4 ms·

But they so explicitly point to the code as the source of truth for the contract. Banking and trading firms use teams of lawyers to find loopholes in contracts

by achr2 10y ago

But they so explicitly point to the code as the source of truth for the contract. Banking and trading firms use teams of lawyers to find loopholes in contracts and laws all the time. Why would digital contracts (code) not have the same level of scrutiny / unscrupulous behaviour? Guaranteed if big money is at play in the system non-code based exploits will be used by firms just as often.

crazydoggers 10y ago
The parties of any contract are free to amend the contract. You're referring to a situation in which one party of a two party contract seeks to exploit the terms. In this case, which has an enourmas number of parties to the contract, 99.9% agree to amend the contract. I don't thinks much legal precedent for a contract with thousands of parties, but it also means that there's no simple legal "source of truth" to the contract.
- thrill 10y ago
  The parties of any contract are also free to exploit the contract's terms.
  - crazydoggers 10y ago
    What does that matter if the terms are changed?? The attacker exploited a contract that will be given new terms by the vast majority of the parties involved, which prevents his exploit. You could possibly claim that the contract requires 100% of all parties involved to amend, but I don't think a contract with such a larger number of parties has ever been dealt with by any legal system. Add to that, that the attacker almost certainly committed computer fraud, and the attacker seems to have little ground to stand on. Contracts (or loopholes in them) don't give you the right to break other laws.
- xg15 10y ago
  IANAL, but as far as I know, traditional contracts can be amended - under the condition that all concerned parties agree to the changes. Not 99.9% of the parties, all of them. As you say, that may be impractical with such a big number of parties, but impracticalities don't change the law. In fact, before the incident, Ethereum's rules were even stricter as in that there was no way at all to amend a contract. Which is why the current strategy against the attack is to modify Ethereum itself and hard code the attackers wallet into the platform code. The ones who are to "vote" on that proposal (because they are the only ones with the power to implement it) are the miners, not the DAO holders. I think this would be comparable with making a contract with a bunch of MPs - and when they find that the contract can be exploited, they lobby to amend contract law itself and add a clause that deals specifically with your contract.

by achr2 10y ago

crazydoggers 10y ago

The parties of any contract are free to amend the contract. You're referring to a situation in which one party of a two party contract seeks to exploit the terms. In this case, which has an enourmas number of parties to the contract, 99.9% agree to amend the contract. I don't thinks much legal precedent for a contract with thousands of parties, but it also means that there's no simple legal "source of truth" to the contract.

thrill 10y ago
The parties of any contract are also free to exploit the contract's terms.
- crazydoggers 10y ago
  What does that matter if the terms are changed?? The attacker exploited a contract that will be given new terms by the vast majority of the parties involved, which prevents his exploit. You could possibly claim that the contract requires 100% of all parties involved to amend, but I don't think a contract with such a larger number of parties has ever been dealt with by any legal system. Add to that, that the attacker almost certainly committed computer fraud, and the attacker seems to have little ground to stand on. Contracts (or loopholes in them) don't give you the right to break other laws.
xg15 10y ago
IANAL, but as far as I know, traditional contracts can be amended - under the condition that all concerned parties agree to the changes. Not 99.9% of the parties, all of them. As you say, that may be impractical with such a big number of parties, but impracticalities don't change the law. In fact, before the incident, Ethereum's rules were even stricter as in that there was no way at all to amend a contract. Which is why the current strategy against the attack is to modify Ethereum itself and hard code the attackers wallet into the platform code. The ones who are to "vote" on that proposal (because they are the only ones with the power to implement it) are the miners, not the DAO holders. I think this would be comparable with making a contract with a bunch of MPs - and when they find that the contract can be exploited, they lobby to amend contract law itself and add a clause that deals specifically with your contract.