4 ms·

Let me give you another point. Let's say you are playing a game and at one point you win several million virtual coins out of that game. The creators of the g

Let me give you another point. Let's say you are playing a game and at one point you win several million virtual coins out of that game. The creators of the game claim that you have used a cheat and you respectfully give them back a reference that states : "cheats are allowed, because the game is bug free anyway". The virtual coins you won at that game have actually zero value in the real world, only in some virtual communities where people seems to trade them. If let's say the jurisdiction of that case is in Switzerland ( where the company game-creator is based ) and a judge should make a decision ... You are telling me, that under any circumstances, being absolutely sure the judge will say that this is a crime and that this was a "cheat" so you should return back all the virtual coins? Not so sure.

powera 10y ago
This actually has happened at both online and real casinos. In general, if the player intended to exploit an issue they knew about they have to return the money, if they randomly benefited they do not.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vessenes 10y ago
We don't know what a judge will say, of course, or in what jurisdiction. But, look up equitable fraud if you'd like to understand the law a bit. Two parties can't usually contract around the rights of a third. In this case, many are harmed. Judges apply the law with the aims of justice in mind. And, that's just civil -- e.g. Does the thief owe money back plus harm damages? The criminal tests here seem really easy to meet to my mind. This is the sort of case every aggressive prosecutor who wants to make a name would love: Assholes vs Grandmas, and assholes who have publicly stated they did it already. I would think theDAO itself will be sued in short order, regardless of outcome. If the thief really wants to make money, maybe they should escrow the funds and sue theDAO for damages.
stult 10y ago
There was a similar case a few years ago, where a guy made off with hundreds of thousands of dollars by exploiting a bug in a video poker machine. The casinos sued him, claiming the money was fraudulently obtained. His lawyer claimed he had won by entering a combination of buttons that he was legally entitled to enter and so there was no fraud. The court agreed and the guy won his court case. Here, whether a court decides that his ether coins were fraudulently obtained is going to depend on how the court interprets the contract in question. These ethereum contracts are supposed to be fully integrated (meaning all of the contract terms are contained therein and no outside terms can be introduced). Since the attacker's actions were explicitly authorized by the contract (since the contract is the code), then it's entirely possible a court will find that it wasn't fraud. The really key question is whether the contract is integrated, which is basically the central contract law concept behind ether in the first place. However, I suspect a court would not be friendly toward the idea of eliminating dispute resolution. Especially an American court. It militates against many of the core common law and constitutional principles of American jurisprudence. I expect that a court will rule that the contract is void because of unilateral mistake. When one party misunderstands the terms of a contract, and the other party is aware of this and exploits it, the court will generally grant rescission (cancelling the contract and putting the parties back in the position they were before the contract, e.g. by transferring the ether coins back to their former owners) or reformation (rewriting the contract terms to reflect what the mistaken party thought they were). One can argue that the point of ether is to eliminate mistake and similar doctrines that account for human fallibility, but the court will probably say that you can't contract away a doctrine about contract formation itself. Anyway, it would be a super interesting law suit, and definitely would challenge many of ether's most important legal implications.

powera 10y ago

This actually has happened at both online and real casinos. In general, if the player intended to exploit an issue they knew about they have to return the money, if they randomly benefited they do not.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vessenes 10y ago

We don't know what a judge will say, of course, or in what jurisdiction. But, look up equitable fraud if you'd like to understand the law a bit. Two parties can't usually contract around the rights of a third. In this case, many are harmed. Judges apply the law with the aims of justice in mind. And, that's just civil -- e.g. Does the thief owe money back plus harm damages? The criminal tests here seem really easy to meet to my mind. This is the sort of case every aggressive prosecutor who wants to make a name would love: Assholes vs Grandmas, and assholes who have publicly stated they did it already. I would think theDAO itself will be sued in short order, regardless of outcome. If the thief really wants to make money, maybe they should escrow the funds and sue theDAO for damages.

stult 10y ago

There was a similar case a few years ago, where a guy made off with hundreds of thousands of dollars by exploiting a bug in a video poker machine. The casinos sued him, claiming the money was fraudulently obtained. His lawyer claimed he had won by entering a combination of buttons that he was legally entitled to enter and so there was no fraud. The court agreed and the guy won his court case. Here, whether a court decides that his ether coins were fraudulently obtained is going to depend on how the court interprets the contract in question. These ethereum contracts are supposed to be fully integrated (meaning all of the contract terms are contained therein and no outside terms can be introduced). Since the attacker's actions were explicitly authorized by the contract (since the contract is the code), then it's entirely possible a court will find that it wasn't fraud. The really key question is whether the contract is integrated, which is basically the central contract law concept behind ether in the first place. However, I suspect a court would not be friendly toward the idea of eliminating dispute resolution. Especially an American court. It militates against many of the core common law and constitutional principles of American jurisprudence. I expect that a court will rule that the contract is void because of unilateral mistake. When one party misunderstands the terms of a contract, and the other party is aware of this and exploits it, the court will generally grant rescission (cancelling the contract and putting the parties back in the position they were before the contract, e.g. by transferring the ether coins back to their former owners) or reformation (rewriting the contract terms to reflect what the mistaken party thought they were). One can argue that the point of ether is to eliminate mistake and similar doctrines that account for human fallibility, but the court will probably say that you can't contract away a doctrine about contract formation itself. Anyway, it would be a super interesting law suit, and definitely would challenge many of ether's most important legal implications.