Edit: since you've actually been doing that a whole bunch recently, I've banned the account. Can you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
There is a reason technology that requires high levels of stability is mired in layers of approval, review, regulation, etc. It doesn't change much if at all once it works, because the probability of introducing a failure mode is so high with software.
There's a point where this level of of negligence should rise to criminal liability, no different than if someone wrote code for a new boeing that was so bad it moves beyond incompetence.
We are at this point, and crypto companies need to be held criminally liable for these hacks. If not at least, should be required to carry insurance and pass stringent security audits no different than other high value systems. This is pathetic, and it's not the first time, second time, or third time it happens. I do hope crypto dies. It's been co-opted by grifters and thieves, and even when it's not, grifters and thieves end up stealing the money anyway through hacks like this. Things like this could be somewhat remedied by teaching people to refuse to deal with coins that do not post several independently verifiable third party security audits but alas people don't care anyway.
This is terrible obviously, but if code is law and someone writes bad code and exploits that is it “illegal”?
The entire basis of even having judges, courts, etc is an acknowledgment that the “code” is imperfect and certain circumstances require human intervention.
I have no sympathy for the end of a speculative trade engine that's been almost exclusively used to scam people. Watch the "Line Goes Up" video, it explains it very well. It's not perfect, but provides plenty of background on crypto in general. (Despite the title)
It's horrible technology, born from deeply misguided ideals that will hurt and is hurting a lot of people. I'm not going to celebrate it's repeated, persistent failures but I'm not going to deplore them either.
Was this actually theft? The smart contract basically said “ask and you shall receive”.
I’m trying to think of a banking analogy. Maybe their website has a page that says “enter your checking account number to get $1,000”, but the web service had the authorization code commented out. If someone discovers that and tells their friends, have they stolen from the bank?
Note that I’m thinking of “theft” and “stealing” from a legal point of view. The moral angle may be very different.
Yes, I imagine that would be counted as stealing, if it wasn't intended.
However, if the bank had spent large amounts of time absolutely promising irreversible transactions, and publicly opened itself to attackers, then - no, that's just an intended operation of the system.
This is akin to going to an ATM and finding a bug that lets you withdraw money out using the information from a receipt that someone threw out in the trash bin. It is definitely illegal.
I'm not sure if it's theft but they most certainly have to give the money back. It's just an honest mistake, an equivalent to accidentally dropping a wallet full of cash on the street.
Is it theft? If you go by the whole "code is law" (is that still a popular catch phrase? I don't keep up with crypto much anymore), then this is not theft. The contract let this happen, so it's legal.
Edit: heh, I see a lot of HN had the exact same thought process and we all commented at the same time. I'll leave this up anyway.
Oh cry me a river. This is criminals applying the codified "law" against each-other for their temporary enrichment and the entertainment of the spectators.
Welcome to HN, where crypto is the devil and must be eradicated at all costs. Anyone who thinks otherwise here is either perceived to be an idiot or a grifter.
It should, perhaps, tell you something that a community with one of the most highly concentrated populations of technically literate people on the internet are so vehemently against a technology.
Crypto is just a paperclip maximizer for silicon and electrons that does what traditional companies have been doing for at least 60 years. Only 100000x less efficiently.
dang|3 years ago
Especially please don't cross into personal attack. We ban accounts that do that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: since you've actually been doing that a whole bunch recently, I've banned the account. Can you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
Test0129|3 years ago
There's a point where this level of of negligence should rise to criminal liability, no different than if someone wrote code for a new boeing that was so bad it moves beyond incompetence.
We are at this point, and crypto companies need to be held criminally liable for these hacks. If not at least, should be required to carry insurance and pass stringent security audits no different than other high value systems. This is pathetic, and it's not the first time, second time, or third time it happens. I do hope crypto dies. It's been co-opted by grifters and thieves, and even when it's not, grifters and thieves end up stealing the money anyway through hacks like this. Things like this could be somewhat remedied by teaching people to refuse to deal with coins that do not post several independently verifiable third party security audits but alas people don't care anyway.
endisneigh|3 years ago
The entire basis of even having judges, courts, etc is an acknowledgment that the “code” is imperfect and certain circumstances require human intervention.
Going without that is, well… YMMV.
harambae|3 years ago
The requirement was that diesel emissions were at a certain level under those exact conditions... And they were OK under those exact exact conditions.
(Anyway it turned out there was a specific carve out for cheater devices and they did get in trouble)
bitxbitxbitcoin|3 years ago
Fargoan|3 years ago
Night_Thastus|3 years ago
simonh|3 years ago
kstrauser|3 years ago
I’m trying to think of a banking analogy. Maybe their website has a page that says “enter your checking account number to get $1,000”, but the web service had the authorization code commented out. If someone discovers that and tells their friends, have they stolen from the bank?
Note that I’m thinking of “theft” and “stealing” from a legal point of view. The moral angle may be very different.
misnome|3 years ago
However, if the bank had spent large amounts of time absolutely promising irreversible transactions, and publicly opened itself to attackers, then - no, that's just an intended operation of the system.
johnbellone|3 years ago
mathattack|3 years ago
badpun|3 years ago
oneoff786|3 years ago
doix|3 years ago
Edit: heh, I see a lot of HN had the exact same thought process and we all commented at the same time. I'll leave this up anyway.
mach5|3 years ago
Jerrrry|3 years ago
You can do both logically.
You are a horrible convincer.
upupandup|3 years ago
crest|3 years ago
doopy1|3 years ago
rjbwork|3 years ago
Crypto is just a paperclip maximizer for silicon and electrons that does what traditional companies have been doing for at least 60 years. Only 100000x less efficiently.
Ekaros|3 years ago