3 ms·

You'll need a stronger defense than that in court because courts absolutely create and deal in gray areas where technical fine lines exist. What you need to ar

You'll need a stronger defense than that in court because courts absolutely create and deal in gray areas where technical fine lines exist. What you need to argue is that the the smart contracts were valid contracts that the creators intended to and had opportunity to understand and that their creation was their act of negotiation of a position. It isn't really a stretch, but with amounts like this probably more diligence would have been due than that. Calling it theft is ridiculous on the other hand.

Calwestjobs 1y ago
it can be said that laws are social contract
- kulahan 1y ago
  I disagree simply on the principle that nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.
  - esperent 1y ago
    > nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract. Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest. Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that. But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world. > Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is. Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      > Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world. I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view. It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit. (On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)
      - kulahan 1y ago
        This was indeed my stance, thank you!
    - dullcrisp 1y ago
      I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though. But then it’s usually hard to tell what’s important to philosophers.
      - esperent 1y ago
        > I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though Legally, a contract must be entered into voluntarily by both parties. If either party is coerced into joining, then it is no longer considered to be a contract. I assume that philosophers use the same meaning of the word contract.
        dullcrisp 1y ago
        But you’d have to draw a distinction between “I have to sell my company to Microsoft because they’re the only ones with the expertise to run it,” and “Microsoft sent someone to hold a gun to my head until I signed this paper even though I actually have other options.” In this case it seems more like the former since no one is really actively combing the woods for hermits and forcibly integrating them into society. I guess it’s not unimaginable for something like that to happen, but I don’t think you could say that that’s reason that most of us are part of society. I do guess you could argue that point, but the argument would have to be that society is actively taking away viable alternatives to force people who otherwise would not have to have to join it, not that such alternatives never existed in the first place.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    Social Handcuffs
Brybry 1y ago
In the indictment[1] he's not charged with theft. He's charged with: 1) wire fraud (the smart contracts/swap exploit) 2) unauthorized damage to a protected computer (running the exploit on the ethereum network) 3) attempted hobbs act extortion (contacting kyberswap to attempt to gain control of kyberswap in exchange for return of some of the crypto) 4) money laundering conspiracy 5) money laundering (knowingly laundering the proceeds of the previous, including paying an undercover agent to help bypass a blacklist to do so) [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  Hat tip for that indictment document. Here is the official press release (parent page to your doc?) from the Dept of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/canadian-national-charged-stealing-approximately-65-million-cryptocurrency-two-defi https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/canadian-national-charg...
- BlackFly 1y ago
  Yes, I cite that in another comment. The article calls it theft, well specifically they say "stole" but that implies theft.

Calwestjobs 1y ago

it can be said that laws are social contract

kulahan 1y ago
I disagree simply on the principle that nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.
- esperent 1y ago
  > nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate. You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract. Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest. Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that. But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world. > Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is. Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    > Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world. I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view. It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit. (On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)
    - kulahan 1y ago
      This was indeed my stance, thank you!
  - dullcrisp 1y ago
    I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though. But then it’s usually hard to tell what’s important to philosophers.
    - esperent 1y ago
      > I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though Legally, a contract must be entered into voluntarily by both parties. If either party is coerced into joining, then it is no longer considered to be a contract. I assume that philosophers use the same meaning of the word contract.
      - dullcrisp 1y ago
        But you’d have to draw a distinction between “I have to sell my company to Microsoft because they’re the only ones with the expertise to run it,” and “Microsoft sent someone to hold a gun to my head until I signed this paper even though I actually have other options.” In this case it seems more like the former since no one is really actively combing the woods for hermits and forcibly integrating them into society. I guess it’s not unimaginable for something like that to happen, but I don’t think you could say that that’s reason that most of us are part of society. I do guess you could argue that point, but the argument would have to be that society is actively taking away viable alternatives to force people who otherwise would not have to have to join it, not that such alternatives never existed in the first place.
- protocolture 1y ago
  Social Handcuffs

Brybry 1y ago

In the indictment[1] he's not charged with theft. He's charged with: 1) wire fraud (the smart contracts/swap exploit) 2) unauthorized damage to a protected computer (running the exploit on the ethereum network) 3) attempted hobbs act extortion (contacting kyberswap to attempt to gain control of kyberswap in exchange for return of some of the crypto) 4) money laundering conspiracy 5) money laundering (knowingly laundering the proceeds of the previous, including paying an undercover agent to help bypass a blacklist to do so) [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/media/1388036/dl?inline

throwaway2037 1y ago
Hat tip for that indictment document. Here is the official press release (parent page to your doc?) from the Dept of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/canadian-national-charged-stealing-approximately-65-million-cryptocurrency-two-defi https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/canadian-national-charg...
BlackFly 1y ago
Yes, I cite that in another comment. The article calls it theft, well specifically they say "stole" but that implies theft.