31–40 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, cash out right now?
I cannot recommend selling stolen property, whether to pay taxes on the ill gotten gain or to evade taxes. The government considers these assets either commodities (CFTC) or securities (SEC), so prosecution is straightforward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The other is against a government. According to HN morality, governments are right, so wrong+right = wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot recommend selling stolen property, whether to pay taxes on the ill gotten gain or to evade taxes. The government considers these assets either commodities (CFTC) or securities (SEC), so prosecution is straightforward.
What makes it stolen property? If the smart contract allowed it…
Edit: (Re Revlon)
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019909860/banque-worms (NPR piece on the Revlon incident)
> Elisabeth de Fontenay is a professor at Duke University's law school, and she used to be a corporate lawyer.
> DE FONTENAY: When payments are made, for example, from banks to individuals like all of us in error, we have to give it back. And in fact, if we don't give it back, the banks actually will come after you. They will sue you, and sometimes they will bring criminal cases against you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Hmm turns out trustless and decentralised might not be the best model for all financial infrastructure.
Rai Stones worked really well, for a long time. Well, except for the one that fell off the outrigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
The crypto evangelist mental gymnastics never cease to amaze me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it stolen property? If the smart contract allowed it…
The sender did not mean to send it, making it misappropriation or unjust enrichment. Edit: (Re Revlon) https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019909860/banque-worms (NPR piece on the Revlon incident) > Elisabeth de Fontenay is a professor at Duke University's law school, and she used to be a corporate lawyer. > DE FONTENAY: When payments are made, for example, from banks to individuals like all of us in error, we have to gi…
I’m not saying this is identical to that case, which depended upon New York law. But it is far from clear-cut and I think you are being way too confident in your view, since nothing like this has ever appeared in court.
[0] the decision: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rrBrQQPB...
This bug happened to the crypto project Compound. I work for a crypto company that has a DeFi product that uses Compound. So I've been deep into following this since it started. The funds sent to users were "rewards" for using the platform. Compound didn't actually lose any user funds, it was Compound's "governance token" that was given out. Although user funds were not affected, billions of dollars have been pulled…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
This bug happened to the crypto project Compound. I work for a crypto company that has a DeFi product that uses Compound. So I've been deep into following this since it started. The funds sent to users were "rewards" for using the platform. Compound didn't actually lose any user funds, it was Compound's "governance token" that was given out. Although user funds were not affected, billions of dollars have been pulled…
I deposited some assets on Compound a year ago and I think I got the initial COMP airdrop
Does this make me eligible for this glitch? There wasnt anything in the UI suggesting so, but I can skip the frontend and use the smart contract directly, with hex or bytecode if necessary
Just not sure what to look for