Hacker News Reader

Comment by mangeletti | Hacker News Reader

> ...as it was meant to be used...

Actually, a bug was exploited.

By that reasoning, I should be allowed to legally contact Amazon customer service and socially engineer access to others' accounts, then place orders to be shipped to myself. If the customers call and cancel the orders as fraudulent, I should be awarded damages in a lawsuit against them.

It's also worth noting that, if you're a person that doesn't have any monetary interest in The DAO, you don't have any right to vote for anything, meaning you're no different than somebody standing near a poker table spouting out your philosophies about where others should put their money (aka in the industry as a railbird).

View on HN

> Actually, a bug was exploited.

That's called a loophole in a contract, and folks exploit those all the time.

You're on the receiving end, which sucks, but based on the rules of the DAO, you have no recourse.

The entire presupposition, when putting money into this thing, was that the code was the contract. Period.

If you failed to audit the code to find the loophole, you signed on to a financial arrangement without fully understanding the nature of the contract.

If you don't feel you're qualified to evaluate the terms of the contract, maybe we've just discovered a reason why "smart contracts" aren't such a great idea after all...

No, the DAO believers explicitly decided "f* the government, in code we trust" and wrote in their contract that whatever the DAO did, according to its code, was right.

You don't have such an agreement with Amazon.

Regarding your edit: I don't want to vote for anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is a (real-life!) agreement, and a party (slock.it et al.) not holding themselves to that agreement, and that I'd enjoy seeing that played out in court, where it belongs.

> "f* the government, in code we trust"

I never decided that.

The idea of distributed investments and unstoppable tools that are distributed isn't about "f* the government" or anarchism; it's about not letting anyone other than a consensus of ourselves manipulate us.

> I'm simply pointing out that there is a contract, and a party not holding themselves to that contract, and that I'd enjoy seeing that played out in court, where it belongs.

The point is, if we disagree, what can you do, if you don't have any interest or control over this (hint: nothing)?

You didn't invest in a "distributed investment and unstoppable tool that is distributed", you invested in a partnership with the DAO code explicitly stated as the (potentially legally binding) operating document. If you didn't share the values and conditions in that contract, you probably shouldn't have joined the DAO/partnership.

Regarding your last paragraph: I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here.

I do share the values of The DAO, which is why I'm happy that things are being handled exactly how I would have wanted them to. I'm not sure where the confusion is arising from. I'm talking about next steps.

> I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here.

Are you sure you're replying to the right person?

Nope. There is a thing called Terms of Service [1] that is in place for that very reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service

Reply on news.ycombinator.com