^ a b c Grigg, Ian (2004). "The Ricardian Contract". Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting. IEEE: 25–31. doi:10.1109/WEC.2004.1319505. ISBN 0-7695-2184-3.
- ^ Chohan, Usman W. (11 December 2017). "What is a Ricardian Contract?". Cyberspace Law eJournal. Social Science Research Network. SSRN 3085682.
- ^ a b c Clack, Christopher D.; Bakshi, Vikram A.; Braine, Lee (2016). Smart Contract Templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions. arXiv:1608.00771.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
NagaShakelwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Nagy, Daniel A. (2006). "On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems". Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Business and Telecommunications. Communications in Computer and Information Science. 3: 26–38. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75993-5_3. ISBN 978-3-540-75992-8.
- ^ Grigg, Ian (February 2000). Financial Cryptography in 7 Layers. Proceedings of Financial Cryptography Conference 2000. LNCS. Vol. 1, 962. Anguilla, British West Indies: Springer Verlag.
- ^ Franco, Pedro (2014). "14.5 Open Transactions". Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 240–241. ISBN 978-1-119-01916-9.
- ^ Howland, Gary (1996). "Development of an Open and Flexible Payment System". Systemics.
- ^ Wörner, Dominic; von Bomhard, Thomas; Schreier, Yan-Peter; Bilgeri, Dominic (2016). "The Bitcoin Ecosystem - Disruption beyond Financial Services?" (Document).
{{cite document}}: Cite document requires|publisher=(help); Unknown parameter|url=ignored (help) - ^ "Ricardian Implementations". Webfunds. 2016.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Batlinwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Szabo, Nick (1994). "Smart Contracts". Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 13 June 2016.
- ^ a b Grigg, Ian (2015). "The Sum of all Chains – Let's Converge". Coinscrum.
- ^ Brown, Richard Gendal; Carlyle, James; Grigg, Ian; Hearn, Mike (2016). "Corda: An Introduction" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2017.
- ^ Grigg, Ian (2015). "On the intersection of Ricardian and Smart Contracts".
- ^ Grigg, Ian (2016). "IP Concerns over Ricardian Contracts". Financial Cryptography.