In most cases yes, but isn't ethereum all about "the code _is_ the contract"? If you as the owner of a house put an ad in the paper saying "if you can manage to enter my house feel free to take whatever you want", should you complain if someone did exactly that?
Yes because that would still be a crime. Expanding on your analogy - if I declare right now that it's ok to murder me, it's still not ok to come and murder me. Same principle applies to EULAs and Terms of Service, you're not bound to it just because it's in there.
If the hacker was entitled to those funds based on the agreement between the concerned parties (implicit OR explicit in the contract) it would not be theft. But it clearly isn't their Ether and the implicit agreement behind the contract stands.
Basically human ethics, morals and the legal system will always trump code.
> Yes because that would still be a crime. Expanding on your analogy - if I declare right now that it's ok to murder me, it's still not ok to come and murder me.
The comparison to murder doesn't work because you can't consent to murder, but you can consent to theft.
It's not clear to me whether that situation would be taken as consent, but unless you know something I don't, it probably shouldn't be clear to you either.
I mean, legally, what happens is not "consenting to theft". Unlike say assault, which you can consent to, and legally speaking an assault actually happens but consent makes it okay; but with theft, if you consent what happens is not legally theft. (IANAL, but this is my recollection from law A-levels.)
But that distinction is irrelevant here. The point is that there's basically no way for someone to deliberately kill someone and have it not be a crime. But there are ways for someone to take someone else's stuff and have it not be a crime, and one way is if the owner consents.
Under US law, I think that's probably true, but a) it's not what I was talking about, and b) I don't think you should be as confident as you seem to be.
This comment fails to address the point of the comment it is replying to... you simply repeated the original point, but the person you responded to worked within that analogy and then modified it to try to address the statements by Ethereum.
Right, I am saying the analogy I responded to is flawed. Ethereum doesn't invite people to violate the intended use of the contract. It's like claiming that if a corporation got hacked due to lax security, then those hacking are in the clear because that corporation invited them in
