4 ms·

Moreover the "hacker" is simply doing something that is allowed by the contract so it's hard to argue that these hacks are even unlawful.

by lottin 5y ago

hhvn 5y ago
You could argue all hacking is just doing something that is (accidentally) allowed by the target system.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Not really, because the entire premise of smart contracts is that the code IS the only representation of the contract. In normal software systems there’s an intent and then an implementation. There’s no explicit guarantee they are identical, which is exactly why there are subsystems to allow e.g. refunds or transaction invalidations.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    That's just ignoring the intent part.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    That premise is clear, proponents of smart contracts would like it to become true, but as of now that premise is simply not true anywhere in the world. There may be obvious practical difficulties in identifying the counterparty and enforcing a judgement in them, but if that becomes possible (and if $10m is at stake, perhaps it might become possible, bounties, etc) then the argument that "code is the only representation, and this is what the code said, so this was lawful" is not valid, as it contradicts both contract law and fraud statutes.
    - lottin 5y ago
      But code is the only representation, like it or not. The smart contract is code and nothing else.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        That's almost true - there often is also some out-of-bounds communication about that code before the smart contract is implemented, which can help establish intent, which matters a lot in resolving disputes about a contract. But the actual contract terms between the parties and facts like is this contract valid at all, who owns what and who owes what to whom are ultimately determined by contract law, not by the smart contract, like it or not. The smart contract may determine possession of certain things, and in many cases it would be uncontested and there it has a purpose of just doing the contract settlement automatically, but as soon as there's a dispute, then the legal ownership and any claims would be settled according to contract law, not according to what the code says.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Yeah, that's my question with all this. I mean, ransomware is obviously illegal. Finding vulnerabilities in smart contracts - well, "the code is the contract", so the hacker is just executing the code as it was published. I mean, the whole reason Ethereum Classic exists is because a subset of Ether folks felt that restoring the funds in the original DAO hack was contrary to the whole "the code is the contract" ethos.
- splintercell 5y ago
  If Code is law then hard fork is also law. Otherwise those Ethereum classic people are saying that code is law but only the DSL of Solidity. Outside updatable Ethereum engine code is not law.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    > If Code is law then hard fork is also law Not at all. All crypto currency only has value because other people collectively choose to "believe" a certain chain. Usually there is global consensus of which chain is the "true" chain, but there have been many times in the past that one group has decided to follow a different fork for whatever reason. I mean, Bitcoin has Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold. The value that gets allocated to a particular fork just depends on the number of other people that choose to follow that chain.
    - splintercell 5y ago
      You were just giving me arbitrary facts after saying “no”. I get this feeling you don’t understand what I’m talking about. The biggest code is lowercase was after the Dao fork when Ethereum hard forked. The argument given by Therion classic people was that since code is law it’s unethical and incorrect to hard for the funds away from the hacker, because he now legitimately owns the stolen funds.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Ignoring contract law (which would not blindly accept "the code is the contract", and people's ethos does not allow them to arbitrarily decide how contracts shall work in the country where they live), the fact that some action was explicitly written in a contract that was properly signed by everyone does not necessarily mean that the action was lawful. For example, if you intentionally misrepresent what the contract means to deceive someone into signing a contract, then is fraud, and it also invalidates the contract. If the fraudster already got the money according to that (invalid) contract, no matter if it's cash or crypto, they possess it, but it's not lawfully theirs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
RhodoGSA 5y ago
Not only unlawful, but unknowable. Monero and other privacy focused coins contain no heads of address names. Once it's in monero, you can create a new wallet and send it there and no one would ever be the wiser.

Moreover the "hacker" is simply doing something that is allowed by the contract so it's hard to argue that these hacks are even unlawful.

by lottin 5y ago

Moreover the "hacker" is simply doing something that is allowed by the contract so it's hard to argue that these hacks are even unlawful.

hhvn 5y ago

You could argue all hacking is just doing something that is (accidentally) allowed by the target system.

ethanbond 5y ago
Not really, because the entire premise of smart contracts is that the code IS the only representation of the contract. In normal software systems there’s an intent and then an implementation. There’s no explicit guarantee they are identical, which is exactly why there are subsystems to allow e.g. refunds or transaction invalidations.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  That's just ignoring the intent part.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  That premise is clear, proponents of smart contracts would like it to become true, but as of now that premise is simply not true anywhere in the world. There may be obvious practical difficulties in identifying the counterparty and enforcing a judgement in them, but if that becomes possible (and if $10m is at stake, perhaps it might become possible, bounties, etc) then the argument that "code is the only representation, and this is what the code said, so this was lawful" is not valid, as it contradicts both contract law and fraud statutes.
  - lottin 5y ago
    But code is the only representation, like it or not. The smart contract is code and nothing else.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      That's almost true - there often is also some out-of-bounds communication about that code before the smart contract is implemented, which can help establish intent, which matters a lot in resolving disputes about a contract. But the actual contract terms between the parties and facts like is this contract valid at all, who owns what and who owes what to whom are ultimately determined by contract law, not by the smart contract, like it or not. The smart contract may determine possession of certain things, and in many cases it would be uncontested and there it has a purpose of just doing the contract settlement automatically, but as soon as there's a dispute, then the legal ownership and any claims would be settled according to contract law, not according to what the code says.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Yeah, that's my question with all this. I mean, ransomware is obviously illegal. Finding vulnerabilities in smart contracts - well, "the code is the contract", so the hacker is just executing the code as it was published. I mean, the whole reason Ethereum Classic exists is because a subset of Ether folks felt that restoring the funds in the original DAO hack was contrary to the whole "the code is the contract" ethos.

splintercell 5y ago
If Code is law then hard fork is also law. Otherwise those Ethereum classic people are saying that code is law but only the DSL of Solidity. Outside updatable Ethereum engine code is not law.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  > If Code is law then hard fork is also law Not at all. All crypto currency only has value because other people collectively choose to "believe" a certain chain. Usually there is global consensus of which chain is the "true" chain, but there have been many times in the past that one group has decided to follow a different fork for whatever reason. I mean, Bitcoin has Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold. The value that gets allocated to a particular fork just depends on the number of other people that choose to follow that chain.
  - splintercell 5y ago
    You were just giving me arbitrary facts after saying “no”. I get this feeling you don’t understand what I’m talking about. The biggest code is lowercase was after the Dao fork when Ethereum hard forked. The argument given by Therion classic people was that since code is law it’s unethical and incorrect to hard for the funds away from the hacker, because he now legitimately owns the stolen funds.
PeterisP 5y ago
Ignoring contract law (which would not blindly accept "the code is the contract", and people's ethos does not allow them to arbitrarily decide how contracts shall work in the country where they live), the fact that some action was explicitly written in a contract that was properly signed by everyone does not necessarily mean that the action was lawful. For example, if you intentionally misrepresent what the contract means to deceive someone into signing a contract, then is fraud, and it also invalidates the contract. If the fraudster already got the money according to that (invalid) contract, no matter if it's cash or crypto, they possess it, but it's not lawfully theirs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

RhodoGSA 5y ago

Not only unlawful, but unknowable. Monero and other privacy focused coins contain no heads of address names. Once it's in monero, you can create a new wallet and send it there and no one would ever be the wiser.