5 ms·
All exploits are technically some version of “just doing what the code allows”, I don’t see how that would change whether or not a hack/theft actually occurred.
by philangist 5y ago
All exploits are technically some version of “just doing what the code allows”, I don’t see how that would change whether or not a hack/theft actually occurred.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoReminds me of a Team Fortress 2 griefing video where they kept putting turrets underneath the map that couldn't be killed but could shoot players. "If they didn't want you to do that then why did they put it in the game?"
- dragonwriter 5y agoOne view of smart contracts is that the code defines the intent/agreement, so if the code allows it, the it is, ipso facto, not theft. Of course,
- nkrisc 5y agoSeems like these smart contacts should include written contracts as well to outline what the code is intended to do, if you can’t rely on the code.
- crooked-v 5y agoAt that point, why have the smart contract? If you want 'automation', just get a trustworthy third party to execute the financials for you , as is already done with (for example) most real estate contracts.
- solveit 5y ago> trustworthy third party Merits aside, sidestepping the need for this is the whole point of blockchain.
- withinboredom 5y agoApparently you can’t even trust the um, paper, it’s written on
- nkrisc 5y agoWhy have smart contracts indeed, if executing the code in the contract is called a "hack." Perhaps in the case in the article a trusted third party would have been superior and there wouldn't be $10M missing.