• survirtual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Hacking a private corporate system, which is generally on closed nets and requires an internal actor / phishing, is significantly different from exploiting a code fault on a public network.

    Trustless systems rely on mathematics to secure their networks. This is both the revolution of them and the risk. If you build a system of value and it is on a public network, and you fail to properly secure it, that is supposed to be the risk. You lose money, hopefully go bankrupt / lose credibility, and a more efficient actor eats your lunch.

    Treating it like a traditional system with these unspoken legal safeguards when it uses a public blockchain and public network is absurd.

    • shrugal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      What’s absurd is this crypto maximalist take.

      You can’t just make up your own permission and punishment system, and then expect the legal system to just step aside and let it handle all disputes, especially when it comes to fraud. That’s like founding your own city in an existing country, and declaring all existing law obsolete. I know some people think this is a real possibility, but the real world doesn’t work like that.

      • survirtual@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        The “real” world works however the people want it to.

        As it stands, it works with laws that protect the rich and elite with superior rights.

        Someday, maybe the people will decide on a more equitable system. Nature and mathematics might be heavy contributors to that system.