[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..