The Crypto Thread

[emmpee]

Basically. The consent was fraudulently obtained I guess.

Mostly just posting because tweet #2 in that tweet thread is not exactly true as written. May have the same legal net effect though, idk.

https://twitter.com/akivamcohen/status/1529276863901847552?s=21&t=4og6kXRG8Jiuq9oRlFAXPw

[anon12304106]

More broadly, if buyers and sellers can’t trust the blockchain is an accurate record they can rely on than what are we even doing here?

[anon3530961]

Grunching the Seth Green thing a bit but skimmed that twitter thread and it says Green was phished as opposed to signing a txn to send his bored ape away. So like someone got his private key basically? Like he entered it on one of those fake MM scam pop-ups? Or does lawbro have that part wrong. Also I agree this is all made up and for TV entertainment

[emmpee]

Lawbro wrong, SG signed SetApproval transactions for BAYC/Doodles/etc to a scammer wallet and the scammer xferred them out two blocks later.

[anon3530961]

Seems like that would be pretty clear case that a court system has probably dealt with before then. Basically what would court do if someone signed away something without reading the terms and conditions.

I wonder if the opinion would be different if he lost his private keys to a phishing attack instead. I guess that’s probably also a similar condition to something that’s happened before non-blockchain.

[amead]

This isn’t crypto-specific, but man I really hate that we’ve gotten to the point where anything goes on the Internet. Someone breaks into your house and takes your stuff, very bad serious crime, you are the victim. Someone victimizes you on the Internet, and its just lol you dummy you got GOT.

Like you’re supposed to just tip your cap to the scammers and thieves that steal and destroy and tell them “Good game, sir, you really got me that time! Fair play!”

I know, old man yells at clouds.

[Superleeds]

I’ve been told by a lawyer that Terms and Conditions aren’t the be all and end all and if you can show a court they are unreasonable they can rule that they are not enforceable. But IANAL so :shrug:

[bobman0330]

If he actually authorized the transfer, then it probably depends on what he has the reasonable opportunity to learn about what he was agreeing to:

Fraud in the factum

If he just didn’t read what he was clicking on, but it said “give away all my apes,” seems like he was just being careless.

[bobman0330]

At the end of the day, someone must have produced a crypto signature authorizing the transfer of the ape. It seems like this could only happen in three ways:

1. SG is tricked into generating the signature. On this case, he wins if the trickery amounts to fraud in the factum (i.e., he had no reasonable opportunity to understand what he was signing).
2. SG intentionally delegated the authority to transfer apes to someone else, either by custody or sharing his private key or by doing some kind of on-chain delegation, then the delegate did something they weren’t supposed to. Here SG should lose no matter what.
3. The hacker generates the signature without SG’s involvement, by stealing the private key, or some zero-click exploit. This is the interesting case. Arguably, by making something transferable on the Ethereum network, you are telling the world that anyone who can prove they have your private key via crypto is authorized to transfer the thing. Even if someone uses knowledge of your private key to do something you don’t actually authorize, you should be estopped from denying their authority when you said knowledge of your private key was proof of authorization. If that argument is correct, it would probably apply to the fraud in the factum case as well.

[SvenO]

I lold at a Twitter post saying BAYC budget 300k animation budget 50$ under the trailer for that Seth Green show.

[hokie]

@bobman0330

If he actually authorized the transfer, then it probably depends on what he has the reasonable opportunity to learn about what he was agreeing to:

If he just didn’t read what he was clicking on, but it said “give away all my apes,” seems like he was just being careless.

In this case I assume he could have read what he was clicking on but it was probably all gibberish. It said “give away all my apes” but would have looked to him like “097asdf087asd9f8as8d9fa827y5liuhdliufy38974y5tliuhserltiugys9834y5693h458iuherg”

[hokie]

@hokie

In this case I assume he could have read what he was clicking on but it was probably all gibberish. It said “give away all my apes” but would have looked to him like “097asdf087asd9f8as8d9fa827y5liuhdliufy38974y5tliuhserltiugys9834y5693h458iuherg”

nevermind

@goofyballer

(this used to be easier before February or so - in older versions of OS the message you sign was a completely unintelligible hex string, so it wasn’t obvious what the message meant. Now you essentially sign a JSON structure containing your sale parameters, so it looks much more like what it really is, at least)

[Yuv]

I agree with your point but i don’t think it’s old man yells at clouds. Quite the opposite. The old men yelling at clouds are behind the internet isn’t real. This will change eventually.

[amead]

Just grumpy lately as my career has essentially morphed from make cool stuff to wait for the bad guys hack your shit and destroy everything, then get blamed for being too dumb to stop them.

[ChrisV]

@bobman0330

Arguably, by making something transferable on the Ethereum network, you are telling the world that anyone who can prove they have your private key via crypto is authorized to transfer the thing.

This makes no sense to me. It’s like saying “arguably, by having a vehicle which can be driven away merely with possession of a key, you are telling the world that if they have the key they can take your car”. It’s well established in computer fraud law that possession of credentials does not mean that their use is legitimate; you have to be authorized to use them by their owner.

[suzzer99]

He’s so good.

[bobman0330]

I don’t really see the similarity. With a crypto asset, you are telling people that title will be passed via cryptographic signature, and in fact that’s the only way the asset will be transferred. It seems inequitable to allow you to do that, then repudiate a valid digital signature that’s been relied on by a third party.

[bobman0330]

I think it’s crucial that you’ve voluntarily accepted weird crypto rules. The inequity is that you announce that you’re going to enter into transactions by cryptographic signature, then try to repudiate transactions that were validly signed under the rules you chose to accept.

[ChrisV]

@bobman0330

I don’t really see the similarity. With a crypto asset, you are telling people that title will be passed via cryptographic signature, and in fact that’s the only way the asset will be transferred. It seems inequitable to allow you to do that, then repudiate a valid digital signature that’s been relied on by a third party.

Our friend Rebekah Jones got charged with illegally accessing a computer system despite the fact that she accessed it with valid credentials, because merely possessing valid credentials does not establish a right to use them. The missing ingredient is authorization by the owner of the credentials. If you obtain Microsoft’s private keys and use them to digitally sign software in order to pretend that Microsoft released that software, of course that’s a crime. I don’t see how adding “on the blockchain” changes any of this.

[Yuv]

@ChrisV

I don’t see how adding “on the blockchain” changes any of this.

the crypto market would crash completely if someone else hear you say that.