[tempfile]

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]

>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This phrasing removes relevant context to the point where it no longer represents what actually happened.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]

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?

[InsideOutSanta]

>I think both those cases are easy to decide

Many people disagree with you and describe what these people do as theft, so it's not as easy as you think.

>which Medjedovic rejected

I made no points at all about what he did afterward. This is all irrelevant to my point.

>I don't think it does, but you don't explain why

I did explain why further up in the thread. It's not just a badly coded computer program; it's a badly coded computer program that acts as a contract intended to circumvent government control of money. That's the context.

People agree to adhere to the smart contract instead of putting their money into a financial institution that uses contracts backed by laws enforced by governments. This guy adhered to the smart contract, and when the crypto company didn't like the outcome, they decided that none of the crypto stuff mattered and that the laws enforced by governments mattered after all.

But this makes cryptocurrencies entirely pointless. If you can use legal means to circumvent undesired smart contract outcomes, then you can just do that in the first place and not have the smart contract.

>Can you explain to me in simple english how that is using the contract as intended?

Yes, of course. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts. The agreement you make is written in the code of the contract. That is the intention behind a smart contract. It makes no sense to say that you did not adhere to the contract if it allowed you to do something. So by definition, anything you do that the contract enables you to do 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

Again, this argument ignores the context of smart contracts. Web servers don't claim that their code is a contract.

>why should I be rooting for this guy

It doesn't matter. I'm not rooting for this guy. I'm not arguing emotionally in favor of some guy who did something. In fact, I think he's a shithead.

[tempfile]

> It makes no sense to say that you did not adhere to the contract if it allowed you to do something.

I think this is the point where I really disagree with you. I don't see how this is different for smart contracts, as opposed to, say legal contracts written in english. It is not true in general that just because a contract says something, that those exact terms are enforced. There is a whole body of law around what terms are enforceable, what to do in cases of mistakes, and so on.

I am now really unclear on what your position is. I thought originally that you were in favour of smart contracts, and that it was somehow unfair or unethical for e.g. a court to rule whether a smart contract was intended to do something different than what it did. So I am trying to understand why you think it is unethical. In this case I think it is unethical to obey the smart contract, and that what this kid did is unethical and should be illegal. Are you saying what he did is wrong, but he should be allowed to do it anyway? If so, why?

[InsideOutSanta]

>I don't see how this is different for smart contracts, as opposed to, say legal contracts written in english

It's different because the whole purpose of smart contracts is to circumvent governmental power structures. Otherwise, people would use regular contracts.

Technologically, it's much easier to set up a payment system using a centralized database in a specific jurisdiction and have people sign normal contracts to use the system. People create cryptocurrency systems to avoid that. They put much effort into creating payment systems independent of existing power structures. If this system does not work without backup from the legal system and governmental power, then all that effort is pointless.

>I thought originally that you were in favour of smart contracts

I think they're interesting.

>Are you saying what he did is wrong, but he should be allowed to do it anyway?

Yes.

>If so, why?

Using existing governmental power structures to punish people who adhere to smart contracts in ways some system members don't like invalidates the whole system. If cryptosystems don't work purely technologically without judicial support, they don't work, period.

[tempfile]

I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It seems like an obvious advantage to have systems that decide the outcome automatically and correctly 99% of the time, despite requiring occasional corrections from outside. That's not the same as a regular contract, so it doesn't follow people would always either choose smart contracts or traditional ones.

What you're hoping for is, taken literally, impossible. Smart contracts can't protect people from fraud, or coercion. Since the law does protect them from these things, smart contracts cannot be totally isolated from the legal system (even if everyone wanted this, which they don't).

> Using existing governmental power structures to punish people who adhere to smart contracts in ways some system members don't like

Fine, but what about in ways that the rest of society don't like?

[protocolture]

The problem is that Smart Contracts aren't sold as "Computer Program" they are sold as binding agreements forged in code. The code was agreed to by all parties.

I absolutely get your position, and possibly hypocritically supported the main branch when ethereum had a big fork over exactly this issue. But its also not hard to see where the "code is law" guys are coming from.

[tempfile]

I don't think this matters. It's equally true of natural language contracts, which are litigated constantly.

[protocolture]

With a legacy contract, both parties typically choose which legal jurisdiction the contract is executed in.

With a smart contract, you have the option to bake in a third parties keys to sort dispute resolution. If you choose not to, I dont see why it should be litigated instead.

To my mind, the choice not to have a mediation or dispute resolution option is just as much the "Intent" as not being hacked and drained of funds.