At least physical exile hasn’t worked very well in the past. States realized on soil imprisonment or capital punishment was preferable as exile produced the most effective opponents of states. Exile could produce the most motivated opponents of systems and code. System architects might not want systems rigged against the type of processes that produced them.
Also, personal reputation implies positive identification of persons vice plausible identification. Isn’t it enough to simply delist concerns or entities that censor or attempt to censor end user action or freedom? Personal reputation is trading in enclosure vice preserving open access.
Another issue is with contract, aside from the simple conditional or transactional as in a “Smart Contract”. Even as a last resort why make promises we can’t be sure we can keep? Why “trade liberty for security,” when for doing so we may “deserve” neither but also get neither. Contract is enclosure. Think of NDAs. Think of doing business with a contract laden entity. Many have tried to get a rid of contract (including the communists) but haven’t found an acceptable substitute for what is almost an attempt to make law between parties. Open systems may be the replacement because the only commitment is to openness.
Aside from openness and not violating it there aren’t any promises or strings.
The vending machine model is a practical example. If I put a quarter in the vending machine its a contract of sorts. I may not get what I bargained for. I may at first be upset and even want to strike the machine but anger will generally fall short of not wanting vending machines around. There is a kind of slippage, or good enough or fault tolerance that can replace contract and maybe that is kind of contract implied here but I think the word is dangerous. Some may say 97% isn’t good enough for mission critical but does anyone think contract is all that stable of a mechanism anymore? Was it ever? Is buyer beware plus contract enough? It won’t replace testing, verification and study.
Contract in the context of Maidsafe still sounds like formal agreements vice promises with appeal to the legal community for remedies. Is that a good idea? Appeal to the legal community? The appeal of the notion of contract is understandable. Contracts are formal promises meant to make the world more predictable and put some measure of trust in place of risk. But can they really deliver what they promise. They are more like agreements now. They can reduce risk but the odds of victory in contract cases is something like a coin toss %50. In old style contract each side bargained as hard as they could without regard for the other side so as to make a more objective basis for parties attempting to judge contract disputes when looking back at the original intents. Now there are ideas of fairness and having to consider the other side when bargaining and those are getting built into the contract and ideas of fairness over ride the original intents. Contracts need safety valves for both sides now so one isn’t sharp dealing or a party found to be in an unconscionable situation. With a %50 chance of being made whole or getting the other side to perform, the mechanism doesn’t necessarily deliver what it promises. Freedom of contract, or freedom from contract- why get involved in that tradition of enclosure? Its got some record keeping value but it seems too rigid.