361–370 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a wonderful summary of what smart contracts are. https://twitter.com/qrs/status/1395784294451265536 > Smart contracts should be considered self-funded bug-bounty platforms.
Mark the "should". It's just an opinion, not a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a bank robber wanted to swap blacklisted $100 bills with you, would you? Would you just swap them at their face value, or at a discount knowing that it gives you a non-zero risk of having negative legal consequences? Mixers will have to change their policies in order to avoid becoming a market for lemons in which everyone loses. I do not expect governments to worry a tiniest bit about destroying value of an anti-g…
mixers are currently a market for lemons. No one uses a mixer on clean crypto. Hasn't been a problem, but I guess the government could start banning exchanges from accepting crypto that has ever been used at a mixer, although eventually won't it all pass through one?
If you intentionally involve yourself in money laundering, you can't really complain about your money being blacklisted.
The ledger is public, which makes blacklisting trivial. No legal entity would be able to hold or trade blacklisted coins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blacklisting doesn't have to be a feature of a blockchain. It's enough if most countries decide to make it illegal for anyone to spend coins received from a blacklisted address. It's not easy to enforce of course, but people would be afraid they get in trouble if they're ever deanonimized, and businesses could be required to report their trades, just like taxes. This will force creation and use of wallet reputation c…
Everyone already knows mixers are holding illicit coins. It doesn't matter because mixers don't actually "want" anything. They're just code in the ether. You send your coins to an address along with a receiver address and the smart contract sends coins to the other address. How do courts stop that without shutting down exactly what makes blockchains valuable?
So money laundering is what makes blockchains valuable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I don't think it's up to you to pick a lane. It's the wild-west at the moment because the technology is new. But it won't be long before the law catches up and crypto will be subject to it the same as everything else.
Publishing a piece of code on a public blockchain cannot be made illegal. The Court of Appeal already ruled that code is speech making this a first amendment issue [1]. Decentralized finance is here to stay as an alternative to the traditional system. Some things are just impossible to regulate. [1] https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/11/09/smart-contract-code-is...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes no sense- surely the same applies the money in your bank account? Or IP rights? Etc etc.
Neither of those build up a system where immutable transactions are the absolute arbiter of ownership. If they did, then the same would apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to sounding like textbook embezzlement , I don't think there's any reason to believe that "theft" as define by that very broad Georgia definition couldn't apply here (the "unlawfully" is to exclude certain property appropriations explicitly permitted by law like bailiff seizures or deposit retentions from the definition, not to mean it's not theft if you keep someone's property against their will without…
I will admit have avoided trying to follow the entire rabbit hole of details on this case. So feel free to point out where i've missed some facts. From what i've seen I doubt it would be considered theft for the simple reason that the tokens that were bought/sold didn't belong to anyone else in particular who you could say it was appropriated from. He also paid for all of it, and paid the fair value at the time. In f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark the "should". It's just an opinion, not a fact.
If the kid in the story had speculated about his attack it would be an opinion. His attack demonstrates that it is fact. Contrast this with your opinion that the courts will decide his actions were illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What doesn't owning bitcoin really mean? If I had the math to generate keys why wouldn't I also be considered an owner?
If you copy my signature does that mean you can sign my checks?
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.
> But in our email exchanges, he argued that he'd executed a perfectly legal series of trades. In real finance, there is an understanding that technical loopholes can exist, since not every outcome can be foreseen when writing laws, but the legal system can frequently prosecute against a series of actions which are, individually, legal, but which together are taken in order to achieve something illegal. That is, mode…
Edit: It would be great if there was more moral in finance, but I think that's wishful thinking and doesn't really distinguish traditional finance or Defi. The only nice thing about Defi is that everyone can see what's going on in contrast to what happens when you do something in traditional finance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes no sense- surely the same applies the money in your bank account? Or IP rights? Etc etc.
Neither of those build up a system where immutable transactions are the absolute arbiter of ownership. If they did, then the same would apply.
For example, if the court orders you to turn over your Bitcoin holdings to creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding and instead you transfer them elsewhere, you are probably going to jail. When you transferred them, the coins were in your possession, but you weren't the rightful owner.