4 ms·

AFAIK the legal system still applies to crypto; the recourse when somebody hacks your smart contract is the same as when somebody defrauds you; you sue. Except

AFAIK the legal system still applies to crypto; the recourse when somebody hacks your smart contract is the same as when somebody defrauds you; you sue. Except with smart contracts you have more traceability as to what happened. And you don't need to make the smart contract explicitly subordinate to the law, they are as a matter of fact, because everything de facto is. This idea that code is law and crypto exists in a vacuum is complete delirium (although a popular one and sign that the scene has a lot of room to mature)

coffeedan 4y ago
I mean, anyone can sue for anything, but if you're suing for this, good luck: a) finding a judge/jury that understands it, and b) collecting
- mullingitover 4y ago
  The jury just needs to believe “this person stole something,” and there’s a good chance they’ll judge accordingly. At least there’s a good enough chance that it will happen that it will likely lead to an out of court settlement.
zarzavat 4y ago
The legal contract of the EVM is “you are allowed to execute any computationally legal sequence of instructions on the EVM”. At least that’s how it has always been presented. People who post smart contract code on the EVM are equal users of a shared computation infrastructure. If they want to put legal terms on who can use their smart contract and what for, they should need to make their own blockchain platform, because they certainly don’t own Ethereum. The law already regulates mistakes in traditional markets. If you accidentally sell your shares for a fraction of what they are worth, you cannot go to a judge and ask them to return the “stolen” shares. When you subject yourself to a mechanistic market system, the predictable operation of the system is more important than any participant’s bad fortunes.
- vageli 4y ago
  > The legal contract of the EVM is “you are allowed to execute any computationally legal sequence of instructions on the EVM”. Where is this contract? I've never seen it. The rest of your argument is based on this premise. The "legal contract" of a computer program is the same, yet we have laws on what you can and can't do to other people's computer programs. > The law already regulates mistakes in traditional markets. If you accidentally sell your shares for a fraction of what they are worth, you cannot go to a judge and ask them to return the “stolen” shares. Someone taking all the money from a smart contract you gave money to is not like your fictional example of a person selling their shares for the wrong value.

coffeedan 4y ago

I mean, anyone can sue for anything, but if you're suing for this, good luck: a) finding a judge/jury that understands it, and b) collecting

mullingitover 4y ago
The jury just needs to believe “this person stole something,” and there’s a good chance they’ll judge accordingly. At least there’s a good enough chance that it will happen that it will likely lead to an out of court settlement.

zarzavat 4y ago

The legal contract of the EVM is “you are allowed to execute any computationally legal sequence of instructions on the EVM”. At least that’s how it has always been presented. People who post smart contract code on the EVM are equal users of a shared computation infrastructure. If they want to put legal terms on who can use their smart contract and what for, they should need to make their own blockchain platform, because they certainly don’t own Ethereum. The law already regulates mistakes in traditional markets. If you accidentally sell your shares for a fraction of what they are worth, you cannot go to a judge and ask them to return the “stolen” shares. When you subject yourself to a mechanistic market system, the predictable operation of the system is more important than any participant’s bad fortunes.

vageli 4y ago
> The legal contract of the EVM is “you are allowed to execute any computationally legal sequence of instructions on the EVM”. Where is this contract? I've never seen it. The rest of your argument is based on this premise. The "legal contract" of a computer program is the same, yet we have laws on what you can and can't do to other people's computer programs. > The law already regulates mistakes in traditional markets. If you accidentally sell your shares for a fraction of what they are worth, you cannot go to a judge and ask them to return the “stolen” shares. Someone taking all the money from a smart contract you gave money to is not like your fictional example of a person selling their shares for the wrong value.