You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

WalterL comments on Are smart contracts AI-complete? - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 22 June 2016 02:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: WalterL 23 June 2016 12:30:19AM *  0 points [-]

I guarantee that if they could appeal to a judge, they would be. That's just not possible.

Ultimately, one of two things will happen.

Parties: The attacker: They used an exploit to transfer ether from one 'account' to another.

The victim: They no longer have ether that they used to.

The miners: They trade electricity/computation for network tokens in order to protect history from being rewritten. They are the reason I can't just write a program to give myself every bitcoin. They wouldn't run it. If they did, their users would abandon them for a fork from before my patch.

The way crypto works, you can basically count on consensus winning out. Thus, ultimately one of two things will happen.

1: The miners accept an update and fork to rewrite history such that the victim retains their ether. 2: The miners accept the attacker's bribe (or not) and do not do so. The thief keeps the ether.

In order to influence whether 1 or 2 happens a judge would have to compel the actions of the miners. That is, he would have to seize control of the currency.

It has never happened. If you think that it will in this case, I'm willing to bet you that you are wrong.