2 ms·

> For example, if DRNK costs $1 per unit, but I find out that by putting in $1.25 I get 2 units, have I actually exploited the machine? Is it not reasonable to

by IanCal 4y ago

> For example, if DRNK costs $1 per unit, but I find out that by putting in $1.25 I get 2 units, have I actually exploited the machine? Is it not reasonable to assume that discount was intended? What if you remove the last part? What if you know, clearly, that your interaction what not what the designer wanted? > So, that's what I'd say the difference is. A smart contract defines all the interactions that are valid. Implementations are not specifications. What do you mean by "valid"?

cogman10 4y ago
> What if you know, clearly, that your interaction what not what the designer wanted? Well, then they should have designed a better vending machine, shouldn't they? It may be unethical but I certainly wouldn't call it illegal. Again, back to the gas analogy, I don't think someone pumping gas at $0.20 is breaking the law even though that's clearly not the intent. > What do you mean by "valid"? None of the interactions for this attack were using the system in a way it wasn't meant to be used. It wasn't exploiting code. It was buying and selling assets in a way that enriched the attacker. That is a valid interaction. Also, the whole point of these contracts IS that the code is the specification. That's the whole point of crypto in general. Trust nobody and let the blockchain determine truth.
UncleEntity 4y ago
> What if you know, clearly, that your interaction what not what the designer wanted? This is what I like to refer to as “stupid tax”. I’ve had cases where I put money into a soda machine and it gave me a drink plus more than I deposited into it. Or kicked out more than one item because one was stuck and my purchase obviously unstuck it. Does this make me a criminal? As an aside I used to work at a place with a soda machine that was basically like a slot machine with slightly higher payouts than one in Los Vegas. This was at a grocery warehouse and the drinks were at cost so “losing” your bet cost like a quarter. Probably designed that way, who knows?

by IanCal 4y ago

cogman10 4y ago

> What if you know, clearly, that your interaction what not what the designer wanted? Well, then they should have designed a better vending machine, shouldn't they? It may be unethical but I certainly wouldn't call it illegal. Again, back to the gas analogy, I don't think someone pumping gas at $0.20 is breaking the law even though that's clearly not the intent. > What do you mean by "valid"? None of the interactions for this attack were using the system in a way it wasn't meant to be used. It wasn't exploiting code. It was buying and selling assets in a way that enriched the attacker. That is a valid interaction. Also, the whole point of these contracts IS that the code is the specification. That's the whole point of crypto in general. Trust nobody and let the blockchain determine truth.

UncleEntity 4y ago

> What if you know, clearly, that your interaction what not what the designer wanted? This is what I like to refer to as “stupid tax”. I’ve had cases where I put money into a soda machine and it gave me a drink plus more than I deposited into it. Or kicked out more than one item because one was stuck and my purchase obviously unstuck it. Does this make me a criminal? As an aside I used to work at a place with a soda machine that was basically like a slot machine with slightly higher payouts than one in Los Vegas. This was at a grocery warehouse and the drinks were at cost so “losing” your bet cost like a quarter. Probably designed that way, who knows?