Just because there are crypto anarchists doesn't mean that all crypto proponents are anarchists. And smart contracts (not sure why they're in quotes in your comment) can depend on real law and still operate fine (e.g. I'm sure NBA Topshot would file a legal case again Dapper Labs if they did something significantly damaging to their brand/NFTs, etc.).

(Replying to this one, but the sibling comment feels similar in vein).

- I'm not really saying the crypto-side argument is right, really just trying to clarify my perception of what they're saying re: the comment above me.

- The physics thing is really just a comment re: when it's hypocrisy and when it's not.

- FWIW, theft in crypto isn't super well-defined to me re: the laws of men either. Maybe someone who knows current law better than me can explain, but calling a function in a contract that sends updates from one pseudonymous address to another... I don't actually know if current written definitions of theft covers that, or needs some court to interpret it as theft. We kind of understand it as people, but I honestly don't know if "laws of men" as written, do.

If you do a promotion for giving away free food, and your smart contract accidentally allows someone to get a free sandwich every minute instead of once a day, is it so obvious that someone using your promotion more than once a day is "stealing"?

Ever use a different email address to sign up for a different free trial, say? Let alone people sharing Netflix accounts... where do you draw the line around "stealing" here?

Actually, we are only bound to the laws of physics within the limits of our understanding. As our understanding grows, those laws become less and less restrictive. I think it's an interesting analogy or parallel for the case we are discussing.

I would argue that this wasn't really a code flaw. They made a synthetic asset that calculated its price in a dumb way. That happens plenty often without code, and gets exploited by savvy buyers without code.