Readit News logoReadit News
aj3 commented on Crypto brothers front-ran the front-runners   bloomberg.com/opinion/art... · Posted by u/feross
OutOfHere · a year ago
The MEV bots had a protocol that they were expected to follow. These two guys were running a secret cluster of their own bots that strongly violated the expected protocol.
aj3 · a year ago
The strategy that MEV bots use is not a law. It is not even defined or endorsed by Ethereum standards, and arguably is not an intended feature of the network.

You could alternatively claim that the guys defined their own protocol which addressed market inefficiency (which MEV is). Imo it's insane to claim that a trading technique you invented should have zero risk, and any losses you take are an indication of theft.

aj3 commented on Crypto brothers front-ran the front-runners   bloomberg.com/opinion/art... · Posted by u/feross
mrguyorama · a year ago
Also, much more relevant than a bunch of hucksters showing that they care more about money than ideology,

The DOJ doesn't GAF what you say, they care what the laws are. Tokens are property. They technically gain all the standard property protections, like people aren't supposed to steal them from you, and fraud is still fraud.

If you want code to be law, you would have to pass legislation to that effect, and good luck. We tried wildly unregulated markets before and it was generally bad for the world economy. After FTX, good luck convincing regulators to let you play around with real money even more

aj3 · a year ago
> Tokens are property.

What law says this? Technically, tokens are smart contracts, basically OOP classes with both data and behavior. They also by design have public methods which are meant to be triggered by anyone on the chain. It's not at all obvious that triggering these methods in an unexpected order or with unexpected data is breaking any laws whatsoever. It's bytecode anyway, so there's no human readable EULA's or explanations on what you're allowed to do with the token.

aj3 commented on Crypto brothers front-ran the front-runners   bloomberg.com/opinion/art... · Posted by u/feross
tmn · a year ago
They did decide they’re entitled to taxes on transactions..
aj3 · a year ago
I bet this indictment will be used as a case study to justify the need for government oversight and taxation.
aj3 commented on Crypto brothers front-ran the front-runners   bloomberg.com/opinion/art... · Posted by u/feross
Electricniko · a year ago
I feel like the people who wonder why this is a crime are missing something pretty important: this isn't the SEC attempting to regulate a crypto market by prosecuting securities fraud, it's the DOJ prosecuting straight-up old fashioned fraud. The crime is changing the terms of the transaction within the 12 second time frame after it had begun but before it had finished, and ultimately selling something different than what was promised. It doesn't matter that it's crypto, you could similarly be prosecuted for fraud by selling counterfeit pokemon cards if prosecutors could prove you knew that you were misrepresenting the cards as genuine cards. Here, the prosecutors have all the evidence they need from the code, and the Google searches showing what their intent was in writing that code.
aj3 · a year ago
But you're not signing EULA's in order to participate in the network. Moreover, there are no real "laws / regulations" within the network either, specifying what you are or are not allowed to do. Ethereum standards merely determine how the software is supposed to work, but even then I'm sure Ethereum devs would oppose treating their docs as an agreement (because they don't offer any warranty, licensing or attestation). Moreover, there is an express goal to have a diverse set of software clients, so even developing your own software to be interoperable with existing standards can't be constructed as "an attack".

All this to say, I just fail to say how this can be constructed as "changing the terms of the transaction". There was no legal agreement between parties and no existing precedent to treat this as a malicious attack at all.

All I see is a Wall Street establishment pulling strings in order to protect their investment, by asking for a sudden government oversight in the system that was built with the express goal of not requiring any government oversight.

aj3 commented on Ask HN: Help, any US-based companies that allow you to work from Europe?    · Posted by u/jc_811
blakblakarak · 2 years ago
Which country are you relocating to ? Certain ones such as France don’t allow ‘digital nomads’ - there are workarounds but it inevitably involves paying taxes and social charges. Working cross borders can also be difficult- I’m English but have French residency but cannot work for a non-French (and possibly Ireland) without getting a blue card or getting my EU citizenship back which was stripped from me against my will…
aj3 · 2 years ago
It's weird to consider paying taxes as a tradeoff. "Digital nomad" isn't a code for tax avoidance, is it?
aj3 commented on My Pinephone Setup   hamblingreen.gitlab.io/20... · Posted by u/georgeoliver
DeathArrow · 3 years ago
Why does Google hate the regular Linux Kernel and the regular Linux userland so much that Android doesn't have much Linux resemblance?

I remember that wen Nokia did N900, it was pretty compatible with mainline Linux.

aj3 · 3 years ago
Android has different security guarantees compared to desktop/server Linux. E.g. people should expect that none of the installed software can hijack the phone completely and that most damage from malware should be mitigateable by uninstalling malicious app.
aj3 commented on PSA: uBlock/AdBlocks on Chrome to lose function thanks to Manifestv3   old.reddit.com/r/YouShoul... · Posted by u/diplodocusaur
1vuio0pswjnm7 · 4 years ago
One of the interesing things about this story is that there appears to be no consideration of not "updating" to a new Chrome version. The idea of user choice in "updating" is completely absent. Why cannot a user say, "V3 sounds wonderful but I will stick with V2, thank you." A user has a version of a program that works for that user (e.g., with uBlock Origin), and Google can apparently forcibly stop that user from using that working version, through a process of "automatic updates". Users must "accept" updates which makes one wonder Google can pull this off. Does it not rely on user behaviour. By accepting every "update" without question, the user is effectively consenting to being controlled.

Perhaps users will someday "wake up" to realise that so-called updates are not necessarily being remotely installed for their benefit, but for the benefit of someone else. No doubt Google has some parallel construction type explanation why users need V3, but how many folks cannot see that they are letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Perhaps if ads can be blocked, so too can updates. (IME, it's possible.)

aj3 · 4 years ago
There were over a dozen of 0day exploits this year alone. Some used in water hole style attacks, so not even that targeted. And these are state of the art incidents which would have pwned even users with all the updates installed.

After the patch has been pushed out, exploits become progressively cheaper so letting users to postpone security updates is a crime.

u/aj3

KarmaCake day731June 6, 2020View Original