4 ms·

That’s a bit like saying that bank robbery proceeds should be considered the price of security consulting. You can’t just blithely wave away the spirit of the l

That’s a bit like saying that bank robbery proceeds should be considered the price of security consulting. You can’t just blithely wave away the spirit of the law and scienter as if it’s not a thing. There's a reason why "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is not the guiding principle for Western society.

Miner49er 5y ago
Yeah, except the biggest selling point of cryptocurrencies is that it's decentralized and above the law of any one government. The code is supposed to be law. So the true spirit of cryptocurrencies is that if there's a flaw in the smart contract, it's okay to exploit it.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
This reminds me of “every rule in the safety book was written in blood”. In a way, every security measure at a bank is because of a previous attack. Those “undocumented pen testers” did help create the security.
- otterley 5y ago
  True - I think we can agree, though, that the bank robbers are not entitled to the money for their efforts.
  - chx 5y ago
    except the bank robbers clearly broke rules. these crypto heists exploit loose rules.
    - otterley 5y ago
      What difference does that make? Why is one right and the other wrong?
burnished 5y ago
That doesn't seem to follow. If code is law, then what spirit is there to interpret? That was the intentional deviation from the scenario where we all understood that rules couldn't be perfect and that we must strive towards the spirit of the law.
- otterley 5y ago
  > If code is law That's the point. It isn't, except in some fantasy world that does not exist. Let me put it this way: if you don’t think you could tell a judge this without getting laughed at, while you’re wearing an orange jumpsuit and ankle bracelets and chains, it’s probably not real.
  - burnished 5y ago
    You're going to point out where the code violates the law then, because it otherwise refers to normal agreements that get executed mechanically. You might be getting hung up on a phrase, that while awkward, isn't the point of contention here.
    - otterley 5y ago
      As a society, we've been dealing with the problem of contractual errors for centuries. Even the best drafters make mistakes, and those errors have had to be remedied -- often through litigation -- to effectuate the parties' actual intent. Our courts have even voided fully-agreed contracts between parties to further the public interest. I also can't help but wonder whether these sorts of activities would be prohibited conduct under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), as the elements seem to be met: "[Whoever] knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value" - where "authorized access" is liberally construed to mean the intent of the author of the mechanism in question.
      - burnished 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Miner49er 5y ago

Yeah, except the biggest selling point of cryptocurrencies is that it's decentralized and above the law of any one government. The code is supposed to be law. So the true spirit of cryptocurrencies is that if there's a flaw in the smart contract, it's okay to exploit it.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

This reminds me of “every rule in the safety book was written in blood”. In a way, every security measure at a bank is because of a previous attack. Those “undocumented pen testers” did help create the security.

otterley 5y ago
True - I think we can agree, though, that the bank robbers are not entitled to the money for their efforts.
- chx 5y ago
  except the bank robbers clearly broke rules. these crypto heists exploit loose rules.
  - otterley 5y ago
    What difference does that make? Why is one right and the other wrong?

burnished 5y ago

That doesn't seem to follow. If code is law, then what spirit is there to interpret? That was the intentional deviation from the scenario where we all understood that rules couldn't be perfect and that we must strive towards the spirit of the law.

otterley 5y ago
> If code is law That's the point. It isn't, except in some fantasy world that does not exist. Let me put it this way: if you don’t think you could tell a judge this without getting laughed at, while you’re wearing an orange jumpsuit and ankle bracelets and chains, it’s probably not real.
- burnished 5y ago
  You're going to point out where the code violates the law then, because it otherwise refers to normal agreements that get executed mechanically. You might be getting hung up on a phrase, that while awkward, isn't the point of contention here.
  - otterley 5y ago
    As a society, we've been dealing with the problem of contractual errors for centuries. Even the best drafters make mistakes, and those errors have had to be remedied -- often through litigation -- to effectuate the parties' actual intent. Our courts have even voided fully-agreed contracts between parties to further the public interest. I also can't help but wonder whether these sorts of activities would be prohibited conduct under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), as the elements seem to be met: "[Whoever] knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value" - where "authorized access" is liberally construed to mean the intent of the author of the mechanism in question.
    - burnished 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]