If you are switching to this because mining for Bitcoin is unprofitable, then you are only fooling yourself.
Scenario 1)
- You give $100 to the goat-needing families
Scenario 2)
- You mine 5 BTC for Coinbase, using $100 of electricity.
- Coinbase converts the BTC to USD.
- Coinbase sends $67.50 to the goat-needing families.
And no one sees the problem with this?
Now, if mining is still profitable for you, then all power to ya! Just don't fool yourselves by thinking that this is a good idea if you can't already make money Bitcoin mining.
Also, Coinlab hasn't mentioned if 100% of the proceeds are indeed going to these needy families, or if they are taking a cut for "server" usage or something. Would be nice if they put what percentage that cut is up front.
We are donating 100% PPS for all shares earned by people running the goat client. So, no fee at all, we're actually taking a slight loss on this (due to orphaned blocks). In addition, CoinLab is kicking this off by donating one full goat and our test-machine's 7970's hashing power. This is mostly just a fun project for the holiday season while everyone is in the giving spirit. (And to possibly introduce some people to the idea of Bitcoin mining who aren't familiar with it). If you cant mine profitably anymore, we would love to hear that you're donating to Heifer directly: we're hoping this will both raise money for and awareness of their great organization. Please feel free to post in this thread if you do! Thanks for the response! I am passing this along to family who might be interested in donating their GPU power...  |
|
|
|
|
If you are switching to this because mining for Bitcoin is unprofitable, then you are only fooling yourself.
Scenario 1)
- You give $100 to the goat-needing families
Scenario 2)
- You mine 5 BTC for Coinbase, using $100 of electricity.
- Coinbase converts the BTC to USD.
- Coinbase sends $67.50 to the goat-needing families.
And no one sees the problem with this?
Now, if mining is still profitable for you, then all power to ya! Just don't fool yourselves by thinking that this is a good idea if you can't already make money Bitcoin mining.
Also, Coinlab hasn't mentioned if 100% of the proceeds are indeed going to these needy families, or if they are taking a cut for "server" usage or something. Would be nice if they put what percentage that cut is up front.
|
|
|
|
I think we're beyond laws here - I don't think anyone is arguing that any laws would apply here. It's more of an argument of ethics and morality.
I actually believe laws do apply, and to the extent they can't be applied, it's only because a) the person keeping the bitcoins is not in the US, b) it's not practical to pursue a claim of that nature for $50, and c) the legal system has a scarce understanding of bitcoins. In United States v. HELMS No. 96-1167 Crim. App. No. 31250 the appeals court issued this opinion: "The mistaken delivery of property to an individual who realizes the mistake and simultaneously forms the intent to steal the property at the moment of receipt constitutes larceny at common law. W. LaFave & A. Scott, 2 Substantive Criminal Law § 8.2(g) at 342-43 (1986). Furthermore, where the individual does not realize the mistake at the time of receipt but realizes it later and then forms the requisite intent, there is a larceny as well." http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/1996Term/96-1167.htmThis of course assumes Bitcoins are recognized as property and that submission of a transaction to the block chain to be recognized as equivalent to "sending" them, concepts which I am sure will eventually be argued over and then found to be as I've defined them. Oooh, interesting. I would say that the law does indeed apply here then! |
|
|
|
If someone did a mistake and added to your real bank account even 1$, i say it again BY MISTAKE, would you give it back? Tell the truth here.
If they asked nicely, and had reasonable evidence that the money came from them in the first place and was transferred by mistake, then I would probably return it. However, the odds go down significantly if they lack evidence, and become negligible if they start making demands. So far as I'm concerned, the money was given to me freely, and accepted in good faith; I did not request the money or do anything to cause the transfer. In the absence of a formal contract, it's up to me whether I choose to give it back. The analogy of finding cash on the sidewalk fails because it was only dropped, not given to you. This is more like someone walking up to you and handing you $50 with no explanation, and then later demanding it back, claiming a case of mistaken identity. Note that this is consistent with postal rules, at least in the U.S.; if someone sends you a package, unsolicited, it's yours, and they have no right to demand that you return it or pay for it after the fact. This goes doubly true for Bitcoin, where ownership is defined exclusively by possession of the controlling private key. It's up to the sender to make sure they're transferring their money to the right account. Returning money mistakenly sent to one of your accounts is nice, and maybe even the "right" thing to do, but I see no obligation here. They sent it to you, ergo it's yours. Intent is irrelevant. Don't sign or broadcast transactions you don't want processed. My recommended mitigation for this would be to require your customers to agree to return excess funds on request as part of setting up an account. Then there would be an obligation, though you would obviously need to prove that the address belongs to someone who has an account with you and agreed to those terms. If you mistakenly send funds to some random third party, that's your problem, not theirs. I think the analogy of someone handing you $50 is off - that is a deliberate and purposeful action, whereas dropping some money on the ground or sending it to the wrong (with nothing identifying) account number is not. Seeing a person face-to-face, you can be much more certain right from the get-go that it is going to the right place. Sending money to a Bitcoin address or other account number without any other identification attached is a much easier mistake to make. Therefore, I would revise your analogy to accidentally sending money to the wrong bank account (maybe dyslexia caused two numbers to be transposed). If you knew who it was that you accidentally send the money to, would you not request the money back? Would it not be their moral responsibility to send it back? Or, similarly, if the bank accidentally deposited $100,000 in your bank account, would they take it back? (Most certainly, they would, once the mistake was realized, as it was their money, not yours). I think we're beyond laws here - I don't think anyone is arguing that any laws would apply here. It's more of an argument of ethics and morality. |
|
|
|
All you who say you would return back the money i simply cant believe you. Replace that "somene" with "someone you dont know", and answer to me again.
Absolutely I would, in a heartbeat. Same thing if I see someone drop a $20 bill on the street - I'd pick it up, run after them, and give it back. I hope you don't ever run a business, because you'll run it into the ground with an attitude like that. Honestly, I wanted to feel sorry for you for having your info plastered all over the internet, but after these statements you have made, trying to justify your theft, you're only showing yourself to be a lowlife scumbag. You're part of the reason the world isn't a better place. It is not your money, yet you've decided to keep it anyway. If someone robbed a bank, then shoved a portion of the loot into your arms on the way out, would you keep it? It is not your money, yet you keep it anyway, and try to justify your conscience with your queries of "be honest, would you return the money?" Scumbag. |
|
|
|
|
I just discovered 123D Catch... and I really, really want to turn some of these things I am capturing into real life 3D models. Does anyone in the community do 3D printing for reasonable prices?
|
|
|
|
To recap...
- Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
- BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
- Customer wants refund
- BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
- Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
- BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet
is this what happened?
No, nhead published the sensitive information, not BitcoinStore. BitcoinStore only published it after nhead had already done so. |
|
|
|
|
I'll buy it for really cheap if you don't get any other takers and just want to be rid of it... like 2-3 BTC.
|
|
|
|
Obviously we need the government to come in and regulate these people.
Obviously.  It's like there's a bunch of whiny 12 year old girls here, I swear... Roger made a mistake, and it's been owned up to. If you don't like him, don't use his service. Move on. |
|
|
|
If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.
If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution? If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info. I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money. I am only saying, I don't accept the apology. A worded apology is not worth much to me. Put your $$ where your mouth is. The company violated its own terms of service. If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere. So, pay a fine? To whom? How much? |
|
|
|
If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.
If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution? If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
blockchain.info/wallet is the best web based wallet hands down. Don't hate.
+1 to that. |
|
|
|
I'd rather Bitcoin be promoted on its factual merits rather than bullshit marketing.
So then promote its factual merits in a commercial spot. |
|
|
|
Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).
I agree. It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired. What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.  Can we label shad0wbitz and stochastic "Public Flailers"? |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap, I think the real victim is the person who's privacy was invaded. That person should be given compensation for this cheap attack and it should be more than 4 BTC.
No, he shouldn't. Thanks for the public apology Jon. My faith in your business never wavered because of this incident (I know that we're all only human), but it is still good to hear an official statement that this sort of thing will not happen again. |
|
|
|
Good - more Bitcoins for me and my GPU's! Interesting that not selling gpus for asic seed money to be first in line might end up being the best play. It is almost 6 months of mining now since bfl started taking orders while the price has been great. Asics might come out in a rush and we can still get them right after everyone else does who ordered months ago give or take a month or so. Only a lucky few can make upto 6 months of mining in days/weeks. More interesting, that's exactly what I did. I sold all my GPU's, with exception of the two that are in computers that I use for other purposes besides mining. I have a first-day preorder with BFL. That is about the only play that made sense. I have not done the math yet but the last 6 months have been pretty good to me. To have ordered 3 months ago lets say... Might be a very poor move instead of just keep on keep on with gpus. To be fair, I had 3 singles that I sold for $805/ea a couple days before the BFL announcement (when they just announced that they were going to announce it in a couple days), and used those funds to secure the two ASICs. If I had continued mining on those singles, I would have had a nice chunk of change by now. I sold them on 6/19. Difficulty has roughly doubled since then. Using a very inexact calculation of 2 months at half the current difficulty, and 2.5 months at the current difficulty, and 0.5 months at the current difficulty with the 25 BTC reward, and knowing that each of those singles ran 862 MH/s, I get a total of $2,286.22 that I could have made by now if I had kept them. On the downside, they aren't worth as much anymore. I sold mine for $850/ea. Today, I'd be lucky to get $450 each. So that's a $1,200 drop in value, bringing the difference down to $1086.22. On top of that, I wouldn't have had a first-day preorder of BFL's ASICs if I hadn't sold them. The question remains, will having two of the first BFL ASICs net me at least $1,086 more than I would have vs ordering two ASICs today? I certainly believe it will, but only time will tell... |
|
|
|
WOW .... Roger Ver single handily tarnished his reputation and the reputation of BlockChain.info for some 4.x BTC ... INCREDIBLE!
I wonder how long will Apple take to take down the IOS app for blockchain.info after they learn about their lax security practices and abuses?
Would you trust your personal information to BitInstant after we have seen what Roger is capable of doing with it? I would not.
And you're an absolutely perfect angel? |
|
|
|
I completely agree. I think the best thing for Blockchain.info would be to force Roger Ver out.
I'm not sure I see it the same way. Roger at best made an error in judgment, something I or anybody else could do on account of being human. The activities he engages in to promote Bitcoin paint a much clearer picture of where his interests lie. For example, everybody knows that the biggest weakness of a "Casascius Coin" is the fact that "Casascius" could know the private key. The answer isn't "push Casascius out", rather, the answer may very well be in the form of bringing affordable two-factor physical bitcoins so the trust footprint can be reduced. That's what will benefit Bitcoin in the long run. The best thing for Blockchain.info would be to recognize where its soft spots are, and actively work to harden them. Personal information stored on Blockchain a problem? What's better, push Roger out due to public outcry, or release something that makes it more the default to not store personal information on their servers? The second is by far a better long term solution, something Roger would almost certainly agree with, as I can't imagine his involvement and investment is just so he can chase down 4 BTC accidentally sent to his customer. It is sad to see BlockChain.info - a superb service - dragged, without merit, into such an display of complete and utter incompetence trolling and hate on the part of the owner of Memory Dealers, Roger Ver trolls and haters which did nothing for the community. This https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131574.0 behavior; publicly displaying the details of a private individual scammer and labeling them a criminal would at best seem morally dubious and at worst defamatory a mistake driven by anger. FTFY I'm afraid I have no idea what this: "trolls and haters which did nothing for the community" means in the context of my statement. I get the distinct impression that neither do you. I'm afraid you understand perfectly, so do I. Blockchain is a superb service, second to none. Roger has an extensive, historic, work towards the success of bitcoin. Who are the trolls posting here (including you), and what did they give to the community ? I completely agree with the both of you. Roger did indeed abuse his access to blockchain.info's admin side, but it's the sort of not-so-obvious mistake that many of us could make. He had access to the data he needed, why not use it? At least, that's the mindset he was in at the time. And he never released any of the private information to the public until the scammer himself did. He has been a key player in the move to get more people using Bitcoin. He can learn from his mistake and continue on, a better businessman because of it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
