2 ms·

That sounds a lot like a problem with the sign enforcer, not the second guy named Jack... You can't just expect people not to take free money laying out on a p

• wizzwizz4 5y ago
  But it doesn't belong to that Jack. You can interpret the “smart contract” one of two ways: • As a device to programmatically ensure the “owner” of some resource is the one who controls it; or • As a system that decides who controls a resource, whomsoever controls the resource has a right to it, there can only be one. The sensible interpretation (imo) is the first one, unless we're doing away with our conception of property rights. (Which would be an interesting experiment, but given the philosophical background of a lot of this cryptocurrency stuff I don't think that's what's intended.)
• spywaregorilla 5y ago
  If we're really going to play this contrived example out. Let's say there's a camera watching the wallet, so Jack gets in trouble if he's caught doing this. The debate being had is whether the sign was sufficiently well written ("It's the code's fault") vs. whether the sign system is just a terrible idea regardless of sign quality and you should use normal societal systems to transfer the wallet.