7 ms·

"Code is Law" is a profoundly immature idea, and I am surprised anyone other than children take it seriously. The law is not, and never has been, something that

"Code is Law" is a profoundly immature idea, and I am surprised anyone other than children take it seriously. The law is not, and never has been, something that is read literally and taken at face value. This is the entire reason that judges and lawyers exist. Saying "The code let me do it, so it should be legal" is a bit like if I leave a "free to a good home" sign on a plant pot outside my home, and it leans on my car. It does not mean you are permitted to take my car, no matter how "obvious" it seems to you that it should.

Dumblydorr 1y ago
Someone who disagrees with you is a profoundly immature child? Your analogy is confusing, you’re comparing a free plant on the roadside to 63 million dollars on a crypto exploit?
- tempfile 1y ago
  Not always, just in this case :-) What's actually confusing in the analogy? Are you actually confused or just pretending? The point is that just because a sign says something under a literal reading, it doesn't mean that it's what was intended, or what's binding. If there's a piece of paper on my car saying "free to a good home", I probably didn't intend that you can take my car (or my house, or whatever). It's not very different to the fact that a 0-day exploit on your bank's web server does not entitle the thief to your money.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  A lot of people who disagree with me also happen to be profoundly immature child. I didn't say that one follows from the other, you added that.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
throwway120385 1y ago
just in case though, I usually hang the sign on signposts in the public right of way in case someone tries to steal my car.
thomassmith65 1y ago
This was satisfying to read: “Code is not law. Law is law,” Mr. Gottlieb wrote in a lengthy thread to Mr. Medjedovic on X in late October, 2021. “And what you did was not a ‘clever trade.’ It was market manipulation. It’s illegal. And people go to prison for it.” Tech exceptionalism is eternal. It takes the occasional Napster or PirateBay failure to disabuse a generation in the tech community of the triumphalist nonsense it talks itself into believing. But then the next generation comes along and doesn't know better.
- lelandbatey 1y ago
  While satisfying, that quote is also hilariously one-sided in it's perspective. I imagine that lawyer in the courtroom saying something like the following: > Yes, my client did take a stack $100 bills and leave it on the sidewalk atop an elaborate contract proclaiming that those $100 bills should be given to the very next person going by the name of "John" who found this stack of $100 bills upon the sidewalk, including specific language stating that anyone, even an unforeseen party meeting such criteria, would be entitled to that money. And indeed, my client signed and dated that document in triplicate. Yes my client did go to great lengths to write such a detailed and specific contract, and he was quite sure that such a contracts terms would be sufficient to ensure that only my clients brother, John Williams, would be entitled to the money, that same John Williams who lives across town. The brother would never find that money though, because the villainous, criminal, thief of a man John Smith stole that money from off the sidewalk when walking out of Smiths front door! Smith would have you believe that he was merely fulfilling the terms of a fortuitous open ended contract foolishly entered into by an idiot who failed to think critically about the terms said idiot entered into. That, however, is not important! I am here today to say that the terms of such a contract are not what is relevant, what is relevant is how upset my client is that he no longer has his money. I can prove that Smith stole that money, no matter what the documents signed by my client say! Those contracts are not law, only the law is law. What Smith did was not a "clever deal", it was theft. Which is illegal, and people go to prison for it. A bit over dramatic, but that's how the lawyers statement reads to me.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
globular-toast 1y ago
Lots of things have never been, that doesn't make them a bad idea. Your example is in the real world where there are things like weather and other variables that can't be accounted for. It's necessary for law to be based on common sense in such an environment. But why can't we imagine removing this element of ambiguity? In a computer system you can account for all variables and completely define the environment. This would make interpretation of the law much easier which is surely a good thing. But this kind of thing needs formal verification to work properly, which we are not good at. Trying to do it without formal verification is silly. But the broader idea is by no means "childish".
- tempfile 1y ago
  I can't imagine removing this element of ambiguity because programs are not perfect. They are a representation of some mental process, and they frequently contain mistakes. They are also, as you admit, unable to capture states of the real world accurately. Unless your smart contract is unrelated to the real world (in which case, why bother with it?) this will be a problem.
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    The idea with formal verification is it would make it possible and feasible to prove a program is correct. But this is a hypothetical and until that is possible it doesn't really work. It might never be possible. So today I do agree with you. It just turns into a game of "ha-ha, you didn't read the contract closely enough!"

Dumblydorr 1y ago

Someone who disagrees with you is a profoundly immature child? Your analogy is confusing, you’re comparing a free plant on the roadside to 63 million dollars on a crypto exploit?

tempfile 1y ago
Not always, just in this case :-) What's actually confusing in the analogy? Are you actually confused or just pretending? The point is that just because a sign says something under a literal reading, it doesn't mean that it's what was intended, or what's binding. If there's a piece of paper on my car saying "free to a good home", I probably didn't intend that you can take my car (or my house, or whatever). It's not very different to the fact that a 0-day exploit on your bank's web server does not entitle the thief to your money.
jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
A lot of people who disagree with me also happen to be profoundly immature child. I didn't say that one follows from the other, you added that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

throwway120385 1y ago

just in case though, I usually hang the sign on signposts in the public right of way in case someone tries to steal my car.

thomassmith65 1y ago

This was satisfying to read: “Code is not law. Law is law,” Mr. Gottlieb wrote in a lengthy thread to Mr. Medjedovic on X in late October, 2021. “And what you did was not a ‘clever trade.’ It was market manipulation. It’s illegal. And people go to prison for it.” Tech exceptionalism is eternal. It takes the occasional Napster or PirateBay failure to disabuse a generation in the tech community of the triumphalist nonsense it talks itself into believing. But then the next generation comes along and doesn't know better.

lelandbatey 1y ago
While satisfying, that quote is also hilariously one-sided in it's perspective. I imagine that lawyer in the courtroom saying something like the following: > Yes, my client did take a stack $100 bills and leave it on the sidewalk atop an elaborate contract proclaiming that those $100 bills should be given to the very next person going by the name of "John" who found this stack of $100 bills upon the sidewalk, including specific language stating that anyone, even an unforeseen party meeting such criteria, would be entitled to that money. And indeed, my client signed and dated that document in triplicate. Yes my client did go to great lengths to write such a detailed and specific contract, and he was quite sure that such a contracts terms would be sufficient to ensure that only my clients brother, John Williams, would be entitled to the money, that same John Williams who lives across town. The brother would never find that money though, because the villainous, criminal, thief of a man John Smith stole that money from off the sidewalk when walking out of Smiths front door! Smith would have you believe that he was merely fulfilling the terms of a fortuitous open ended contract foolishly entered into by an idiot who failed to think critically about the terms said idiot entered into. That, however, is not important! I am here today to say that the terms of such a contract are not what is relevant, what is relevant is how upset my client is that he no longer has his money. I can prove that Smith stole that money, no matter what the documents signed by my client say! Those contracts are not law, only the law is law. What Smith did was not a "clever deal", it was theft. Which is illegal, and people go to prison for it. A bit over dramatic, but that's how the lawyers statement reads to me.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

globular-toast 1y ago

Lots of things have never been, that doesn't make them a bad idea. Your example is in the real world where there are things like weather and other variables that can't be accounted for. It's necessary for law to be based on common sense in such an environment. But why can't we imagine removing this element of ambiguity? In a computer system you can account for all variables and completely define the environment. This would make interpretation of the law much easier which is surely a good thing. But this kind of thing needs formal verification to work properly, which we are not good at. Trying to do it without formal verification is silly. But the broader idea is by no means "childish".

tempfile 1y ago
I can't imagine removing this element of ambiguity because programs are not perfect. They are a representation of some mental process, and they frequently contain mistakes. They are also, as you admit, unable to capture states of the real world accurately. Unless your smart contract is unrelated to the real world (in which case, why bother with it?) this will be a problem.
- globular-toast 1y ago
  The idea with formal verification is it would make it possible and feasible to prove a program is correct. But this is a hypothetical and until that is possible it doesn't really work. It might never be possible. So today I do agree with you. It just turns into a game of "ha-ha, you didn't read the contract closely enough!"