OpenLaw Was Innovative
Apparently it was an ecosystem designed to facilitate the deployment of "real world contracts for Ethereum", which was a novel idea at the time of its inception (even if funded by Consensys, as most things are in this space).
Here's their site: https://openlaw.io
Idea Has No Value on ETH Now
Since their move to 'Proof of Stake', Ethereum is technically no longer a blockchain. That's an idea that few (or hardly any) will espouse for fear of facing the wrath of all the "powers that be" in this space, but what was just stated is an accurate statement about blockchain.
Blockchain is premised on a chain of hash functions through the inclusion of the prior block within the data of the subsequent one (in perpetuity) with the goal of ensuring that any amendments made to a prior transaction that had already been mined would require re-computing all subsequent blocks.
However, there is nothing to "recompute" anymore. Therefore, the purpose of the hash chain construction is nonexistent within this context because the "work" portion of blockchain can no longer be proven (as the resource requirement was denominated in energy, not assets, there's a difference).
If You Disagree
That's fine - I expect it. But note that my explanation thoroughly explains the reason for my disposition.
Apparently it was an ecosystem designed to facilitate the deployment of "real world contracts for Ethereum", which was a novel idea at the time of its inception (even if funded by Consensys, as most things are in this space).
Here's their site: https://openlaw.io
Idea Has No Value on ETH Now
Since their move to 'Proof of Stake', Ethereum is technically no longer a blockchain. That's an idea that few (or hardly any) will espouse for fear of facing the wrath of all the "powers that be" in this space, but what was just stated is an accurate statement about blockchain.
Blockchain is premised on a chain of hash functions through the inclusion of the prior block within the data of the subsequent one (in perpetuity) with the goal of ensuring that any amendments made to a prior transaction that had already been mined would require re-computing all subsequent blocks.
However, there is nothing to "recompute" anymore. Therefore, the purpose of the hash chain construction is nonexistent within this context because the "work" portion of blockchain can no longer be proven (as the resource requirement was denominated in energy, not assets, there's a difference).
If You Disagree
That's fine - I expect it. But note that my explanation thoroughly explains the reason for my disposition.