9 ms·

What’d he do that was illegal? Seems like he didn’t cheat and insider trading laws don’t seem to apply. Oops crypto is a unregulated market.

davidweatherall 4y ago
Stop regulating crypto! (Unless I've been hacked, then we need to regulate it)
- rnk 4y ago
  Or unless you've lost money! Lots of people saying "the fed could make crypto losers whole without putting up a sweat" the last few days.
  - antifa 4y ago
    And they already do for all crypto that's FDIC insured.
rnk 4y ago
I'd tend to agree with you. People with money and power will push for laws that protect them though. But this situation is why I'm skeptical of these kinds of contracts - too much potential for problems.
onepointsixC 4y ago
It's an exploit no matter how you look at it.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Would it be an exploit if I discover the math to move all bitcoin in existence to whatever address I want then do so?
  - grumple 4y ago
    Uh... yes? Are you seriously trying to imply that would be legal? If someone ever cracks modern encryption, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with everyone's accounts everywhere. If you find an exploit and exploit it, that's illegal.
    - postalrat 4y ago
      What doesn't owning bitcoin really mean? If I had the math to generate keys why wouldn't I also be considered an owner?
      - grumple 4y ago
        If you copy my signature does that mean you can sign my checks?
        t0mas88 4y ago
        No, but that's not the same. Signatures and checks are covered by terms & conditions (and law) that you must follow. A better anology is if you figure out a mathematical advantage within the rules of a casino game, are you allowed to win? I believe you are, as long as it's within the rules of the game. And the casinos are smart enough to create rules against any lasting mathematical advantage.
        grumple 4y ago
        I know how to pick locks. The locks are designed to open when pins are raised by a certain amount. Doesn't mean I have a right to anything I can unlock. The intention of the system is to work to as security. Just because you find a way around the security doesn't mean that you are now immune to the law regarding ownership. When SHAX gets cracked, that doesn't give the person figuring it out a right to transfer all the money out of your bank account just because they figured out the math.
        4y ago
iak8god 4y ago
FTA: > In their complaint, lawyers for Kellar and Day argued that two particular steps of the attack violated statutes against market manipulation and computer hacking. One was swapping almost all the UNI tokens out of the DEFI5 pool, the otherwise irrational trade that distorted the pricing such that Medjedovic could buy tokens out from under Indexed users, who were forced by the algorithm to sell. “The only purpose of that trade was to mislead token holders to part with tokens on terms they never would have agreed to,” says Stephen Aylward, a lawyer representing Kellar and Day. “We say that's a form of market manipulation.” The same argument applied to Medjedovic's interaction with the CC10 pool. > The second illegal transaction, they argued, was when Medjedovic overwhelmed the pool with free Sushi, thereby tricking the algorithm into letting him bypass the size limit on certain trades. Aylward calls this “an intentional act by Andean to disable a security measure, like disabling the security system at a bank.” He argues that this falls under Canada's “extremely broad” legal definition of a hack, which can be interpreted as “subverting the intended purpose of a computer system.”
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  If the law is held to have supremacy over “smart contracts” and implicit intent is held to be more important than explicit terms, than this undermines not just a major argument for smart contracts but a major argument as to why crypto as a whole is valuable. Enforcing a contract through a written contract & traditional finance vs a smart contract becomes a mere implementation detail since in either case somebody can come crying to the courts when they lose money. Smart contracts are only interesting if they’re a form of binding arbitration. If smart contracts are not binding, they just become poorly written contracts. Smart contracts being binding honestly might need to be legislated.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    Even then, a binding contract is still subject to what is contractually enforceable, which could break the functionality and purported benefit of a smart contract.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
lupire 4y ago
He was in communication with the IF team, and contributed something to their system, so it's possible that he defrauded them and inserted malicious code into the protocol, not just interacted with the protocol.
postalrat 4y ago
Isn't making people angry illegal yet?

davidweatherall 4y ago

Stop regulating crypto! (Unless I've been hacked, then we need to regulate it)

rnk 4y ago
Or unless you've lost money! Lots of people saying "the fed could make crypto losers whole without putting up a sweat" the last few days.
- antifa 4y ago
  And they already do for all crypto that's FDIC insured.

rnk 4y ago

I'd tend to agree with you. People with money and power will push for laws that protect them though. But this situation is why I'm skeptical of these kinds of contracts - too much potential for problems.

onepointsixC 4y ago

It's an exploit no matter how you look at it.

postalrat 4y ago
Would it be an exploit if I discover the math to move all bitcoin in existence to whatever address I want then do so?
- grumple 4y ago
  Uh... yes? Are you seriously trying to imply that would be legal? If someone ever cracks modern encryption, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with everyone's accounts everywhere. If you find an exploit and exploit it, that's illegal.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    What doesn't owning bitcoin really mean? If I had the math to generate keys why wouldn't I also be considered an owner?
    - grumple 4y ago
      If you copy my signature does that mean you can sign my checks?
      - t0mas88 4y ago
        No, but that's not the same. Signatures and checks are covered by terms & conditions (and law) that you must follow. A better anology is if you figure out a mathematical advantage within the rules of a casino game, are you allowed to win? I believe you are, as long as it's within the rules of the game. And the casinos are smart enough to create rules against any lasting mathematical advantage.
        grumple 4y ago
        I know how to pick locks. The locks are designed to open when pins are raised by a certain amount. Doesn't mean I have a right to anything I can unlock. The intention of the system is to work to as security. Just because you find a way around the security doesn't mean that you are now immune to the law regarding ownership. When SHAX gets cracked, that doesn't give the person figuring it out a right to transfer all the money out of your bank account just because they figured out the math.
        4y ago

iak8god 4y ago

FTA: > In their complaint, lawyers for Kellar and Day argued that two particular steps of the attack violated statutes against market manipulation and computer hacking. One was swapping almost all the UNI tokens out of the DEFI5 pool, the otherwise irrational trade that distorted the pricing such that Medjedovic could buy tokens out from under Indexed users, who were forced by the algorithm to sell. “The only purpose of that trade was to mislead token holders to part with tokens on terms they never would have agreed to,” says Stephen Aylward, a lawyer representing Kellar and Day. “We say that's a form of market manipulation.” The same argument applied to Medjedovic's interaction with the CC10 pool. > The second illegal transaction, they argued, was when Medjedovic overwhelmed the pool with free Sushi, thereby tricking the algorithm into letting him bypass the size limit on certain trades. Aylward calls this “an intentional act by Andean to disable a security measure, like disabling the security system at a bank.” He argues that this falls under Canada's “extremely broad” legal definition of a hack, which can be interpreted as “subverting the intended purpose of a computer system.”

faeriechangling 4y ago
If the law is held to have supremacy over “smart contracts” and implicit intent is held to be more important than explicit terms, than this undermines not just a major argument for smart contracts but a major argument as to why crypto as a whole is valuable. Enforcing a contract through a written contract & traditional finance vs a smart contract becomes a mere implementation detail since in either case somebody can come crying to the courts when they lose money. Smart contracts are only interesting if they’re a form of binding arbitration. If smart contracts are not binding, they just become poorly written contracts. Smart contracts being binding honestly might need to be legislated.
- antiterra 4y ago
  Even then, a binding contract is still subject to what is contractually enforceable, which could break the functionality and purported benefit of a smart contract.
- TameAntelope 4y ago

lupire 4y ago

He was in communication with the IF team, and contributed something to their system, so it's possible that he defrauded them and inserted malicious code into the protocol, not just interacted with the protocol.

postalrat 4y ago

Isn't making people angry illegal yet?