It's clear that with the last few months activity within the crypto-sphere that we can all now classify crypto currency hacks and attacks, as justifiable actions by noble coders simply using 'code is the law' to highlight inherent areas requiring a small patch or better coding. With this in mind, I am at a loss as to why Bitfinex have contacted the relevant legal authorities, as the $60 million lost/charged was simply the coders fee for finding the exploit. Bitfinex would do better to focus on patching this highlighted exploit in case a real criminal comes along and uses it to steal 1 ETC.
You tend to confuse concepts. Bitfinex is a centralized private business, your comparison is apples and pianos.
Indeed. Minecache seems to be severely logically challenged.
Nowhere, except in one single instance, "code is law". That single instance is a smart contract. Nor in crypto currencies, nor in any other software system, "code is law". The particularity of a smart contract was that a computer was the judge between different parties, so there "code had to be law" as a computer can only execute code, and not "interpret intend".
In ALL other software endeavours, INTEND is law. Even with bitcoin and even with ethereum. There, the intend is the white paper. This is why bitcoin hard and soft forked in the past, in order to correct bugs in the software, because the software deviated from the white paper intend.
So there, (buggy) code is NOT law.
In crypto, normally PROTOCOL is law, because the protocol was the contract (not the code). The intend of a cryptosystem usually contains "immutability". Remember, the engagement of the ethereum foundation: "unstoppable code". Modifying on purpose code that was running according to intend, to CHANGE INTEND against even a minority of people assuming that intend, is breaking one's engagements.
Again, the ONLY place where buggy code is law, is in the concept of smart contract. Which makes that concept in itself a funny concept.
