3 ms·
This could be very interesting. The argument that "you put your money behind a pickable lock so you gave permission to anyone with lock-picking skills to take
by dkarl 5y ago
This could be very interesting. The argument that "you put your money behind a pickable lock so you gave permission to anyone with lock-picking skills to take it" is a classic immature and self-serving understanding of the law, but in this case the system was built with the declared intention of creating a space where that logic applies.
How do you appeal to the courts after doing business under an explicit shared understanding that the courts are unnecessary and irrelevant? It will be difficult to prove that you had any expectation of the other party obeying any norms other than doing everything within its technical power to benefit from the transactions.
- tshaddox 5y ago> in this case the system was built with the declared intention of creating a space where that logic applies Why do you suppose this is the case? Surely that’s not in any way true.
- Qworg 5y agoFor my part, you can't declare "we're building this outside of the bounds of the legal system, but we're going to lean on that self-same legal system when it fails". You have to pick between outside and inside the law.
- tshaddox 5y agoBut you seem to be picking whatever is your least favorite defense of blockchain tech from Twitter and declaring that it's the only "purpose" of the whole category of technologies. This is just as preposterous as saying "locks are built with the declared intention of protecting private property without any government protection of property, therefore if someone breaks your lock and steals your stuff you can't just go to the police and expect them to help."
- kwertyoowiyop 5y agoWhich country’s court do you appeal to? Does the transaction take place where either or both parties are? Or where the server is? What if the server DB is in one country, the outward-facing API is in another, and the actual transaction API in another? Yikes.
- huac 5y agomy recollection is that illegal contracts are invalid and do not override the rule of law. you and I can sign a paper which says 'we agree not to be held accountable to US law'; but because that contract is illegal (you cannot just declare yourself to be immune to law), our subsequent actions are still accountable to US law. you could mug me the second after I sign that paper, and that would still be illegal.