Topic: Maybe some hacks should not be illegal (Read 235 times)

example: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/4e6f0e562e1309ff4fa17e0d87e9bdbadce924a16201e86807028cbed9dfb3b8

Let me tell you guys a story, a woman in her 60's was trying out her beautiful diamond ring that her husband gifted to her when they got engaged and now, as she sat down looking at that ring in the mirror, there was a slight knock at the window, she rushed to see that she left her door open, it was wind rustling through, when she came back she took the ring off and proceed to lock all the windows and doors since it was quite windy, when she came back, the ring was gone, she was able to evaluate by the CCTV footage, who stole that ring ?
She presented her servant to the court and asked for her ring back, now the servant said, " since I found it, it's mine "~
Did you get the moral of the story?
This is futile, it's like giving people the freedom to do wrong things.

Well, if you said that and then we apply your statement to a conventional money, you cannot prove the ownership of your money either so how will you prove it if it's your money? but afterall stealing money is always illegal when you have enough evidence to prove that you owned that money before it was stolen. And in the case of crypto it is easier with Sign Message, you can show that you have done a signed message before the private key is stolen then it's enough evidence that your private key has been stolen. But then again, stealing crypto private key is actually far more difficult.

Yes, in a broader sense. But if we fixated our views toward "code is law' or simply how the system/blockchain and the consensus perceive the accessed private keys, then it is simply according to the rule, which is it's the way it is supposed to be and I think there is no way it can be claimed as hacking.

Can you name which of the Pancakeswap hack?

---

Exactly, the word hack is evolved not as what it was meant to be, just like "crypto". But in this case, I think we need to hold firm and give some direct examples of some definitions for the discussion.

The main concern here is the method on how the hacker have access on the private key. I understand your point that private key is the only way to prove ownership but the problem is you can’t get access to someone private key without doing something shady directly to the original owner such as phishing to get the private key which makes this topic falls to an illegal. This point is valid if the original owner has a consent or give directly the ownership to other people. Most of the hacking in crypto is result on exploit or phishing which is an illegal method to get possession of others property.

they as the developer of the smart contract or the audit team should be held accountable. some projects even give big bounties for all the bugs found usually done by the hackers themselves. i agree if it is wallet theft indeed it is a malicious hacker and it is a personal loss only. whereas if smart contracts are targeted then one project will fail.

Is this some conscience thing? Like psychologically it should be right if the hacker didn't mean to access one funds/private keys? Like picking up money that is dropped by someone else and no one is claiming it? No, I don't think so. We put those at lost and found section.
Think about it, what if it's your private key that was hacked and you don't even have any idea why or how it happened. Just one good hacker targeted you.
Will that be a fun feeling?
It's illegal, it doesn't matter if you just bumped into it, unless the owner himself gave out the private key.

It's terrible the perception you want to build, how can a hack or theft be legal just because it's like the logic you build. From a legal point of view hacking is clearly wrong even if you mean it.

I kinda agree with you at some level and data should be free. But just because you can access to someone's private key, it's nearly impossible that you came up with that by an accident. As the data is private it could be equivalent to getting your email breached. Or leaving your front door open. It would still be illegal to enter.



As an old computer geek, this is a common misconception and not any serious dictionary would define it like that. Hacker is a computer enthusiast and word hacking has been tainted by people who don't understand the whole scene and see computer experts as scary criminals just because they COULD use it to illegal purposes.

Word describing gaining access illegally should be Cracker, which is the word that was commonly used by "the scene" because they cracked systems for their own benefit or the benefit for others.

There are hacks that are not illegal.  For that, we can go down to kinds of hackers.

There is this..
White Hat

If you gain your access thru illegal means, the next steps will definitely illegal.  You cannot say what you did is legal when you did get your access illegally, (please refer to the given definition of hack).  Unless you have the consent of the owner of the privatekey.  

But can be a private key illegally controled? Do you own the coins or do you own a key to access the ledger? This is my question, remember the hack against the pancakeswap admin, maybe not the best example, but still

Maybe let's define what is "hack" and what is "access" according to thefreedictionary.com



Based on that and your question, accessing my own private keys without any probable and reasonable legal authority or simply because of my own personal authorization can be concluded as hacking. I didn't give any permission to anyone to control any of my belonging, in any way, even if it was because of my own mistake, the private keys are illegally controlled, which it can be defined as hacking.

But is it hacking if someone has access to your private keys?

Making the villains the super heroes right? Hacking is stealing don't make it look like it's great to be an hacker, the only way to be an hacker and be legal is getting paid trying to hack into projects security and that's after you've agreed to proceed with the team, bounty things you know.

What do you mean by it?


Because by the definition of "steal" conveys it. Yes you may find other belonging, but it is up to you whether to claim it as yours--since you found it-- or return it to the true owner. In another sense, it's up to your moral standard.

They might agree but that doesn't mean they have the comprehension. How many of the smart contract users understand software engineering?

It is actually like a regular internet user, how many people do they read the terms of service and privacy policy, it is almost non-existent. ToS and Privacy policy likely contain legal and technical language, a word that may regular Joe don't grasp fully. And here we are dealing with smart contracts.

Back to the question, if the network is truly decentralized, then the participant is inherently judging.

I am not questioning stealing. :Let's just stay in a utopic environment, what if by having access to a private key you don't have to steal, lie or gain access to any kind of private information or activity which may be questionable. Will this be stealing?

I think you should try to understand the meaning of hacking itself first:


This means, that while you're accessing someone's information you need to gain permission from the owner. Can they give the permission or not, the permission can be granted before or after (As long as for the good things of the owner itself, without taken advantage from your activity).

Back to the topic.
In this question, you question stealing right?

Based on your question, we already have get the answer. Since is stealing, meaning that the private key of that victim is not compromised to the public not by the owner but compromised by one person or group while he got targeted accessing information to his device without his authorization. Before you get a suspect is also need several inspect first, how the hacking activity is leading to you.

If they cannot prove that and the court decides not to have enough proof, then you're free (Even though we all know you're the suspect hacking) to go unless you tell by yourself you're hacking them. But that's how the law work, everything is based on investigation, law and statement from both sides.

---

The smart-contract question is also the same, even if they paid the audit. All activity is based on the law & regulations of each country, every people have no right to accessing, modified someone's information, stuff, etc without permission from the onwer.

Hey there,

I was doing my research on hacks so far in 2022 and I had a thought in my mind.

Why are hacks on smart contracts on smart contracts seen as illegal? Why stealing btc from someone's private key is seen as malicious?

Don't get me wrong here: but your keys, your crypto. I don't think someone can't say the other way arround, right? Ownership can be proven only by having the private key to your coins.

And about smart contracts, the moment someone is using a smart contract he agrees with the code of the smart contract. As a decentralysed network, if someone abuses of that code that is an issue of the code developer or of the owners of the specific contract(holders) as much. There was a specific hack this year, I won't name it, and on slack the owner received a simple question: "You have paid for an audit, how's possible they didn't notice such a obvious breach?" and he answered: "Because it costed only 69k$". Take the crema hack for example..

So what are your opinions? Should hacks on decentralysed networks to be not judged?


local rule: any spam signature post will be deleted