Lawyers and escrow agents and other human intermediaries take fees on transactions, usually proportional to the downside risk of a "bad" transaction (completed, but one party desires recourse for something).
If the risk is that well defined, then the cost of escrow seems wasteful if you could just automate the upside/downside in the Blockchain (not necessarily well defined yet). I don't think the package delivery service is even close to an interesting example, so I don't know why anyone would choose it. Packages need to be delivered. Automated contracts can only eliminate insurance middle-men, not physical logistics.
BTC advocates should focus on useful ways to simplify existing contracts (while paying very close attention to the profit structure of underwriting).
>If the risk is that well defined, then the cost of escrow seems wasteful if you could just automate the upside/downside in the Blockchain
You don't pay for them to calculate the risk though you pay for them to resolve the issue when there is a dispute. So using bitcoin wouldn't actually lower that cost/allow you to automate away any of that.
>Automated contracts can only eliminate insurance middle-men
The middle-men in most contracts are there for assurance. Bitcoin doesn't provide that even with m-of-n.
If the risk is that well defined, then the cost of escrow seems wasteful if you could just automate the upside/downside in the Blockchain (not necessarily well defined yet). I don't think the package delivery service is even close to an interesting example, so I don't know why anyone would choose it. Packages need to be delivered. Automated contracts can only eliminate insurance middle-men, not physical logistics.
BTC advocates should focus on useful ways to simplify existing contracts (while paying very close attention to the profit structure of underwriting).