• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

After ‘Stealing’ $16M, This Teen Hacker Seems Intent on Testing ‘Code Is Law’ in the Courts

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
Back when I was kid, 1950's. We learned how to reach up, inside of a vending machines & trip the levers to get "free" candy & even cig's !!!
I guess today, we were not stealing, BUT BACK THEN, IT WAS TAKING WHAT WAS NOT YOURS !!! THEFT ! :Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr:
When you reach into a vending machine, you're going where you're not supposed to be. If you unexpectedly press two dispense buttons on the machine at the same time and it dispenses two items was that what it was supposed to do? Or did the machine creator screw up? How are you supposed to know intention and is it even your responsibility to stick with interface intention? And if the machine creator screwed up, what is his responsibility in the error?
 
Last edited:

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
Back when I was kid, 1950's. We learned how to reach up, inside of a vending machines & trip the levers to get "free" candy & even cig's !!!
I guess today, we were not stealing, BUT BACK THEN, IT WAS TAKING WHAT WAS NOT YOURS !!! THEFT ! :Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr::Grrr:
you were just taking what was Rightfully Yours! (when factored in with todays competitive morals / ethics)

those greedy corporations and their 'in your face' tactics, that machine was there Everyday when i passed by, taunting me with it's deliciousy goodness...

that just wasn't fair


I Had To Teach Them!
 

Mujahideen

Owner Operator
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,152
Reaction score
28,416
Location
OTR
What he did, something very similar is actually illegal with the stock market. You can’t place a bunch of option orders and then cancel them with the intention of artificially manipulating the current price and then proceeded to exploit it.

I would say that unless there is a law that address this for crypto, it’s not theft.
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
When you reach into a machine, you're going where you're not supposed to be. If you press two dispense buttons on the machine at the same time and it dispenses two items was that what it was supposed to do? Or did the machine creator screw up? And if the machine creator screwed up, what is his responsibly in the error?
with the case of my Master Key, that lock is just there, i was checking to see if i had a key to fit, surprisingly i did...those owners should have known better before i helped myself to my 'new' TV

that'll teach 'em...besides, they can sue that lock manufacturer for not having a 68k-cut key combination...

imagine the size of that key-ring...
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
i'm having fun...but i'm done


i can't see a future in this type of activity, but then again, i'm just too honest
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
11,425
Reaction score
25,613
Location
North Carolina
A lock is the wrong metaphor. A better metaphor is a vending machine. Someone made a vending machine with a flaw. A customer found he could push the buttons in the right way on the machine and get extra stuff dispensed to him. He did not break into the vending machine or break any locks, he only fiddled with the interface buttons on the machine.

It's that theft?

Yes it’s theft. The price is posted and the thief is taking more than was offered for sale and knows it.

Its a hard case to make that he didn’t know it was wrong, anymore than sticking his hand in the chute or shaking the thing until an extra candy bar fell.

I was trying find that scene where Jim Rockford was explaining to Lt Becker that boosting the vending machine in a police station was wrong (stealing) but I’m too old and remembering random things that google doesn’t know about ;)
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
Yes it’s theft. The price is posted and the thief is taking more than was offered for sale.

Its a hard case to make that he didn’t know it was wrong, anymore than sticking his hand in the chute or shaking the thing until an extra candy bar fell.

I was trying find that scene where Jim Rockford was explaining to Lt Becker that boosting the vending machine in a police station was wrong (stealing) but I’m too old and remembering random things that google doesn’t know about ;)
He definitely knew he was doing wrong. That's why he routed funds through an anonymizer. But that's not really the question I'm getting at. I'm more concerned with what responsibility everyone has to use the interface only as the vending machine creator intended. And what responsibility the vending machine creator has for creating an interface with an error.

Crypto protocols are global, and anything that people can do, they will do, and you can't always go after them as they could be anywhere (including places you can't legally get at them). Protocol interfaces must be error free. And when they aren't, the protocol creators face the consequences. They don't get to claim to be a revolution from authority and then run to the authorities for help when they screw up.
 

wastrel

rather annoying
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
374
Location
lost in a corn maze in Ohio
There is no point arguing without more info. It doesnt sound like he took anything to me. It sounds like the losers on this had an automated trading system that made bad trades. That is not theft.
Okay, I've spent quite a few hours digging into this. I've gone to the article on the Rekt news site to read their breakdown of it, and the (linked from there) published post-mortem report from the "Indexed Finance" team (that's their actual website name). Frankly, this is complex and my head now hurts. I understand the code, but the financial side of things is at the very edge of my understanding, so I could be wrong. But I will try to explain, so that your heads will hurt too. Let me stress again -- I could be wrong.

Most of you should skip to the bottom of my post (I'll put "bottom of my post" in bold below) at this point, because things get weird and most of you won't care this much. I'll bold the high points within the following boring description...

What the Indexed Finance guys did was set up multiple "pools" that people could throw their different kinds of crypto coins into, from which an Index coin (or "token") was derived, so people could trade the Index token instead of trading all the individual coins in the pool. This is like the S&P500 stock index -- you can trade the index rather than trading the 500 individual stocks. (What return people would get from putting their crypto coins into the Index pool, I have no idea; that's one of the parts I don't understand.) But users could always trade the Index coin for some of the coins in the pool, thus in effect getting their money back.

But these pools, just like the S&P500 index, is weighted; that is, each coin doesn't contribute to the Index coin value equally. This is where the Indexed Finance guys messed up. Instead of recalculating the value of the Index coin when crypto coins were taken in or out of the pool, for some reason they decided to approximate the new Index coin value based on only one of the crypto coins in the pool. This is bad. (there was a reason they did this, they're not total morons, but it has something to do with pool balancing and that's one of the financial things I don't get) I must stress this point -- this was not a typo. It was not a bug. It was a design decision.

What this teenager noticed (remember, this code is released publicly, anyone can just read it), is that because they used an approximation, there was an arbitrage possibility. And he used that possibility: he (very roughly) added specific coins to a pool, which caused that pool's Index coin to be approximated as lower than it really "should" be, he bought the Index coins at the low price, then traded the undervalued Index coin for the actual coins in the pool which trade was done at the actual values of all the coins. Thus their trading system let him buy low and sell high. He didn't crack into anything, he didn't hack into anything -- he used their trading system as they coded it.

So it's pretty much as specsaregood stated above: they had an automated trading system that let someone make trades greatly to his advantage. The teenager noticed this, and made trades greatly to his advantage.

Bottom of my post: my conclusion is that everyone involved in this is a dick. The guys with the crypto trading system are dicks for crying because one of their design decisions bit them in the ass. The teenager is a dick for seeing the hole in their system and instead of pointing it out to them, he rode through that hole with a tank and ended up $16 million richer. But the teenager is less of a dick than the trading guys. But that's just my opinion.

Is taking advantage of other people's freely made bad decisions a crime? If so, half the world should be behind bars. If this happened with those old regulated markets in stocks, I'm pretty sure the trades would be reversed. I'm not going to argue the morality of this, because while reading through all this stuff I felt like I was investigating the design on the plates on the table of the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland -- in a sane world none of this should be happening in the first damn place.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to spend the rest of my day in bed, clutching a bar of silver in my hands, because it's real.

Edit: when you go to the Indexed Finance web site, it states first off: "This project is in beta. Use at your own risk." Everyone involved was warned, at least.
 
Last edited:

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
11,425
Reaction score
25,613
Location
North Carolina
Okay, I've spent quite a few hours digging into this. I've gone to the article on the Rekt news site to read their breakdown of it, and the (linked from there) published post-mortem report from the "Indexed Finance" team (that's their actual website name). Frankly, this is complex and my head now hurts. I understand the code, but the financial side of things is at the very edge of my understanding, so I could be wrong. But I will try to explain, so that your heads will hurt too. Let me stress again -- I could be wrong.

Most of you should skip to the bottom of my post (I'll put "bottom of my post" in bold below) at this point, because things get weird and most of you won't care this much. I'll bold the high points within the following boring description...

What the Indexed Finance guys did was set up multiple "pools" that people could throw their different kinds of crypto coins into, from which an Index coin (or "token") was derived, so people could trade the Index token instead of trading all the individual coins in the pool. This is like the S&P500 stock index -- you can trade the index rather than trading the 500 individual stocks. (What return people would get from putting their crypto coins into the Index pool, I have no idea; that's one of the parts I don't understand.) But users could always trade the Index coin for some of the coins in the pool, thus in effect getting their money back.

But these pools, just like the S&P500 index, is weighted; that is, each coin doesn't contribute to the Index coin value equally. This is where the Indexed Finance guys messed up. Instead of recalculating the value of the Index coin when crypto coins were taken in or out of the pool, for some reason they decided to approximate the new Index coin value based on only one of the crypto coins in the pool. This is bad. (there was a reason they did this, they're not total morons, but it has something to do with pool balancing and that's one of the financial things I don't get) I must stress this point -- this was not a typo. It was not a bug. It was a design decision.

What this teenager noticed (remember, this code is released publicly, anyone can just read it), is that because they used an approximation, there was an arbitrage possibility. And he used that possibility: he (very roughly) added specific coins to a pool, which caused that pool's Index coin to be approximated as lower than it really "should" be, he bought the Index coins at the low price, then traded the undervalued Index coin for the actual coins in the pool which trade was done at the actual values of all the coins. Thus their trading system let him buy low and sell high. He didn't crack into anything, he didn't hack into anything -- he used their trading system as they coded it.

So it's pretty much as specsaregood stated above: they had an automated trading system that let someone make trades greatly to his advantage. The teenager noticed this, and made trades greatly to his advantage.

Bottom of my post: my conclusion is that everyone involved in this is a dick. The guys with the crypto trading system are dicks for crying because one of their design decisions bit them in the ass. The teenager is a dick for seeing the hole in their system and instead of pointing it out to them, he rode through that hole with a tank and ended up $16 million richer. But the teenager is less of a dick than the trading guys. But that's just my opinion.

Is taking advantage of other people's freely made bad decisions a crime? If so, half the world should be behind bars. If this happened with those old regulated markets in stocks, I'm pretty sure the trades would be reversed. I'm not going to argue the morality of this, because while reading through all this stuff I felt like I was investigating the design on the plates on the table of the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland -- in a sane world none of this should be happening in the first damn place.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to spend the rest of my day in bed, clutching a bar of silver in my hands, because it's real.

Thanks for taking one for the team

I’m retreating from characterizing it as theft but I will say it still violates the golden rule and feels wrong
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
Thanks for taking one for the team

I’m retreating from characterizing it as theft but I will say it still violates the golden rule and feels wrong
It is wrong. BUT the entire point of crypto was that it was possible to create global programs where code could be law. What that means is anyone can make institutional tools like bitcoin that *couldn't* be hacked or exploited. What is "legal" (as far as use of the program goes) is whatever is possible to do with the program. That means you don't need authorities, police, lawyers, judges, etc. to interpret laws and intentions, the code does that itself. If instead code isn't law, then we have to turn to human authorities (and all the junk that goes with that) to defend bad code, and that will eventually lead to an oppressive global government because there will always be another jurisdiction where someone could've exploited the program and it would be "fair" and "just" for authorities to take over that jurisdiction to enforce law.

So yes, the guy did something wrong. However the fault is on the program creator who also did something wrong, the exploiter only exposed the error. Global crypto allows code the capability to enforce law itself. "Code is law" is perhaps humanities best chance to avoid the never ending approach of a global ruling authority. This is a very short defense of a big issue, but bottom line: anyone that argues the guy that did the exploit should be punished is philosophically arguing for a one world authority. That he did something wrong is largely beside the point, what he did should be legal regardless because that is what is best for crypto and for humanity. Morals are always the tools used to advance tyranny--just look at social JUSTICE warriors--the entire thing is premised on advancing what is "fair" and "just," until we're all locked up in cages for our own good with a self-righteous ruling class smugly using moral arguments to keep us there.
 
Last edited:

Mujahideen

Owner Operator
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,152
Reaction score
28,416
Location
OTR
Maybe my mind works differently but I would have already seen this coming if I was involved with its creation… and I would have planned on exploiting it myself. Maybe he just beat them to it?
 

specsaregood

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
3,769
Maybe my mind works differently but I would have already seen this coming if I was involved with its creation… and I would have planned on exploiting it myself. Maybe he just beat them to it?
Ditto, but software devel is full of people that are unable to see outside their own box and unable/unwilling to see how somebody might be able to break it. Thats the reason for good QA and white hat hackers.
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
7,458
Reaction score
12,043
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
There were no doors left unlocked. Doors and locks are there to stop people from entering, a vending machine interface is there to be used. In this case only the vending machine interface was used but it had a flaw. Does the vending machine maker have any responsibility for making an interface that doesn't function as he expected? Why is it everyone else's responsibility to know what the vending machine maker's intentions were and only use the interface as "expected?"
The term for this is "situational ethics." Or, "moral relativism."

Oh, yeah, theft is bad; but what I'm doing is not theft. I'm just feeling the insides of the vending machine, and out popped some goodies.

Or, I'm just manipulating code, and what was in someone else's file ("wallet") is now in mine!

I don't understand one word of that code explanation - and that's probably intentional by the webpage writer. If there is some sort of spread that's not available to the public but can be used by secret persons, without the consent of the file/wallet owners...that is theft, no matter how complex you make the peripheral minutia.

Insider stock trading is theft. That's why it USED to be illegal. But we've muddled morality, now, and depending on whether you're in government or close to those in government, shades the question. Perfectly legal for some but a crime for others.
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
Okay, I've spent quite a few hours digging into this. I've gone to the article on the Rekt news site to read their breakdown of it, and the (linked from there) published post-mortem report from the "Indexed Finance" team (that's their actual website name). Frankly, this is complex and my head now hurts. I understand the code, but the financial side of things is at the very edge of my understanding, so I could be wrong. But I will try to explain, so that your heads will hurt too. Let me stress again -- I could be wrong.

Most of you should skip to the bottom of my post (I'll put "bottom of my post" in bold below) at this point, because things get weird and most of you won't care this much. I'll bold the high points within the following boring description...

What the Indexed Finance guys did was set up multiple "pools" that people could throw their different kinds of crypto coins into, from which an Index coin (or "token") was derived, so people could trade the Index token instead of trading all the individual coins in the pool. This is like the S&P500 stock index -- you can trade the index rather than trading the 500 individual stocks. (What return people would get from putting their crypto coins into the Index pool, I have no idea; that's one of the parts I don't understand.) But users could always trade the Index coin for some of the coins in the pool, thus in effect getting their money back.

But these pools, just like the S&P500 index, is weighted; that is, each coin doesn't contribute to the Index coin value equally. This is where the Indexed Finance guys messed up. Instead of recalculating the value of the Index coin when crypto coins were taken in or out of the pool, for some reason they decided to approximate the new Index coin value based on only one of the crypto coins in the pool. This is bad. (there was a reason they did this, they're not total morons, but it has something to do with pool balancing and that's one of the financial things I don't get) I must stress this point -- this was not a typo. It was not a bug. It was a design decision.

What this teenager noticed (remember, this code is released publicly, anyone can just read it), is that because they used an approximation, there was an arbitrage possibility. And he used that possibility: he (very roughly) added specific coins to a pool, which caused that pool's Index coin to be approximated as lower than it really "should" be, he bought the Index coins at the low price, then traded the undervalued Index coin for the actual coins in the pool which trade was done at the actual values of all the coins. Thus their trading system let him buy low and sell high. He didn't crack into anything, he didn't hack into anything -- he used their trading system as they coded it.

So it's pretty much as specsaregood stated above: they had an automated trading system that let someone make trades greatly to his advantage. The teenager noticed this, and made trades greatly to his advantage.

Bottom of my post: my conclusion is that everyone involved in this is a dick. The guys with the crypto trading system are dicks for crying because one of their design decisions bit them in the ass. The teenager is a dick for seeing the hole in their system and instead of pointing it out to them, he rode through that hole with a tank and ended up $16 million richer. But the teenager is less of a dick than the trading guys. But that's just my opinion.

Is taking advantage of other people's freely made bad decisions a crime? If so, half the world should be behind bars. If this happened with those old regulated markets in stocks, I'm pretty sure the trades would be reversed. I'm not going to argue the morality of this, because while reading through all this stuff I felt like I was investigating the design on the plates on the table of the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland -- in a sane world none of this should be happening in the first damn place.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to spend the rest of my day in bed, clutching a bar of silver in my hands, because it's real.

Edit: when you go to the Indexed Finance web site, it states first off: "This project is in beta. Use at your own risk." Everyone involved was warned, at least.
that helped me, a lot...

i know i was out, but...
this is still the activity of what a thief would do, a higher learned thief, however, within the parameters of their own programs, this kid actually now, to me, appears to be selfish in that, he didn't share this opportunity with others...you know, like how a real 'kid' would act (come see what i can do...)


...i don't like people who are 'sneaky' either but, in a larger way, my mind is shifted: this crypto gets what it deserves, sorta karmic iyam
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
The term for this is "situational ethics." Or, "moral relativism."

Oh, yeah, theft is bad; but what I'm doing is not theft. I'm just feeling the insides of the vending machine, and out popped some goodies.

Or, I'm just manipulating code, and what was in someone else's file ("wallet") is now in mine!

I don't understand one word of that code explanation - and that's probably intentional by the webpage writer. If there is some sort of spread that's not available to the public but can be used by secret persons, without the consent of the file/wallet owners...that is theft, no matter how complex you make the peripheral minutia.

Insider stock trading is theft. That's why it USED to be illegal. But we've muddled morality, now, and depending on whether you're in government or close to those in government, shades the question. Perfectly legal for some but a crime for others.
We're talking about computer code, not morality. The code defines what can be done with it, moral or not. It doesn't need your moralizing about it, it can define its own existence. The moral relativism here is when you start defining things that are beyond what the code says. That you probably don't understand the points I'm making doesn't help either, but go read my previous post #50 above.
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
We're talking about computer code, not morality. The code defines what can be done with it, moral or not. It doesn't need your moralizing about it, it can define its own existence. That you probably don't understand the points I'm making doesn't help either.
but code, generally is inert...what the 'relevance' here, iyam, is the human decision, the human interaction


and to me, since it's human created code, i'm not certain how it'll ever work without all that criminality that has followed monetary systems throughout the ages


code, to me, is like that piece of paper, it's actually nothing until someone interacts with it, and i believe that's what others are focused on...the human interaction side

 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
but code, generally is inert...what the 'relevance' here, iyam, is the human decision, the human interaction


and to me, since it's human created code, i'm not certain how it'll ever work without all that criminality that has followed monetary systems throughout the ages


code, to me, is like that piece of paper, it's actually nothing until someone interacts with it, and i believe that's what others are focused on...the human interaction side

There's nothing relative or subjective about people interacting with code. Code will do what it says. End of story. No relativism.
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
There's nothing relative or subjective about people interacting with code. Code will do what it says. End of story. No relativism.
right here, how does this INCLUDE the human interaction?

you can't dismiss What Is...

and since it's human created, it's all relative
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
7,458
Reaction score
12,043
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
And so, when you steal with code, you have no moral obligations.

Why isn't that true with a firearm?

The person the firearm was pointed at...did the logical thing to continue to live. He gave up his wallet.

The person holding the firearm, did the moral thing - didn't shoot the other person.

And, we're just talking MECHANICS! Hammer. Firing pin. Charge. Slug.

Nothing criminal in any of that.
 

specsaregood

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
3,769
and to me, since it's human created code, i'm not certain how it'll ever work without all that criminality that has followed monetary systems throughout the ages

In idealistic theory it should eliminate a lot of crime, since it won't let people break rules as the code should prevent it.
 

Buck

Where'd My Country Go?
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
23,140
Reaction score
29,984
In idealistic theory it should eliminate a lot of crime, since it won't let people break rules as the code should prevent it.
socialism cured . . .

idealism is great until we remember humans find locks to be nothing more than curious toys, warning signs to be ignored, and laws to control be created...for their own gain


is it possible to create something that is designed to 'last forever', one where the sheep can manipulate it as quickly as the insiders can?

accordingly, these loopholes in this crypto will now be closed to the sheep
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
And so, when you steal with code, you have no moral obligations.

Why isn't that true with a firearm?

The person the firearm was pointed at...did the logical thing to continue to live. He gave up his wallet.

The person holding the firearm, did the moral thing - didn't shoot the other person.

And, we're just talking MECHANICS! Hammer. Firing pin. Charge. Slug.

Nothing criminal in any of that.
You will continue to be lost if you don't actually read my posts. I've agreed several times that what was done was wrong. However that has almost nothing to do with the actual issue, which is "code is law." Go read post #50 above.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
23,607
Reaction score
49,606
Location
ORYGUN
ALL this bullschiff tells me one thing for sure. Stay the hell out of crypto !!! :2 thumbs up: :gracious:
 

Scorpio

для продажи слегка подержанный
Founding Member
Board Elder
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,326
Reaction score
54,162
The code defines what can be done with it, moral or not.

one needs to be somewhat cautious here,

a gun laying there is not doing anything harmful, but human interaction can make it so,
same with the supposed code that is claimed to be law

take that code, this inert code, and create a facial mapping program. Now of course they will state it is only for proper purposes, and only used to do good in the community.

someone takes that code, that software, and uses it to find and track hot females, then does some illegal things with that 'code'

and again, code is law, he did nothing wrong with that logic. Now of course I am stretching it, but codeslaw does not allow for this. Thereby, not guilty.

code is what it is, it isn't law, and it is strictly benign, until it has human interaction, and at that point it is beyond the coding, and susceptible to all things human

to claim otherwise is just not how things operate in a 2 leggah environment
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
one needs to be somewhat cautious here,

a gun laying there is not doing anything harmful, but human interaction can make it so,
same with the supposed code that is claimed to be law

take that code, this inert code, and create a facial mapping program. Now of course they will state it is only for proper purposes, and only used to do good in the community.

someone takes that code, that software, and uses it to find and track hot females, then does some illegal things with that 'code'

and again, code is law, he did nothing wrong with that logic. Now of course I am stretching it, but codeslaw does not allow for this. Thereby, not guilty.

code is what it is, it isn't law, and it is strictly benign, until it has human interaction, and at that point it is beyond the coding, and susceptible to all things human

to claim otherwise is just not how things operate in a 2 leggah environment
Code is law has do to with how the code can be used, not what the code does. You're taking about something completely different. Someone can write a program that does something bad, but that's a different subject. The issue here is legal code usage is (or should be) determined by what the code itself allows, not what lawyers decide. If some usage of the code wants to be disallowed, the code is fully capable of limiting its usage, it doesn't require authoritarians.

Whether the code itself does something objectionable or immoral or whatever is a different subject.
 

Scorpio

для продажи слегка подержанный
Founding Member
Board Elder
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
33,326
Reaction score
54,162
no I am not,

codeslaw is bullchit by techies,
it completely ignores humans,

and no it is not

The issue here is legal code usage is (or should be) determined by what the code itself allows, not what lawyers decide.
trying to have it both ways

humans created the code,
which entails human input, opinion, capabilities

so you have no argument
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
1,322
no I am not,

codeslaw is bullchit by techies,
it completely ignores humans,

and no it is not


trying to have it both ways

humans created the code,
which entails human input, opinion, capabilities

so you have no argument
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. It doesn't ignore humans, it's specifically about how humans can and should interact with global, unstoppable crypto programs. Either way this isn't my argument. This is a discussion that goes back years in crypto, so I'm only trying to give an overview of a big subject. Code is law is indeed bullshit created by techies, however it's also potentially very important, especially for the libertarian minded. Smart contract crypto in particular created a new kind of program that hadn't existed before--unstoppable, immutable programs that were permissionless and global. The notion of how exactly such things would be governed given they existed outside of any particular jurisdiction and couldn't be stopped or changed brought up the idea of code is law (e.g. whatever the program allows you to do to it, you can do to it). The concept ran into a big test case with the initial DAO hack and the eventual forking of Ethereum. If you don't like how I've described it, google will find plenty of discussion.
 

Sampson

Digging for nuggets of knowledge
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
786
Reaction score
1,615
Location
Hills and Valleys up north
You makes trades on a defi platform and earn profit. No problem.

You find a trading technique that earns you more profit than most people do. No problem.

You find another trading technique that allows you to make massively profitable trades. No problem? Or problem?

No different than whales dropping a huge low priced sell order to flash crash a certain market while quietly buying it back hand over fist OTC at the lower price.

It is just a manipulation of the pre-set trading algorithms and rules.


From the info in the article it is really hard to determine if he just found a very clever way to game the platform to make disproportional returns, ... or, if he did something deliberately nefarious like cracking passwords or hacking code to outright steal funds.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,646
Reaction score
16,243
Location
Instant Gratification Land
This issue of, should using the code as the code allows itself to be used be a crime?, is similar to an issue I recently heard of where the gov of Missouri is trying to get a reporter charged with hacking because he viewed the source code of a publicly accessible government website. (he right clicked and selected "view source" in his browser)
Problem is, there was SS#'s that were inadvertently included in the source code. He looked at it and reported it to the State, and they returned the favor by accusing him of hacking their site.

Was the reporter using the code as it was written?


https://www.pcmag.com/news/missouri-gov-goes-after-reporter-who-found-shockingly-bad-flaw-in-state
 
Last edited:

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
23,607
Reaction score
49,606
Location
ORYGUN
Was the reporter using the code as it was written?
The question should be "Did he use the information for personal gain ?"
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,646
Reaction score
16,243
Location
Instant Gratification Land
The question should be "Did he use the information for personal gain ?"
No he did not. In fact, he withheld the story from being published until the State fixed the problem. Ie: he did everything right, and is still being accused of hacking.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
23,607
Reaction score
49,606
Location
ORYGUN
No he did not. In fact, he withheld the story from being published until the State fixed the problem. Ie: he did everything right, and is still being accused of hacking.
YUP, right = wrong. Wrong = right !!! :totally steamed: :totally steamed: :totally steamed:
 

Goldbrix

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
20,540
Reaction score
32,247
More pragmatically, locks slow down thieves. So many don't bother to protect their stuff, that your just locking your car or fence gate, sends them looking for easier pickings.
Thieves and Criminals are like Electricity, they takes the easiest route.