| >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. |
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?