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?
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.
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.
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)
Legal contracts in the physical world can be poorly drafted as well. But courts don't usually allow ludicrous results arising from honest mistakes.
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.
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.
Which country's laws apply? What if one country considers the Ethereum contract binding, but the other doesn't?
It feels like having your cake and eating it too. I met lots of crypto bros, they all talk about how they use it so they can be immune to government censorship/intervention etc. They gloat about using crypto to avoid taxes and laws.
Relying on the same institutions that you are trying to get away from to overcome flaws in your framework seems entirely hypocritical to me.
And in your musings about which countries’ laws—therein also do you see the perennial mutterings of discontent at international policy, and globalisation shambling towards collapse. It may be averted. It may not.
This may not be the way things unfold, but it’s legally completely plausible.
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.
You can do both logically.
You are a horrible convincer.
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.
There's an information bubble. It's not the crypto skeptics. There's a reason when governments around the world have moved to ban crypto there's been little to no popular resistance beyond angry 4channers.
The facts don't support the narrative to which you seem to be attached.
a16z is a large investor in the space and proponent, as well as several other prominent tech investment firms. Are they angry 4channers?
It's ok to be personally against it, but please don't misrepresent the facts.
Lots of chatting. Looking at actual dollars and laws, we're weighing the elephants of China, India and increasingly the EU against...Singapore, El Salvador and Malta?
Outside young men, disproportionately minorities, crypto has a limited beachhead [1]. It was an easy money phenomena with historic comparison. We're now seeing the regulatory mood shifting decisively against it with limited competent pushback.
> a16z is a large investor in the space and proponent
They're notable for where they're prominent and where they're not. Aggressive fundraising followed by SoftBank/Tiger style deployment. Tweets and blog posts galore. Yet middling returns, even on an internal basis, and absolutely zero presence worth mentioning in D.C.
I'm no greybeard. But I've worked in finance long enough to see the game they're playing.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/11/16-of-ameri...
You might be right though, it's impossible to tell without doing some kind of vaguely rigorous poll.
You're being too kind to crypto there, I think, by a few orders of magnitude.