Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

toomuchtodo

This is fraud. Crypto doesn’t magically make it not fraud.

Edit: @hprotagonist, you too! Shouldn’t have to go comment by comment pointing out the fraud suggestions.

View on HN

How is it fraud if the smart contract allowed it?

Actually curious what makes it fraud. Just because one group wants the money back?

Lawful intention. What the smart contract dictates isn’t necessarily the final authority, but what the intent was (per legal interpretation of state contract law).

smart contracts are actually legally contracts (nor all that smart.)

I think you're missing a 'not'.

This kinda belies the whole premise behind "smart" "contracts", doesn't it? I've always heard that the point of smart contracts is that we don't need the legal system to settle issues, because the code itself enforces the contract.

Apparently code can have bugs, and people can make mistakes? Whoops, wish we'd known those things before pouring millions into this stuff.

The idea of "Code is law" as an absolute died back in 2016 with the DAO fork.

A better way to see it is like "law is law", which is obviously untrue as we have things like case law/common law.

I wonder if the argument will become what is the contact - essentially, is it specific transfers as implemented by the smart contract, or is it to be bound by the smart contract, even if these transfers weren't in the contemplation of the parties at formation?

Depends who you ask under what circumstances

Has a case like this ever been brought to court yet?

The user (supposedly) read the (smart) contract and agreed to it as it is. So how is that resolved then?

This assumes a contract in addition to the smart contract. I am not sure in this case whether one could be said to exist, but certainly a truly decentralised system probably ought not to create such contracts.

The intention of the parties was that the smart contract was enforced exactly as the smart contract was written: if that turns out to be unexpectedly disadvantageous for a party, then that's their problem.

how was his suggestion any less fraudulent if the intent is to cash out and not return the money

I was wondering the same thing.

Because "code is law" and if there was a bug, that was part of the law of the code. It's not fraud. If it was, the threat would have been different, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com