1. 17
  1.  

  2. 12

    It’s despicable, and it will continue. The root of trust for my bank accounts are hierarchies of ever-larger insurance policies, culminating in powerful militaries. I have tedious yet reasonably effective ways of countering many types of fraud, and insulating myself from the impact of theft. I can’t wait to see how this problem is eventually addressed by the world of cryptocurrency. What is the cutting edge of cryptocurrency insurance right now?

    1. 20

      Look, here’s the thing. If you’re holding 30 million dollars in 250 lines of code that you haven’t audited, then it’s on you. Seriously. It takes any half-decent appsec guy less than one man-day to fleece those 250 lines. At most, that would cost them a few thousands of dollars. They didn’t do it because they wanted it all for free. They didn’t do it because they’re greedy and cheap. They absolutely deserve this.

      I kinda agree with this, honestly. :-\

      1. 2

        I kinda agree with this, honestly. :-\

        That’s because, as your post history on Lobsters has established, you need to get you some ethics and morals.

        I kinda agree with the top comment in the article:

        “ Look, here’s the thing. If you’re holding 30 million dollars in 250 lines of code that you haven’t audited, then it’s on you.”

        Look here’s the thing. If you’ve parked your car on the street like a pleb instead of buying a house with a garage, then its on you.

        Look here’s the thing. If you’re holding a PC and a TV and a washing machine in a house with single glazing on the rear windows, then it’s on you.

        Whilst this was an extremely interesting read and I’m sure awesome fun to pull off, theft is theft. The rule of law is the rule of law. You know that these ETH belong to other people and you have taken them for yourself. That’s theft, and I hope the law catches up with you.

        1. 13

          But the entire point of “smart” contracts is that the code IS the contract, right? Your analogy is flawed. It’s not like stealing a car, it’s like finding a loophole in an agreement (or “dumb” contract) and exploiting it in the courts. That happens literally every day, and it is perfectly legal.

          The difference is that when you have actual humans making the decisions instead of computers you can make more subtle arguments about what was intended instead of being beholden to the most pedantic possible interpretation of the contract.

          1. 14

            This is the correct interpretation. The “smart contract” hype is built around the concept that the blockchain is the judge and the jury: it’s all built on the assumption that the blockchain is incorruptible and perfect. To quote from Gavin Wood’s paper “Ethereum: A Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger:”

            [Ethereum has attributes] not often found in the real world. The incorruptibility of judgment, often difficult to find, comes naturally from a disinterested algorithmic interpreter.

            Further:

            …natural language is necessarily vague, information is often lacking, and plain old prejudices are difficult to shake.

            Most ominously, perhaps:

            …the future of law would be heavily affected by [smart contract] systems… Ethereum may be seen as a general implementation of such a crypto-law system.

            Based on these concepts, the idea that they’re building a perfect replacement for law, they implemented a Turing-complete language with no concept of or provision for proofs, and run it on a distributed VM from which no malicious programs can be purged. Brilliant!

            1. 4

              Is it brilliant? I’m not so sure: what sovereign citizens and computer geeks alike seem to believe is that the law is a sequence of perfectly defined rules - which is why the former loves to look for the magical series of words that exempts them from it.

              But in reality the law is often about intent and judgment. If I found a bank that let me put my name on everyone’s account and I did with the purpose of withdrawing their savings, the court would hold a dim view of me saying “but they let me do it!

              1. 4

                That was sarcasm. :)

                1. 3

                  thank god. but like the best sarcasm - and I say this with complete sincerity - it’s indistinguishable from what people are claiming both here and in the article.

                  1. 1

                    Well note, only the “Brilliant” part was sarcasm. The rest was literally quoting a seminal paper in the space.

              2. 2

                hopefully the interest in contract languages on blockchains will encourage more folks to get involved in formal verification.

              3. 3

                But the entire point of “smart” contracts is that the code IS the contract

                Agreed. The analogies given above were ridiculous:

                Look here’s the thing. If you’ve parked your car on the street like a pleb instead of buying a house with a garage, then its on you.

                This is not a comparison. Try this instead:

                Look here’s the thing. If you’ve parked your limited edition McLaren F1 on the street instead of in your garage, then yeah that was dumb

                But this is still a rubbish analogy because in Ethereum: Code is Law.

                1. 8

                  The correct analogy would be to leave the thing unlocked, with the keys in a plastic box inside, and with a notarized affidavit that reads, ‘I, goodger, hereby transfer ownership of this vehicle and its contents to whomsoever may open this box’.

                  1. -1

                    Bingo!!

              4. 19

                That’s because, as your post history on Lobsters has established, you need to get you some ethics and morals.

                Says the guy who posted 9/11 truther conspiracies from his blog. Angersock has ethics and morals, and I’m a little disheartened that your ad hominem attack got upvoted.

                1. 6

                  There are a few certain types of stories regarding politics and cryptocurrencies that seem to bring out a group of extremely angry and aggressive posters that don’t seem to want to have anything but traditional internet yelling. “Get morals” has been yelled at me any time the US government is brought up and always seems heavily upvoted.

                  1. -5

                    Says the guy who posted 9/11 truther conspiracies from his blog

                    And what is wrong with that?

                    9/11 Truthers are called 9/11 Truthers because they aren’t 9/11 Frauds.

                    EDIT: BTW, those downvoting this as “off-topic” might want to downvote @ngoldbaum’s post instead. I didn’t bring up 9/11, he did. I’ll defend myself if called and, and so to quote from elsewhere: It’s been 16 years now and over $300k in research by multiple teams have refuted NIST multiple times — enough is enough.

                    and I’m a little disheartened

                    That’s too bad.

                    It’s what happens to people who don’t understand basic physics.

                    Have fun with the paid sock puppets though.

                    1. 2

                      Damn, I’m a sock puppet after all… Also ad hominem.

                      1. 2

                        me too! #sockpuppet

                        1. -4

                          Keep it up, y’all are going to spend the end of your lives in a prison of your own making.

                          You think smart people can’t see past these fake votes?

                          1. 5

                            It must be very hard living a life where you think every time someone disagrees with you it’s because of a huge conspiracy.

                            I encourage you to talk to a mental health professional.

                            1. -2

                              It must be very hard living a life where you think every time someone disagrees with you it’s because of a huge conspiracy.

                              You misunderstand, I don’t think that.

                              But 9/11 is a huge conspiracy, so on this particular topic it’s perfectly sensible to think that.

                            2. 2

                              I know that this is futile and I’m shouting into the void, but why would you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a sock puppet? These aren’t fake votes I think people are disagreeing with your aggressiveness, there is no reason for this to be a psy-ops campaign just to mess with you.

                              1. -4

                                but why would you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a sock puppet?

                                See my response to your sock puppet friend’s identical question.

                                But, tell me (since now with the fake downvotes nobody can see your response), how much do you get paid to write this stuff?

                                Are you an American? If so, is it enough to sleep at night, knowing that you’re supporting the terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11?

                                1. -3

                                  You gonna answer my question or just exercise your downvote button?

                                  Think McFly!

                        2. -5

                          Angersock has ethics and morals

                          Yeah, theft is cool man. Totally ethical. Totally moral. And your upvotes totally didn’t appear simultaneously as a bunch of sock puppets upvoted your comment.

                    2. [Comment removed by author]

                      1. 3

                        there’s some speculation that this is a warning tale

                        1. [Comment removed by author]

                          1. 3

                            It’s a parable written by a fake perpetrator dramatizing a real event.

                          1. [Comment removed by author]

                            1. 1

                              The name of his character in the birds.

                          2. 3

                            So, probably missing the satire tag to avoid much trolling. ;)

                            1. 0

                              Good catch. FWIW, unaccustomed to the cryptobutts (read with n-gate intonation) as I am, I genuinely figured this was just a normal thing. Thank you!

                            2. 1

                              Why do people invest in those things when it’s so easy to buy tulip bulb futures or invest in Madoff funds?

                              1. -2

                                Hey @jcs, can you explain why this story, which currently has 17 upvotes and 30 comments as of this writing, is no longer on the front page? Nothing in the mod logs about it.

                                I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is because TPTB and their sock puppets don’t want people to see the discussion and links from my comments, but I’d like to hear the official reason?

                                1. 8

                                  Because of you. The code is available. The story ranking algorithm (“hotness”) puts some weight on comment scores, and you have posted a number of terrible comments that have been correctly downvoted to hell. Those negative scores have dragged down the story. You can read the code and run the math on this and the other frontpage stories.

                                  Or, I suppose, you could invent a conspiracy.

                                  1. -4

                                    and you have posted a number of terrible comments

                                    Hey, you’re free to consider honest, truthful statements to be “terrible”. That’s your prerogative.

                                    Notice every reply I received was ad hominem and also off-topic.

                                    I didn’t start the 9/11 stuff. @ngoldbaum did.

                                    But feel free to claim I was the one posting “terrible comments”.

                                    As for the rest of your answer: thank you. IMO, a story shouldn’t be judged based on the actions of sock puppets in the comments.

                                    Or, I suppose, you could invent a conspiracy.

                                    What are you talking about? Your own answer confirms my guess. You just said it was because of my comments. Lol.

                                    When people talk about 9/11, people’s brains turn to jelly.

                                    I understand. It’s a sensitive topic.

                                    But it’s been 16 years now and over $300k in research by multiple teams have refuted NIST multiple times — enough is enough.

                                    1. -4

                                      I love these downvotes. Here, have another comment to downvote. To ease your internal suffering. :)