Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 09:02:11 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 08:50:30 PM

All you are doing here is defending a thief. Don't you see it?? The DAO guys were stupid victims of their own hubris, but the thief was the person who broke the code to steal the funds. Yes, stole the funds.

He didn't break any code. He used it, and it was the law as to the statements made on which every DAO owner agreed.

He didn't steal any secret key. He didn't fork any block chain. He used the code to the full extend, as it had been written. He didn't break anything. In as much as you think the code was broken, then the law was broken because the code was the law.

edit: let me clarify this somewhat, because you seem to miss the point.

Suppose that I present you a contract where I say that it is a contract that allows you to live in my appartment next week, against paying me $150 dollars, and that the contract is written in Dutch, and that the Dutch text is the ultimate authority.

Now suppose that that Dutch text is such, that indeed, it describes that you can live in my appartment for a week and you pay me $150 dollars, but that if your name starts with a D and ends with a d, then I owe you a million dollars. I didn't even know this: I wrote the Dutch text using Google translate, and Google translate fucked up.

Now suppose that a guy named Donald, fluid in Dutch, reads this, and he comes over and signs this contract with me.

Do you think that if he claims his million of dollars, he's a thief ?

There's a big difference. He is asking you to honour your contract and deliver a million dollars to him. Let's say that when you last wrote a cheque to someone that you were leaning on that contract and some guy sees the imprint and decides he's plundering your account.

So rather than claiming funds, he has actually taken the funds already.

See the difference?

One is a chancer, the other is a thief.