5 ms·

> The legal implications of this hack are more interesting than the hack itself. Because the code of the DAO is a legally-binding contract, how can you argue so

> The legal implications of this hack are more interesting than the hack itself. Because the code of the DAO is a legally-binding contract, how can you argue so as to convince a judge that some behavior of the program is really a bug? The DAO provides nothing other than its own code to specify how it is supposed to work. For example, there is no specification in a formal language, or proofs as to its correctness. If the Ethereum team knew how to test software, they might have produced something like that, which also could have provided corroborating evidence that any bug was unintended. You could say the same about many hacks that involve money and assets. Judge, the software let me in! That was the original intention of the programmers! To get away with something like this you're going to have to convince a judge or jury that exploiting a bug in a software program entitles you to a huge payout. I suspect this might fall under unjust enrichment.

Lab3301 8y ago
> You could say the same about many hacks that involve money and assets. Judge, the software let me in! That was the original intention of the programmers! The difference being that ethereum smart contracts are supposed to be autonomous, hence "The Code is the Contract". If you need or rely on outside parties then why not just have a standard contract?
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I always understood it to be more of the automating of contract fulfillment. That's probably not the universal take. My take is there is a place for automated smart contracts, and a place for traditional contracts. For instance, you can hardly prove beyond any doubt that a package was delivered successfully and so payment can be dispersed. Too much room for fraud there. But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine. AFAIU it's been working quite well for microgrid projects. (Specifically smart contracts and ethereum as a whole, not really the DAO. Don't know much about that)
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine. A centralized system works fine for those situations though. Adding Eth into the mix doesn't improve anything in this scenario.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      Maybe so. Horses got people from A to B just fine as well. I'm not sold one way or the other yet, but the amount of trust some institutions have taken on and abused has been a bit ridiculous the past few years (and emerged unscathed themselves while their clients were left to deal with it).
      - root_axis 8y ago
        Cryptocurrency is wholly impractical to the point of being totally useless with regard to displacing trust in centralized institutions.
        52-6F-62 8y ago
        Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing. Anecdotally, centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past. It’s starting to look like a bit of a wash to me—not that I’m racing to close my accounts. Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on.
        root_axis 8y ago
        > Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing. I don't need to convince anyone; it is a self-evident truth that cryptocurrency is wholly impractical for displacing centralized institutions. It's self-evident because it hasn't happened and there isn't even a whiff of a possibility that it could. Cryptocurrencies are a strange and interesting technical novelty, but they are closer to a video game than anything resembling a challenge to currently centralized institutions. > centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past You keep repeating that but its irrelevant. Whether or not centralized institutions are breaking people's trust, cryptocurrency is obviously not a solution to the problem. > not that I’m racing to close my accounts Of course you're not because cryptocurrency is obviously not an alternative to a bank account in the same way that a drone is not an alternative to a car. > Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on. I'm not telling you to "write off" anything, what does that even mean? If you want to close all your bank accounts and meet up with people in the streets to trade cryptocurrency tokens in order to manage typical financial obligations then that is your prerogative; it doesn't mean that such a lifestyle has any appreciable impact on the existence of centralized institutions.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  They are autonomous, but sometimes have unintentional outcomes. Same goes for written contracts. Sometimes they're poorly written/worded and loopholes are found.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Psyonic 8y ago
The difference here is that the DAO was openly asserting the claim that it would surpass the need for lawyers and the legal system. That software-enforced contracts were all you needed. Traditional software makes no such claim.
- atomical 8y ago
  So basically they think they can rewrite contract law because they said so?
  - Psyonic 8y ago
    there was a lot of bold, revolutionary thinking in the early days of crypto, and definitely a lot of naivety. There still is, but the realities of the world have tempered it a bit. but yeah, basically.

Lab3301 8y ago

> You could say the same about many hacks that involve money and assets. Judge, the software let me in! That was the original intention of the programmers! The difference being that ethereum smart contracts are supposed to be autonomous, hence "The Code is the Contract". If you need or rely on outside parties then why not just have a standard contract?

52-6F-62 8y ago
I always understood it to be more of the automating of contract fulfillment. That's probably not the universal take. My take is there is a place for automated smart contracts, and a place for traditional contracts. For instance, you can hardly prove beyond any doubt that a package was delivered successfully and so payment can be dispersed. Too much room for fraud there. But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine. AFAIU it's been working quite well for microgrid projects. (Specifically smart contracts and ethereum as a whole, not really the DAO. Don't know much about that)
- root_axis 8y ago
  > But for many other digital services I think it would work out fine. A centralized system works fine for those situations though. Adding Eth into the mix doesn't improve anything in this scenario.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Maybe so. Horses got people from A to B just fine as well. I'm not sold one way or the other yet, but the amount of trust some institutions have taken on and abused has been a bit ridiculous the past few years (and emerged unscathed themselves while their clients were left to deal with it).
    - root_axis 8y ago
      Cryptocurrency is wholly impractical to the point of being totally useless with regard to displacing trust in centralized institutions.
      - 52-6F-62 8y ago
        Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing. Anecdotally, centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past. It’s starting to look like a bit of a wash to me—not that I’m racing to close my accounts. Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on.
        root_axis 8y ago
        > Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing. I don't need to convince anyone; it is a self-evident truth that cryptocurrency is wholly impractical for displacing centralized institutions. It's self-evident because it hasn't happened and there isn't even a whiff of a possibility that it could. Cryptocurrencies are a strange and interesting technical novelty, but they are closer to a video game than anything resembling a challenge to currently centralized institutions. > centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past You keep repeating that but its irrelevant. Whether or not centralized institutions are breaking people's trust, cryptocurrency is obviously not a solution to the problem. > not that I’m racing to close my accounts Of course you're not because cryptocurrency is obviously not an alternative to a bank account in the same way that a drone is not an alternative to a car. > Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on. I'm not telling you to "write off" anything, what does that even mean? If you want to close all your bank accounts and meet up with people in the streets to trade cryptocurrency tokens in order to manage typical financial obligations then that is your prerogative; it doesn't mean that such a lifestyle has any appreciable impact on the existence of centralized institutions.
hanniabu 8y ago
They are autonomous, but sometimes have unintentional outcomes. Same goes for written contracts. Sometimes they're poorly written/worded and loopholes are found.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Psyonic 8y ago

The difference here is that the DAO was openly asserting the claim that it would surpass the need for lawyers and the legal system. That software-enforced contracts were all you needed. Traditional software makes no such claim.

atomical 8y ago
So basically they think they can rewrite contract law because they said so?
- Psyonic 8y ago
  there was a lot of bold, revolutionary thinking in the early days of crypto, and definitely a lot of naivety. There still is, but the realities of the world have tempered it a bit. but yeah, basically.