8 ms·

Then its not lost and isn't a problem, to the current owners. The prior owners were hodling it wrong.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
That’s not how common and property law work, and the enforcement of the law is catching up. I think that’s the real problem crypto proponents have; that the law is recognizing digital assets as assets, and the property rights that go along with that. Tangentially, I support my tax dollars being spent pursuing these threat actors for as long as it takes, with sentencing guidelines in line with the value stolen.
- wincy 5y ago
  So for $800 they go to prison for 3 years, and for anything over $50,000,000 they get a commuted sentence and parole? That’s generally how it works in the US legal system.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    I wish this was more of a joke, but this is exactly how the US “justice” system works. You must buy your freedom, or you will suffer a disproportionate and unjust sentence. Remember, they are not courts of “truth” and “justice”; they are Courts of Law.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    This person below stole $1.6 million in PPP loans and is going to jail for 9 years. The system can and does work, although outliers can be unfortunate. Overall, arguably, the US justice system functions and rule of law is needed for a functioning society. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/30/houston-man-spent-ppp-money-on-a-lambo-and-got-9-years/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/30/houston-man-spent-ppp...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 5y ago
  I would support my tax dollars being spent on standardized smart contract development and standardized authentication and custodial relationships, analogous to the IETF which started out with US federal government funding and laid the frameworks for internet usefulness.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    There's nothing in contract law preventing parties to agree on the automated execution of software when certain criteria are met. It's just that it doesn't trump contract law and it's not generally a barrier for implementing contracts digitally.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Right, insightful for some but I don’t think it disagrees or adds to anything I wrote? I’ll try again: I would like my taxpayer dollars going to smart contract development, auditing, and promulgating industry standards in a collaborate way. Just an additional signer for industry participants to consider or lean on the opinion of. Conditional execution on a distributed ledger with standardized conditions could easily get its own legal carveout to trump the analogous contract law, no different than someone someone agreeing to arbitration, but even as far as the local law invalidating private sector legalise when a parallel smart contracts is involved to limit possible behaviors already.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    The standard smart contracts are published by OpenZeppelin. Looking into these hacks, however, there are shockingly vulnerable unexpected and otherwise useless “features” in them. I don’t think that the government could standardize contracts, but they could and really ought to be in the lead over threat prevention, incident response, and notification, because they are the only entity that can link on-chain to off-chain data.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I’ve held this opinion from before OpenZeppelin existed, and I am glad they have helped tremendously. Governments can be a collaborative coding participant as we use this technology to re-evaluate the concept of governance and what redundancies the world actual needs to handle disputes or control behaviors with the pooled capital of taxpayers and the credit markets. Right now this conversation has been limited to “adversary or not”, and that’s also shortsighted. Fortunately they’ve all moved too slow and there is enough capital within the crypto ecosystem to capture them. So I dont think it will be an organic growth from here to this reality, just consensus flippenings as wealthy backers direct public agencies and legislatures to “do the needful”. As you might imagine, this was a much more extreme position to publicly have 6 years ago. But less absurd now, still not something to say on TV or in a web 2.0 office setting but at a bar or conference its understandable by people now, yay speculation driving innovation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 5y ago
  Common and property law rely on locating the assets and the owner and then establishing jurisdiction to sanction and recover the assets. Decade old best practices for using crypto assets circumvents all of this. Ignoring the best practices leads to the assets being seized in the first place as well as persecution of the thief. Using the best practices prevents seizure from an independent private thief or the state actor thief, so you see its not even about the government and its inflated sense of relevance.

That’s not how common and property law work, and the enforcement of the law is catching up. I think that’s the real problem crypto proponents have; that the law is recognizing digital assets as assets, and the property rights that go along with that. Tangentially, I support my tax dollars being spent pursuing these threat actors for as long as it takes, with sentencing guidelines in line with the value stolen.

wincy 5y ago
So for $800 they go to prison for 3 years, and for anything over $50,000,000 they get a commuted sentence and parole? That’s generally how it works in the US legal system.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  I wish this was more of a joke, but this is exactly how the US “justice” system works. You must buy your freedom, or you will suffer a disproportionate and unjust sentence. Remember, they are not courts of “truth” and “justice”; they are Courts of Law.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  This person below stole $1.6 million in PPP loans and is going to jail for 9 years. The system can and does work, although outliers can be unfortunate. Overall, arguably, the US justice system functions and rule of law is needed for a functioning society. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/30/houston-man-spent-ppp-money-on-a-lambo-and-got-9-years/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/11/30/houston-man-spent-ppp...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vmception 5y ago
I would support my tax dollars being spent on standardized smart contract development and standardized authentication and custodial relationships, analogous to the IETF which started out with US federal government funding and laid the frameworks for internet usefulness.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  There's nothing in contract law preventing parties to agree on the automated execution of software when certain criteria are met. It's just that it doesn't trump contract law and it's not generally a barrier for implementing contracts digitally.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Right, insightful for some but I don’t think it disagrees or adds to anything I wrote? I’ll try again: I would like my taxpayer dollars going to smart contract development, auditing, and promulgating industry standards in a collaborate way. Just an additional signer for industry participants to consider or lean on the opinion of. Conditional execution on a distributed ledger with standardized conditions could easily get its own legal carveout to trump the analogous contract law, no different than someone someone agreeing to arbitration, but even as far as the local law invalidating private sector legalise when a parallel smart contracts is involved to limit possible behaviors already.
- jl2718 5y ago
  The standard smart contracts are published by OpenZeppelin. Looking into these hacks, however, there are shockingly vulnerable unexpected and otherwise useless “features” in them. I don’t think that the government could standardize contracts, but they could and really ought to be in the lead over threat prevention, incident response, and notification, because they are the only entity that can link on-chain to off-chain data.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I’ve held this opinion from before OpenZeppelin existed, and I am glad they have helped tremendously. Governments can be a collaborative coding participant as we use this technology to re-evaluate the concept of governance and what redundancies the world actual needs to handle disputes or control behaviors with the pooled capital of taxpayers and the credit markets. Right now this conversation has been limited to “adversary or not”, and that’s also shortsighted. Fortunately they’ve all moved too slow and there is enough capital within the crypto ecosystem to capture them. So I dont think it will be an organic growth from here to this reality, just consensus flippenings as wealthy backers direct public agencies and legislatures to “do the needful”. As you might imagine, this was a much more extreme position to publicly have 6 years ago. But less absurd now, still not something to say on TV or in a web 2.0 office setting but at a bar or conference its understandable by people now, yay speculation driving innovation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vmception 5y ago
Common and property law rely on locating the assets and the owner and then establishing jurisdiction to sanction and recover the assets. Decade old best practices for using crypto assets circumvents all of this. Ignoring the best practices leads to the assets being seized in the first place as well as persecution of the thief. Using the best practices prevents seizure from an independent private thief or the state actor thief, so you see its not even about the government and its inflated sense of relevance.