You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Dstors Needs To Return Haejins Money
In court.
Which court would that be? The court of public opinion? To me the theft is less interesting than the legal grey area of crypto. We are entering a realm where people can't be prosecuted.
What is @dstors? Who is @dstors? If someone is found to be in possession of the private key does that make them legally responsible for the actions of the account? What if it's just the posting key?
We are entering an age of opt-in governance, and stuff like this is only going to make less sense as time goes on. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Ethereum Classic community makes the argument that the DAO hack wasn't theft, or if it was then it wasn't worth prosecuting. Code-is-law governance will be an option for everyone.
The court depends on the Jurisdiction and where the plaintiff choses the venue. The defendant could get his straw man attacked in his native/current KR jurisdiction OR in the plaintiffs native/current jurisdiction, either way, Fraud is Fraud, theft is theft. The DOA hack not being theft isn't an argument. An argument is simply if a is b and b is c then a is always c, a proposition followed by other supportive propositions leading to a conclusion, not just a proposition, not only an assertion. In terms of ownership it doesn't matter that the keys were in the car, it doesn't matter how the founds were compromised, because theft is INTENTION and PRODUCTS/ACTS.
ETC does not have an argument, they have a marginal and dare I say fringe opinion at most on why a HF should or shouldn't happen, or as you put it "if it was theft it wasn't worth prosecuting", which is embarrassingly only support of the theft, nothing more, no reasoning or explanation could ever manifest for "not worth prosecuting".
Posted using Partiko Android
I think the argument for ETC is pretty simple. The hacker followed the rules. You don't reverse immutability on the main chain because someone fucked up a custom smart contract.
The same logic applies to privacy. You don't take away privacy because a small minority of people are going to use that privacy to break the law. The problems created by taking away privacy are far bigger than the ones that exist. Sometimes doing nothing is the smartest course of action.
That being said I think I would have been on team Ethereum over ETC if I had been around when it happened. Community consensus is the new law. We're forging the ability to bend or break the law for relevant exceptions. A middle ground needs to be forged because both sides of the spectrum have serious consequences.
Immutability is worthless if theres a gaping hole in the underlying or overlying infrastructure built on the chain that allows people to basically cheat and steal funds out of others, that's why ETC have no argument, no logic and only a fringe opinion/baseless assertion that Code Is Law because there's no relevant explanation why and how immutability is above all else and that's why it's only assertion. That's why there's a maxim of law that says For every Rule or Law, there is an exception, because rules and laws aren't devoid of logic, ethics, or sensibility. It doesn't make sense to say that "Reality allows it" when it's a matter of ethics or morality and in the same way it's utter nonsense to affirm that Immutability is above all else, especially when the question is "when should the blockchain be edited, reverted or modified" to which the only acceptable and sensible answer should be Whenever a consensus forms (observe how, not why).
Posted using Partiko Android
Edit
Sorry about the double comments and wanted to add that the only exception I see to Whenever consensus forms is exactly what ETC is: when a fringe few would rather die in obscurity instead of considering it an ethical problem as opposed to what's allowed by reality so to speak (observe why, not how).
The idea of democracy is beautiful, in nature one doe stands up, signaling that it is thirsty and wants to head to the watering hole, then another joins, and another, and as soon as a majority forms they all get up and go, but then when democracy is used to empower certain groups and violate others it creates the exploitable positions that make democracy redundant at best but usually destructive to freedom and life. The reason democracy exists is to chose a specific course of action in regards to generally how but also why a group of people decide they ought to combine their efforts to fulfill a communal objective. That's why democracy works and is legitimate for ETH and why by code is law as when/how a hardfork happens ETC is illegitimate, a fraud, and functionally it's a haven for thieves.
From the evidence here, it's clear that demands were made to return money that haejin "left" in the @dstors account. If that is so, that the funds are haejin's, it's black and white everywhere else except maybe the ETC camp, that it is theft. Does it mean that because it's international that he's escaped or evaded the consequences of Criminal and or Civil prosecution? No, that's why it's really funny that he's claiming to have talked to lawyers and can provide timestamps and source code and "designs", as if it takes a lawyer to recognize the act of taking what isn't yours or any big genius to spot the difference between talk of leaking info versus actual evidence relevant to exonerating the theft, he's clearly getting nowhere fast but even with the obvious admission of holding haejins funds hostage some people doubt the theft, which would be ok if haejin and others haven't also verified or confirmed it, a bit of twilight zone episode.
You point out a fear of mine that is secondary to me to the fact that such a theft is not only taking place in front of all of us, but with seeming support from a segment of the community. I am guessing that the international barriers as well as desire for anonymity is emboldening such a move. This is exactly the type of shit that gives a door for oversight, and regardless of some saying it isn't theft, it is. If this line of thought becomes law, there will never be any mass adoption, and I predict there will be lots of violence. There are people who would do horrible things for far less value being taken.
The thiefs responses thus far have amounted to "If he doesn't have a witnessed signature of me admitting to stealing the funds in the account then it's not theft". If all the generosity that he's seen is true, and why wouldn't it be, then he is amid the most despicable kinds of people there are. I never liked how haejin abused his stake but that doesn't mean he's deserving of this duplicitous douchebag hijacking the funds he put into the account.
Posted using Partiko Android
I've seen people die over digital items in a video game. Certainly this is a much bigger deal. It just points to the fact that blockchain will create just as many problems as it destroys. Welcome to the future.
hi @edicted
Agree with you. Indeed this may be very interesting stage.
Nor do I get get the theft or court argument..
Youre all talking about theft and the right thing to do..
But didnt @haejin rape and steal from the Reward Pool? Was that the right thing to do?
“Thieves cant be successful. "