3 ms·
It isn’t theft. The whole point of the “smart contract” nonsense is that the code is the exact legal contract. What is “meant” is not meant to be relevant and
by olliej 5y ago
It isn’t theft.
The whole point of the “smart contract” nonsense is that the code is the exact legal contract. What is “meant” is not meant to be relevant and the ability to argue about such things in court is considered a flaw that these contracts are meant to be fixing.
So someone obeyed the terms of the contract and earned coins in it exchange.
By all the definitions that crypto folk have been throwing around this is the correct result, and if people didn’t like the terms of the contract they didn’t have to accept it.
- DreamWalker1 5y agoYou are right. So he played by the rules and got $31M. The point is, the "good" exchanges with worth of billions $ weren't not hacked yet. So that puts a lot of trust in them. You basically have the same scam in clasical finance. There are a lot of examples, even one that caused a financial crisis. So let's say it can be a good thing that "bad code" or "bad asset management" is discovered early.