4 ms·

From The DAO Terms: The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c7

by JorgeGT 10y ago

From The DAO Terms: The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. Basically, the code is the only authentic version of the contract. The attacker entered this contract and used its functionality as was programmed in the blockchain, he didn't modify a bit of the code. So it seems pretty legal.

cyphar 10y ago
It's fraud. It doesn't pass the officious bystander test.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Yes, this would be considered fraud in the US legal system, but that's not the point. * If you have to involve the legal system then the project has failed because the whole point was to have a contract enforcement mechanism which doesn't need a court system. * If a legal system can override the smart contract then there's no point to even having one since the ultimate authority still resides with the state.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > Yes, this would be considered fraud in the US legal system, but that's not the point. It is the point though. It is the only point that will matter. Since the writers of the software are US citizens, it's most likely that they will get sued if the transaction is not aborted. Any scenario where the money is not returned to investors will result in the investors suing people -- no matter how much conviction people have that the DAO should be outside of the courts. > * If you have to involve the legal system then the project has failed because the whole point was to have a contract enforcement mechanism which doesn't need a court system. $50 million is missing, and people feel wronged as a result. I wouldn't call it a "failure of the project" that it is accountable to the law. Nobody is above the law, not even programmers that write software which governs itself. > * If a legal system can override the smart contract then there's no point to even having one since the ultimate authority still resides with the state. Again, nothing and nobody is above the law. You'd have to overrule the Magna Carta if you wanted to change that. And that's just not going to happen.
    - thoth 10y ago
      >$50 million is missing, and people feel wronged as a result. So what is the plan going forward - if either party in a "smart contract" feels disadvantaged by the outcome - they go running to the law and outside jurisdictions for remedy? Isn't avoiding all that overhead the point of have a "smart contract" in the first place? It's an interesting concept and I'd like to see the project survive (from a technology standpoint; I not risking any cash with it)... maybe it is good they did a faceplant 6 weeks in and can start answering some very hard questions that have come up.

by JorgeGT 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

It's fraud. It doesn't pass the officious bystander test.

Spivak 10y ago
Yes, this would be considered fraud in the US legal system, but that's not the point. * If you have to involve the legal system then the project has failed because the whole point was to have a contract enforcement mechanism which doesn't need a court system. * If a legal system can override the smart contract then there's no point to even having one since the ultimate authority still resides with the state.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > Yes, this would be considered fraud in the US legal system, but that's not the point. It is the point though. It is the only point that will matter. Since the writers of the software are US citizens, it's most likely that they will get sued if the transaction is not aborted. Any scenario where the money is not returned to investors will result in the investors suing people -- no matter how much conviction people have that the DAO should be outside of the courts. > * If you have to involve the legal system then the project has failed because the whole point was to have a contract enforcement mechanism which doesn't need a court system. $50 million is missing, and people feel wronged as a result. I wouldn't call it a "failure of the project" that it is accountable to the law. Nobody is above the law, not even programmers that write software which governs itself. > * If a legal system can override the smart contract then there's no point to even having one since the ultimate authority still resides with the state. Again, nothing and nobody is above the law. You'd have to overrule the Magna Carta if you wanted to change that. And that's just not going to happen.
  - thoth 10y ago
    >$50 million is missing, and people feel wronged as a result. So what is the plan going forward - if either party in a "smart contract" feels disadvantaged by the outcome - they go running to the law and outside jurisdictions for remedy? Isn't avoiding all that overhead the point of have a "smart contract" in the first place? It's an interesting concept and I'd like to see the project survive (from a technology standpoint; I not risking any cash with it)... maybe it is good they did a faceplant 6 weeks in and can start answering some very hard questions that have come up.