Hacker News Reader

Comment by splix | Hacker News Reader

Code is law as law of nature. Not government laws.

Code I Laws just means that if code was executed in the way it was intended to work and you don't like it you don't revert your blockchain. You keep blockchain as is, because it's nature of blockchain. But you're free to go to the law enforcement guys, courts, whatever, to enforce government laws if you think they were broken.

View on HN

So...it's decentralized but if you don't like how it plays out then you run off to a centralized power structure to fix it?

Ha yes exactly. "We have transcended the need for rules. Except this one rule. And maybe another rule if you keep being mean. And if you break that rule I'll call my mom on you"

No, it's just unrelated things.

Nature is decentralized. But if you car was burglarized, which is perfectly fine under laws of nature and the glass physics, you still call the centralized police.

Except whole promise of the crypto-anarchists, decentralized autonomous organizations, tornado, etc, etc was to break free from the tyranny of government. Then when shit invariably hits the fan, they run to the FBI complaining about how they got robbed. The features that support money laundering and tax avoidance mechanisms that underpin the vast majority of actual money flowing through the crypto space are in direct conflict with the gov organizations that we are talking about here, so it's not like these things can coexist together in the buckets of "natural law" vs "government law".

Okay, I guess there are people who consider cryptocurrency as opposition to the government. That's fine. But how it relates to the current situation and specifically to the "Code is Law"?

I've never heard law enforcement ever be promoted as a method of resolving crypto issues. One of the talking points about crypto, especially with the tech-libertarians, was that no centralized authority could seize or freeze your funds. Complaining that someone exploited a "code is law" flaw and then running to the police exposes the whole thing.

The article says that FBI was contacted by founders of the project. So maybe it's the first case when police was involved in a crypto fraud?

What fraud? This was a proper and orderly transaction... fraud requires deception. If there's any fraud here, it's on the part of anyone who claimed this wouldn't inevitably happen according to the rules they concocted.

Of course it’s not the first case. Police have been involved in crypto cases for years.

What government laws were broken here?

That's the point. It's not automatically broken just because someone doesn't like it, especially if it was perfectly allowed by the code.

That's people who lost the money can say. They call it attack, so I guess they have some grounds. And then the court decides who is right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com