4 ms·

>And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. That's not what happened here. What happened is that the crypto company

>And when people leave their home unlocked the thieves should get to keep their stuff. That's not what happened here. What happened is that the crypto company said, "Follow this contract," and their customer followed the contract and took their money, and then the crypto company was like, "But not like that!" Ostensibly, the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to decentralize financial control and not depend on governments for that service. If you then depend on governments the second you don't like what happens, there's no point to cryptocurrencies.

tempfile 2y ago
If you can't distinguish "not what I intended" from "not what I wanted" then there is probably no reasoning with you. Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  >Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. I have to admit, that's pretty funny. But I will point out that you did not make an argument in support of your position; you merely insulted me.
  - tempfile 2y ago
    I really didn't intend that as an insult! I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain. If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone, refuses to return any of it (even when offered several million dollars for their trouble), refuses to co-operate with the judges and the rest of civilised society, and just see "waa waa baby doesn't like his medicine" then I don't see how to actually reason with you. That's just a value difference, not really an insult.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      >I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain I think you overestimate how easy it is to distinguish between these two. A reasonable common example is people like Bernard Marantelli exploiting lotteries. The lottery does not intend for people to play as Marantelli does. You can (and people do) argue that he's stealing money, but should he go to jail for playing the lottery in a way "not intended by anyone"? I don't think so. It's the same with card counters at a casino. The casino can throw card counters out because they can decide who plays at their establishment, but it would be unreasonable to jail card counters for playing blackjack in a way casinos don't intend. >If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened. >refuses to return any of it (...) I did not comment on any of this at all. >I don't see how to actually reason with you This is dismissive and denies my ability to be convinced by reasonable arguments. It is insulting, even if it's not intended that way.
      - tempfile 2y ago
        I think both those cases are easy to decide, and are legitimate play. Even if they were not legitimate, I think the remedy is simple -- not jail, but at worst return the money that was taken. In this case, even if deciding the merit of the case is hard, there was a transparently reasonable remedy (return 90% of the funds, continue with your life) which Medjedovic rejected. More than just rejecting the offer, he then went on to launder the tokens through a mixer, fled the country, and has refused to put the funds in escrow while the case is decided in court. None of this is reasonable, in my opinion, and I am 100% ok with the legal system forcing him to comply. > This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened. I don't think it does, but you don't explain why, so there is not much to argue. It is hard to get an objective description of what happened, but as far as I can tell, the liquidity pools operated by Indexed Finance are governed by a smart contract, the smart contract contained a mistake, and by exploiting that mistake, Medjedovic was able to drain them completely. Can you explain to me in simple english how that is using the contract as intended? Note that "it's what the smart contract said" is not sufficient, for the same reason that "the web server allowed me to make that request" is not a defence against a charge of computer hacking. What the smart contract says is actually almost irrelevant. What is relevant is what it was intended to do. Incidentally, why should I be rooting for this guy? It seems like literally the only argument in favour of what he did here is "everything that is possible is fair". His extraction of money is purely parasitic, and aside from merely identifying the bug, he hasn't done any useful work at all. I would grant that this applies to the lottery and card counting examples too. But why should I care that he's having his money taken away?
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. Actually, in many parts of the US, you do not have to have any law education to become a judge in district courts.
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
It's like building a home on a land which has no system of law because you like anarchy, and then complaining when a fellow anarchist steals your stuff.

tempfile 2y ago

If you can't distinguish "not what I intended" from "not what I wanted" then there is probably no reasoning with you. Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. I have to admit, that's pretty funny. But I will point out that you did not make an argument in support of your position; you merely insulted me.
- tempfile 2y ago
  I really didn't intend that as an insult! I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain. If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone, refuses to return any of it (even when offered several million dollars for their trouble), refuses to co-operate with the judges and the rest of civilised society, and just see "waa waa baby doesn't like his medicine" then I don't see how to actually reason with you. That's just a value difference, not really an insult.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    >I just find it very easy to distinguish between a case where someone followed reasonable rules and got an outcome they didn't like, versus a case where someone found absurd rules - clearly not intended by anyone - and exploited them for an undeserved gain I think you overestimate how easy it is to distinguish between these two. A reasonable common example is people like Bernard Marantelli exploiting lotteries. The lottery does not intend for people to play as Marantelli does. You can (and people do) argue that he's stealing money, but should he go to jail for playing the lottery in a way "not intended by anyone"? I don't think so. It's the same with card counters at a casino. The casino can throw card counters out because they can decide who plays at their establishment, but it would be unreasonable to jail card counters for playing blackjack in a way casinos don't intend. >If you see a case where someone exploits a badly-coded computer program to take a hundred million dollars from someone This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened. >refuses to return any of it (...) I did not comment on any of this at all. >I don't see how to actually reason with you This is dismissive and denies my ability to be convinced by reasonable arguments. It is insulting, even if it's not intended that way.
    - tempfile 2y ago
      I think both those cases are easy to decide, and are legitimate play. Even if they were not legitimate, I think the remedy is simple -- not jail, but at worst return the money that was taken. In this case, even if deciding the merit of the case is hard, there was a transparently reasonable remedy (return 90% of the funds, continue with your life) which Medjedovic rejected. More than just rejecting the offer, he then went on to launder the tokens through a mixer, fled the country, and has refused to put the funds in escrow while the case is decided in court. None of this is reasonable, in my opinion, and I am 100% ok with the legal system forcing him to comply. > This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened. I don't think it does, but you don't explain why, so there is not much to argue. It is hard to get an objective description of what happened, but as far as I can tell, the liquidity pools operated by Indexed Finance are governed by a smart contract, the smart contract contained a mistake, and by exploiting that mistake, Medjedovic was able to drain them completely. Can you explain to me in simple english how that is using the contract as intended? Note that "it's what the smart contract said" is not sufficient, for the same reason that "the web server allowed me to make that request" is not a defence against a charge of computer hacking. What the smart contract says is actually almost irrelevant. What is relevant is what it was intended to do. Incidentally, why should I be rooting for this guy? It seems like literally the only argument in favour of what he did here is "everything that is possible is fair". His extraction of money is purely parasitic, and aside from merely identifying the bug, he hasn't done any useful work at all. I would grant that this applies to the lottery and card counting examples too. But why should I care that he's having his money taken away?
FireBeyond 2y ago
> Luckily for the rest of us, making this distinction is a pre-requisite for becoming a judge or lawyer. Actually, in many parts of the US, you do not have to have any law education to become a judge in district courts.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

It's like building a home on a land which has no system of law because you like anarchy, and then complaining when a fellow anarchist steals your stuff.