Bitcoin Forum

Folks got over paid and Nefario requests the coins to be returned. Do the receivers of the overpayment have a moral responsibility to return them, or is this fate giving his customers a chance to compensate themselves for the disrespectful customer service they have received?

edit: nice delete forums poster gweedo

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm F5ing the return address like a motherfucker.  I think this is totally hilarious.

I see one of the two repayments didn't make it back ENTIRELY.

Suddenly the anonymous angry ignored treated-frankly-poorly mob have the power.

Does ultimate responsibility lie in the hands of the accountant at GLBSE? If too many coins are never returned, it's not like responsibility for the shortages lies on those that got double paid.

Right? Wrong?

Anyone who doesn't return coins that do not belong to them deserves a scammer tag.  It's theft, plain and simple.

I cant blame them if they keep the 10% Nefario hasnt paid yet.

In a "normal" situation, the business would pay out of its own funds and then seek recovery of the over-payments by legal means (they can't just reverse them like a conventional financial institution) or write it off.  In this situation, who knows whether GLBSE has the funds to cover the short-fall or sufficient information to pursue people legally even if they wanted to try to pursue the recovery of an equivalent fiat value through small claims (which I assume they don't want to given Nefario's fear of legal scrutiny).

If it was me, I'd probably keep the 10% and return the rest eventually but I'd let Nefario sweat for a few days first.

Yes, by all means let's expand the definition of scammer until it includes everyone who ever did anything wrong.   ::)

Why should words have meaningful, fixed definitions when our emotional need to express condemnation by any means available is so strong?  ::)  ::)

On the other hand, maybe everyone who advocates a scammer label for things not involving actual scams should themselves be labeled as a scammer...   ???

Nefario should have handed over glbse to someone else and we could have avoided the whole situation. Most likely people will now have to take a haircut.

I can't read a single post about this double payment clusterfuck without this song running through my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PM4TLNgsg&feature=related

same but more like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0AS7-LWimg

I think they should pay back as there are other people that have yet to receive anything, but I don't think they should send it back to Nefario.  Nefario needs to either resign as CEO of BitcoinGlobal and manager of GLBSE or he should be fired.

He has shown irresponsibility in handling the users bitcoins and he can't be trusted with sending out information to the asset holders.

The community COULD pseudo unionize and make this work without the lot of the perpetrators of this. Get the logs, demand the records, split the coins, demand the rest.

How do you even know that the coins do not belong to them? Maybe Dr. Nefario is just paying double as an apology to former users of Good Luck Bitcoin Special Entity. I've seen this happen before in my Japanese Animes.

I think it would be OK for those who got overpaid to hold on to it until the stock ownership info has been appropriately sent to the issuers. And once that happens, sending the overpayment to an escrow would be appropriate as well.

I don't know that the coins do not belong to them.  Hence the reason I qualified my statement with "that do not belong to them".

Morally, I don't see a problem with people keeping the extra 10% so that they are fully paid out, but they shouldn't keep any more than they were owed. Just don't spend it for a while, just in case GLBSE can't pay out everyone 100% anymore, because the difference might need to be clawed back.

Your post caused me to think of another scenario. A couple accounts he controls, a couple others are comrades--Genjix comes to mind--and as for the others he sent doubled coins to, he calculated them to be of good character knowing that a large percentage of those coins will be returned, but a shortage will be realized due to what I stated at the beginning of this sentence.

~Bruno K~

Just over 40 coins returned so far. 

That is the reason a third party should have handled the shutdown. There is no audit trail whatsoever.

Double payment risk can be nearly eliminated by using paper wallets.  Everyone makes mistakes on occasion but paper wallets make expensive mistakes harder.

If I need to send out a large chunk of coin, I load paper wallets just enough to cover the transfer. The hotwallet would never have enough coins to pay a transaction twice except for small transactions.
 

The right thing to do (in my opinion) would be to deduct any fee you think is worthwhile if you think that customer service sucked. So if you were entitled to 100 BTC, and got 200, and is pretty angry with the whole ordeal, I think keeping 110 BTC and returning 90 BTC would be a good way to go about it.

The asshole will keep 200 BTC, but then other normal users like him will be out of pocket. So that is not the right thing to do.

But anyway, running double payouts. Boy, that Nefario dude is one skilled business person!

Or we could start labeling all people not paying back as scammers on this forum. LOL. After all, Bulanula was called a scammer when he got more coins that he has asked for, and didn't return them.

Hell, I actually do this with my conventional accounts as well.  I only transfer just enough to cover what I know will be going out when it's due to come out.  It only takes seconds to transfer more money into my "hot" account if I need it, so there's no reason to keep money in there "just in case".

I think taking the extra 10% if that's what one is rightfully owed is OK, but I don't think deduction of an inconvenience fee is appropriate.  Should the person who has to eat that fee (possibly another shareholder?) collect a fee from you for his inconvenience resulting from you keeping his money?

Is deducting one possible?  yes... Deserving of a scammer tag?  probably not...  Consistent with the notion that governments are bad and that coercion by force is an unnecessary intrusion onto our freedoms?... no, doing this sort of makes the opposite case.

Act upon your values - if your values are such that anything you get your hands on, you get to keep, well by all means, keep the extra coins.  Thank Jesus for them if you feel so inclined (referring of course to the deity figure, and not suggesting that the guy who gets stiffed for them will have the Latin-American given name "Jesus")

Hi casascius,

I don't hold any money with GLBSE, but if I did, depending on how angry I was with everything, I might have kept a 10% fee for the emotional distress, I wouldn't have kept twice the amount though. People need to learn, if they act as doucehbags, it should get back to them in one way or another. Neither me, nor any customer would ever be personally responsible for any other customer GLBSE may serve, that's the responsibility of the operators. If they make users angry enough, and then make a payout mistake, I won't blame customers that keep a 10% inconvenience fee. I don't see it the way that other customers would suffer from this, I think the operators should pay this out of their own pocket.

You could also think of that the customer could chose to keep all of what he received from the double payment, so returning half of it minus 10% is far better than being severly out of pocket (for operators), which would be the case if the customer selected to return nothing. I might as well have returned everything that wasn't meant for me, I don't know - it depends on the situation and how I felt about it.

Pretty funny goof up.

(Rhetorical question:) Why 10%, and not 1%, 5%, 20%, or 50%?  Why a percentage at all, why not just a flat rate?

Emotion isn't very good at measuring and delivering justice, and experiencing emotional distress is part of life, rather than a paying job.  (I say this mostly in contempt for a common American practice of suing deep pockets for millions of dollars for "emotional distress" and feeling as entitled to any award for it as a paycheck for having done work.  I'm not saying 10% is the wrong answer, for it's an ethical dilemma with multiple right and wrong answers, but for me the answer would be 0%.)

There's no answer written in stone. It could be lesser or larger than 10% or none at all, depending on the situation. As a non-american, I can only shake my head slowly in disbelief about the ridiculous multi-million lawsuits going on in the US.