[daveed]

Respectfully disagree. I think I've seen several times the belief(from crypto supporters) that the code is the code is the code, and these are the rules that we play with.

The "laws of physics" analogy doesn't match up. I feel like it would be more appropriate in an anarchist society (physics are the only laws, thus everything that obeys physics is game).

This feels more like discovering an exploit in a video game. It's up to the devs to patch it, or tournaments to outlaw, but if you find something out, you can use it. We agree to play by the rules, but if someone comes up with something last minute, they can win.

[bombcar]

Many people in crypto want to not have to comply with "real world" laws right up until the point where it would be to their benefit to do so.

And if "smart contracts" depend on real law, then they're not really needed in many of the supposed use cases.

[sushid]

Just because there are crypto anarchists doesn't mean that all crypto proponents are anarchists. And smart contracts (not sure why they're in quotes in your comment) can depend on real law and still operate fine (e.g. I'm sure NBA Topshot would file a legal case again Dapper Labs if they did something significantly damaging to their brand/NFTs, etc.).

[hnfong]

> Just because there are crypto anarchists doesn't mean that all crypto proponents are anarchists.

That's obvious correct but what's the point? The whole discussion here is that there exists these "crypto anarchists" and their ideal world seems ridiculous to at least a couple people here...

[Ajedi32]

That's not how the law works though, at least not in any country I know of. If you exploit flaws in computer code to steal something of real-world value, that's a crime.

We're all bound to the laws of physics, just as in the world of smart contracts all are bound to the laws of code. But none of that changes the existence of the laws of men.

[daveed]

(Replying to this one, but the sibling comment feels similar in vein).

- I'm not really saying the crypto-side argument is right, really just trying to clarify my perception of what they're saying re: the comment above me.

- The physics thing is really just a comment re: when it's hypocrisy and when it's not.

- FWIW, theft in crypto isn't super well-defined to me re: the laws of men either. Maybe someone who knows current law better than me can explain, but calling a function in a contract that sends updates from one pseudonymous address to another... I don't actually know if current written definitions of theft covers that, or needs some court to interpret it as theft. We kind of understand it as people, but I honestly don't know if "laws of men" as written, do.

[hnfong]

Under common law jurisdictions (and as I understand it in the US too), "intent" of the accused is an important element of the crime. The definition is broad enough to cover crypto theft, but it might require the court to interpret whether the alleged actions were done with "dishonest intent" etc.. which can be a rather subjective thing.

Higher courts, due to their inherent ability to set precedents, usually also consider broader policy concerns eg. whether the decision makes sense from enforcement perspective, how the ecosystem might be affected etc..

[majormajor]

If you do a promotion for giving away free food, and your smart contract accidentally allows someone to get a free sandwich every minute instead of once a day, is it so obvious that someone using your promotion more than once a day is "stealing"?

Ever use a different email address to sign up for a different free trial, say? Let alone people sharing Netflix accounts... where do you draw the line around "stealing" here?

[mikkergp]

> is it so obvious that someone using your promotion more than once a day is "stealing"?

Yes. This is very obviously stealing, particularly if the promotion said it was for use once a day.

Edit: Also, sharing your netflix password may also very well be illegal: https://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/sites/lawjournalnewsle...

[User23]

This reminds me of the Pepsi fighter jet affair[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

[ddingus]

Actually, we are only bound to the laws of physics within the limits of our understanding. As our understanding grows, those laws become less and less restrictive. I think it's an interesting analogy or parallel for the case we are discussing.

[Dylan16807]

I would argue that this wasn't really a code flaw. They made a synthetic asset that calculated its price in a dumb way. That happens plenty often without code, and gets exploited by savvy buyers without code.

[User23]

The crypto community does seem inclined towards a law of the jungle approach. It's amusing but unsurprising that the wannabe Shere Khans go running to the legal system when they learn they're actually prey.