4 ms·

Whoever the hacker was, all they did was exercise a contract according to its terms. I know people disagree and that this conversation has been had innumerous t

Whoever the hacker was, all they did was exercise a contract according to its terms. I know people disagree and that this conversation has been had innumerous times by now, but I'm still going to state the obvious: they did nothing ~~wrong~~ illegal. Don't do contracts as self-executing code and then bitch and moan about intents and spirits when things don't go how you envisioned. The actual crime featured in the article is an exchange employee leaking transaction details of one their customers. I also wonder how we could possibly take something out of Chainalysis' black box as anything but a silly gag. It's supposed to be valid because they swear by it?

quesomaster9000 5y ago
If the 'smart contract' is really considered a contract then you may be correct, but it comes down to whether or not textualism is accepted in this case - is it purely a legal matter and highly dependent upon the jurisdiction where interpretation or do other laws overrule the more strict pedantic approach. The crux of the matter is the special nature of immutable programmatic contracts and the ledger not being in any one jurisdiction, and whether or not this makes it a special case and a new body of law is necessary. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the courts will see it that way, but they're not exactly keeping up with the global nature of the internet either, let alone blockchains. Is it implicit that by interacting with an on-chain contract you're inherently accepting its terms in a legally binding way? We just need Team America to swoop in and "Save The Day™" with an extraordinary rendition and 30 years of entirely justified and "Absolutely Not Cruel™" solitary confinement - a proportionate and career making response for some ladder climbing crime fighting desk jockey at the DOJ.
- grappler 5y ago
  The community handled the situation in a manner appropriate to the medium. They decided to follow an altered chain that did not include the transactions they objected to. A minority disagreed and followed the original chain, which continues to this day and can be traded on major exchanges. You can buy and sell on either or both of those chains, or not, as you like. So given all that, is there still a problem?
aliswe 5y ago
no offense but I think this argument is silly. one cannot reduce an act to simply pushing keys on a keyboard for example.

quesomaster9000 5y ago

If the 'smart contract' is really considered a contract then you may be correct, but it comes down to whether or not textualism is accepted in this case - is it purely a legal matter and highly dependent upon the jurisdiction where interpretation or do other laws overrule the more strict pedantic approach. The crux of the matter is the special nature of immutable programmatic contracts and the ledger not being in any one jurisdiction, and whether or not this makes it a special case and a new body of law is necessary. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the courts will see it that way, but they're not exactly keeping up with the global nature of the internet either, let alone blockchains. Is it implicit that by interacting with an on-chain contract you're inherently accepting its terms in a legally binding way? We just need Team America to swoop in and "Save The Day™" with an extraordinary rendition and 30 years of entirely justified and "Absolutely Not Cruel™" solitary confinement - a proportionate and career making response for some ladder climbing crime fighting desk jockey at the DOJ.

grappler 5y ago
The community handled the situation in a manner appropriate to the medium. They decided to follow an altered chain that did not include the transactions they objected to. A minority disagreed and followed the original chain, which continues to this day and can be traded on major exchanges. You can buy and sell on either or both of those chains, or not, as you like. So given all that, is there still a problem?

aliswe 5y ago

no offense but I think this argument is silly. one cannot reduce an act to simply pushing keys on a keyboard for example.