The old saying "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on" could be tweaked for modern times as "an online agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on"

Most kinds of agreements are enforceable if you have proof. Digital proof is still proof

I would think that a valid digital contract would involve 2 cryptographic digital signatures. Anything less than that is just a glorified, easily spoofed, text document
- Cryptographic signatures are good.
  But courts don't really require that. Evidence is just one side presenting things, if the other side doesn't dispute it, then they just continue court proceedings like its all valid. If it gets disputed, then if its Docusign (99% of the time its Docusign), then the court will subpoena Docusign for all information related to the document: Time of signature, Device, IP address, Email address, Phone numbers, everything. Also, there is usually other evidence to corroborate, such as text messages, phone call logs, etc, which would further prove the contracts legitimacy.
  Giving an offer to purchase a house is usually done via Docusign.
  However, the actual purchase agreement and closing documents are all done through actual paper and pen.
  So basically, digital signatures are good enough for small enough agreements, but its not yet ready for like serious bussiness.
- Not the point. Like the person you replied to said, as long as you have proof then in many jurisdictions it doesn't matter how the agreement was made.
  You can create a company here with a handshake (literally).
- NZ law just says it has to be adequate for the intended purpose: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0035/latest/whole.html#DLM154837
  (1) Subject to subsection (2), a legal requirement for a signature other than a witness’ signature is met by means of an electronic signature if the electronic signature—
  (a) adequately identifies the signatory and adequately indicates the signatory’s approval of the information to which the signature relates; and
  (b) is as reliable as is appropriate given the purpose for which, and the circumstances in which, the signature is required.
  (2) A legal requirement for a signature that relates to information legally required to be given to a person is met by means of an electronic signature only if that person consents to receiving the electronic signature.
- Ohh how i wish the average person realised this.
But you can't have proof for digital agreements. Was I of sound mind when I accepted them? Did I accept them by accident? Was it me or somebody else on my device that accepted them? How can you prove any of this?
- “No your honor, I was drunk when bought those bitcoins at the peak so I couldn’t legally enter an agreement, I want a refund”
  Sure that’ll work
- There are presumptions that you were of sound mind and it was you. Unsurprisingly, courts are full of weasely, pro se people who waste everybody's time because they, very much incorrectly, think that they can get out of agreements by going into court and making the brilliant, one of a kind argument of "but your honor, they can't prove that I clicked it. I was hacked/someone else must have logged in as me!" People do this all the time and they lose all the time. Modern commerce literally would not function without these presumptions.
  Edit: also, fwiw, there are exceptions but generally speaking verbal agreements were and still are very much valid, whether written or not, unless the agreement fell into certain categories (e.g., sale of land). Same deal, annoying people think they can outsmart the system by just saying "but your honor, none of this was ever put to paper." They are, with important exceptions, also generally wrong.

I think by now the number of online contracts I enter vastly outnumbers the number of paper contracts.

End user license agreement, terms is service, privacy policy, cookie consent agreement, service level agreement, warranty and return policy, subscription agreement, etc. i don’t even know how many contracts I’ve signed, let alone what they contain.

You could say that! Companies often put shit in the EULA that isn't enforceable. Kinda like most non-competes aren't enforceable. You cannot sign your rights away.

Much like wage theft, it's on you to know your rights and stand up for them. We really ought to have more orgs fighting to make people aware of their legal options.

How do you think the rich got rich?! Sure, some had starting capital, but that don't last. There are always vultures looking to steal from you, take advantage of you. The rich stay rich, and gain more riches, because they know their legal options. And the rest of us take it up the ass because we don't.

Any agreement is worth only as much as the proof that it happened.

No no. The modern day phrase would be "An online agreement isn't worth the text file it's saved to......unless of coarse that online agreement is backed jp by a mega corporation, in which case fuck you peasant! We'll even enforce things that AREN'T in the deal! And the judges will side with us!"

I mean, it's not the kind of phrase that rolls off the tongue, but it's accurate.

We'll even enforce things that AREN'T in the deal!
they are now, because they reserved the right to change the terms whenever the hell they want.
- Yeah.
  I was joking.....but it was one of those jokes where I just say the truth really really loudly, and then we all laugh because it's the only way we can cope with the rampant corruption in every aspect of our lives.

You can print it out. Haven’t you ever seen judge Judy?