duties of the US government: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Making money 'trackable' is good business and makes sense and would probably come under the first three of the above. If it didn't make sense Las Vegas would have left their casino chips untraceable but no, they realize the RFID identification and tracking of casino chips makes good sense for them and offers a level of protection they need.
Those are general clauses listed in the preamble - they give no power. You should be looking at Article I, Section 8. The Federal government has only the enumerated powers expressed here and like a few others. The Federal government is also not granted a monopoly on currency, nor the power to forbid others from making currency, or using other currencies, or to require that private currencies are made according to certain rules. In fact, it only has the power to coin money from gold and silver (which never was traceable) - what you call the "dollar" is a counterfeit irredeemable paper ticket (i.e., a bill of credit). It is illegal for the federal government to issue bills of credit. What we call the "dollar" is illegal. So, you may be right that it could be a good idea, but the federal government just doesn't have the authority to do it - unless it could somehow put serial numbers on gold and silver coins, which would be very difficult, but not necessarily uncoinstitutional. Hard to believe I am talking to someone on Bitcointalk who does not understand this already. You are addressing the right of Bitcoin to exist. I do not dispute the right of Bitcoin to exist. I do not accept that the Bitcoin economy has a "right" to promote or facilitate criminal activity be it theft of Bitcoins from MtGox or movement of profits from of illegal drug sales out of the country or as that muckraking US official said at the Senate hearings, to be used to buy and sell children. |
|
|
|
I don't see why it is an issue. You can't trace cash either - you couldn't trace any money prior to electronic payments.
Cash you can, since each bill has a serial number. My understanding is that it's more like water. In my example, when the first guy sends 1.5L(BTC) to 1AAAAA, that address now has a bucket of water with 1.5L in it and you can trace the history of that bucket. When I send 2L there, 1AAAAA now has two buckets of water, each with individual histories. When 1AAAAA spends that water to someone else, he's pouring 3L into a new bucket for 1BBBBB and 0.5L into a new bucket for 1CCCCCC. You can tell that those two new buckets were made from the output of the two input buckets, but you have no way to say what water in 1BBBBB or 1CCCCC's buckets came from which input from 1AAAAA. With more complicated with more inputs and outputs. If Gox did a transaction with 20 inputs (one of which are your coins), and 100 outputs, which of those 100 outputs are yours? Who can you go before the judge and say "that guy got my money"? Years ago I took a course on computers part of which included doing the math that an 8088 processor did in its process. Then they explained how those processes changed with larger processors. One could get a sense of the incredible depth of the machine process. On a similar vein I looked into network management protocol. It's empirical and the tree starts with the DOD, which makes sense as the internet started as a US department of defense information sharing network. Every motherboard ID, every video card ID, every ethernet MAC address is part of that tree. It was apparent that identifying information of all kinds was being crunched within the CPUs and as a result is part of any contact with the internet. Can I do the math of a quad core Intel processor? No. Can every satoshi of those missing Bitcoins be traced? I'd bet that would be a yes. |
|
|
|
|
duties of the US government: establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Making money 'trackable' is good business and makes sense and would probably come under the first three of the above. If it didn't make sense Las Vegas would have left their casino chips untraceable but no, they realize the RFID identification and tracking of casino chips makes good sense for them and offers a level of protection they need.
|
|
|
|
There is no chain of title from the depositor to the current owner of a coin. MtGox being off blockchain and pooled funds makes sure of that. You can trace a particular "coin" back to MtGox, but the trace stops there. You can't trace back further than that.
Coins get spent into Mt. Gox's pool, so there is clear chain of collective ownership of the pool. The depositors didn't have any "coins" directly and thus have no claim with the actual thief (if one exists).
This depends on the contact with Mt.Gox. Most banks have a clause which says that deposits are unsecured creditors and not allocated nor unallocated storage. Whereas most other vaults/accounts in the world are allocated or unallocated storage.
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/11/04/plans-in-place-for-a-us-bank-bail-in.htmlJim Sinclair pointed out that banks legally own depositors' funds as soon as the depositors hand those funds over to the banks. The money becomes the banks and the "depositors" actually become unsecured creditors holding promises to pay. Previously the banks were obligated to pay back this loan on demand with cash. Under the new Federal Deposit Insurance Company - Bank of England (FDIC-BOE) plan revealed this year, however, these promises to pay become equity in the bank, which won't be able to be used as payments for bills, which is why most people have money in the bank in the first place.
The point is that your money is not yours while it is "deposited" with a bank.
However I assume Mt.Gox would not have many customers if there had such a fine print in their Terms of Service. The presumption is these deposits into Mt.Gox were balances for an account with an exchange. MtGox had its coins stolen (or embezzled). The depositors traded Bitcoins for IOUs payable by MtGox. Much like a bank there is no individual depositor's money. The bank has a liability to the depositor. If a bank is robbed it is the bank's money that is being stolen.
Mt.Gox was not a bank. Did they have a banking license to take deposits? I don't think so. Now in the US we have deposit insurance but even if we didn't the bank couldn't just say "sorry that was your particular $100 bill stolen is last weeks robbery). The banks funds were stolen and the liability the bank owes the depositor still exists.
Not any more! Read what I quoted above. Now the banks can give you worthless equity in the bank instead. Now in this case when MtGox lost their coins, they lost the ability to repay those IOUs. In the size of the theft was smaller MtGox couldn't just say "sorry that was your coins stolen" the liability (IOU) would remain and depositors could seek damages against MtGox. I know we went a long way round but while MtGox may have a claim against any coins that can be traced back to MtGox, no depositor would.
That depends on the contract Mt.Gox had with its account holders. In any case, the court can apply the demo dat rule on behalf of Mt.Gox. A copy of the Terms of Service is available on way back archive. Looks like you made the wrong assumption:
it will hold all monetary sums and all Bitcoins deposited by each Member in its Account, in that Member's name as registered in their Account details, and on such Member's behalf. Members agree that, whenever a Transaction is made, the Platform sends and receives the monetary sums and/or Bitcoins from the Buyer and the Seller’s Accounts in their name and on their behalf, through the IT system in place on the Platform at the time of the Transaction. LIABILITY
Members represent and warrant that they are the legitimate owners and are allowed to use all monetary sums and Bitcoins deposited on their Account and that the Transactions being carried out do not infringe the rights of any third party or applicable laws. Members who are not consumers ("Business Members") will indemnify Mt. Gox for any and all damages suffered and all liability actions brought against Mt. Gox for infringement of third party rights or violation of applicable laws.
To the extent permitted by law, Mt. Gox will not be held liable for any damages, loss of profit, loss of revenue, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of data, indirect or consequential loss unless the loss suffered is caused by a breach of these Terms by Mt. Gox.
Mt Gox cannot be held liable for any malfunction, breakdown, delay or interruption to the internet connection, or if for any reason our site is unavailable at any time or for any period. Where our site contains links to other sites and resources provided by third parties, these links are provided for your information only. We have no control over the contents of those sites or resources, and accept no responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of them.
In the case of fraud, Mt. Gox will report all necessary information, including names, addresses and all other requested information, to the relevant authorities dealing with fraud and breaches of the law. Members recognize that their account may be frozen at any time at the request of any competent authority investigating a fraud or any other illegal activity.
To the extent that a Member operates and uses the Site and the Platform other than in the course of its business ("Consumer"), nothing in these Terms shall affect the statutory rights of such Members.
Nothing in these terms excludes or limits the liability of either party for fraud, death or personal injury caused by its negligence, breach of terms implied by operation of law, or any other liability which may not by law be limited or excluded.
Subject to the foregoing, Mt. Gox's aggregate liability in respect of claims based on events arising out of or in connection with a Member's use of the Site and/or Platform, whether in contract or tort (including negligence) or otherwise, shall in no circumstances exceed the greater of either (a) the total amount held on Account for the Member making a claim less any amount of Commission that may be due and payable in respect of such Account; or (b) 125% of the amount of the Transaction(s) that are the subject of the claim less any amount of Commission that may be due and payable in respect of such Transaction(s).
Still the application of demo dat rule is not a forgone conclusion when it comes to bitcoins. It doesn't apply to legal tender and it also doesn't apply to bearer instruments (i.e. casino chip), or negotiable instruments (i.e. a check).
Because the government needs for legal tender and checks to be fungible, as it is the government's (i.e. banksters') money and banking system. And very rich (banks) need the casinos to launder their drug money (did you forget about HSBC recently).
Breuer told a press conference in New York that Mexican drug traffickers deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars each day in HSBC accounts. At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts.
It is at least plausible a judge would rule that bitcoins are more like those exceptions than real property. Until we see a court case we won't know for sure. I am not a judge so what I think matters little but a bitcoin has more in common with a casino chip (a bearer instrument) then it does with a car (which is a unique specific piece of real property).
Note: to be clear I am not saying I have the answer just pointing out the law is pretty slow to react to technological changes. This and countless other questions will eventually be decided but the timescale is measured in decades.
Bullshit. It is quite clear a judge will rule that Bitcoins are property and not creditors to Mt.Gox. At least do some research before you spout off your often wrong mouth. We really need a Like button. |
|
|
|
Still the application of demo dat rule is not a forgone conclusion when it comes to bitcoins. It doesn't apply to legal tender and it also doesn't apply to bearer instruments (i.e. casino chip),
Note: to be clear I am not saying I have the answer just pointing out the law is pretty slow to react to technological changes. This and countless other questions will eventually be decided but the timescale is measured in decades.
Not sure what the demo dat rule is. Perhaps that there is a uniqueness to the stolen property? I see that dollars have serial numbers and now so do casino chips. So if the demo dat rule doesn't apply to seralized numbered dollars it doesn't apply to casino chips even tho now they have rfid tags internally (saw it on CSI used as evidence) so maybe the demo dat rule does apply to serialized numbered dollars. It likely applies to serialized numbered dollars having been marked with an explosive dye pack from a bank robbery. |
|
|
|
There is no chain of title from the depositor to the current owner of a coin. MtGox being off blockchain and pooled funds makes sure of that. You can trace a particular "coin" back to MtGox, but the trace stops there. You can't trace back further than that.
Let's explore that for a second. MtGox knows which accounts got double paid and knows the specific Bitcoins it paid with. Perhaps MtGox doesn't track internally which specific Bitcoins or fractions come from where, but would be able to look the double paid entries and identify which Bitcoins or fractions were sent. There should be a case for MtGox claiming exactly which Bitcoins and or fractions were stolen. Someone might quibble if it was theft if MtGox paid it out - that making it MtGox at fault not the receipent. I know my withdrawals never saw a double payout. Some say redlisting is bad for Bitcoin. Others, in this case myself, say no it isn't. Bad: religious can tag someone as say PAID FOR AN ABORTION and he and his Bitcoins be damned. Good: redlisting government seized Bitcoins, redlisting stolen Bitcoins. Lets look how much was stolen, something like 6.2% of all Bitcoins in circulation which at the moment are worth roughly $458 million dollars. It's tough to spend that much money. So they are going to sell cheap. Who can buy in January and February? Most Americans are climbing out of holiday credit card debt and if anything will be selling. Speculators will buy most. Who lost in MtGox? Those who see the banks and wealthy in their own country devaluing their currency. What happened with the April crash of 2013. A massive transfer of wealth to speculators and a general devaluation of Bitcoin. It did come back. I know it taught me a lesson. Speculators cause currency to be devalued. Currency speculating is legal. Currency speculators just aren't my favorite people. So, who is going to shout loudest that redlisting is a bad thing. Those who paid for an abortion? No. Speculators? Yes. I say redlist those coins and devise a way to return the stolen property in Bitcoins to MtGox. |
|
|
|
|
The Iraq treasury heist by Saddam's son amounted to 1 billion but 2/3rds was recovered. The dollar value of the missing MtGox btc is greater than what's outstanding from that treasury heist and more than the next largest heist in recorded history.
Not a crime? It will be difficult to convince many of that. And if he is found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, some will say the New York banks pulled strings to have that verdict so as to undermine confidence in Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
If he knew of ongoing btc disappearances before the holidays then left for a vacation only to return to find the number of missing btc had quickly risen to 770btc in his absence, would that be criminal negligence?
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate: The possibility that there could actually be some sort of tampering, and that he actually is right. Afterall, the Bitcoin Foundation has /a lot more/ to lose than 500BnUSD if that's the case.
but the malleability doesn't steal in itself.. it is just like making fake receipts. Mt Gox still had to process the second withdrawal via customer service. There is no way that a business goes bankrupt from the returns counter unless everyone is in on it or it is just a weak coverup. This scam runs deep and once the FBI is finally done with their SR investigation we may know a lot more on this... it seems there are a few combinations of scam going on. Karpeles has been in denial or complicit for a long time.. probably a bit of both The the resend on the withdrawls where fully automated. No CS was involved. too bad they didn't double pay my neptune purchase. |
|
|
|
I hope he's flying coach to NYC for the federal indictment.
They just bought a three letter domain name (and those tend to go for six figures) with depositor funds. I guarantee you he isn't going by coach. It isn't like it is his or the company's money he is spending. reminds me of a song the days of wine and roses, laugh and run away, like a child at play... he should keep in mind he isn't as pretty as Amanda Knox and as a result the federal grand jury might not find favorably. might make jail less difficult tho. |
|
|
|
I hope he's flying coach to NYC for the federal indictment. |
|
|
|
|
Refund: a) maxed out yearly contribution allowed into an IRA, b) savings account, c) new treadmill, d) Samsung 40" Smart LED TV and wall mount. And with the MtGox debacle any thoughts of an eventual purchase of my first new car is pretty much out of the question.
How the hell could he lose almost half a billion dollars? How the hell does that not show up in normal accounting procedures? My guess it was an effective slow loss, then he went home for the holidays, then they hit it hard while he was gone. Probably all wrong but if it is then again, how did the 770kbtc loss not get discovered?
|
|
|
|
I take $100 out of an ATM in $20 bills. The ATM has recorded those serial numbers. I immediately get mugged. I identify the mugger to the police. The money is seized. The twenty dollar bills are identified as those I withdrew from the ATM. The mugger gets tried, convicted, goes to jail or gets counseling (liberals) and I get my $20 bills back.
But this isn't what you are demanding. The real example would be: You take 5*$20 from the atm. Get mugged. Mugger exchanges the 5*$20 for a $100 bill at a store. Police catches the thief and tells you that after he gets convicted, you'll hopefully get $100 from him. You refuse this proposal and demand that the police go to the store get the five twenties that belong to you. If the store has given those twenties as change in the mean time, police must according to you find the customers and confiscate the twenties from them. This is essentially what you are asking**. Does this still seem reasonable to you? **) except you didn't really have 100$, you had an IOU for 100$ and still demand to get some specific twenties back (I'm not sure which twenties exactly) Humm, mugger steals almost half a billion (US billion) dollars in btc. Not to inconvenience anyone we say Good Luck, don't spend it all in one place, and that's that. Half a billion dollars in btc isn't something the owner can fix with a Hey mom, bail me out. |
|
|
|
Playing chess you'd want your opponent sitting on one of those while yourself on something stable. Ergonomic tho those may be, it would effect your balance and sidetrack neurotransmitters. It effected my MtGox btc balance (availability) I think. |
|
|
|
|
Theft of Bitcoins the result of which I have fewer Bitcoins, deprives me of my capacity to spend those Bitcoins. What kind of fungibility is that?
But this smacks of a pissing contest without benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Or perhaps the whole idea of Bitcoin cryptocurrency was to facility the movement of money for organized crime right down to the neighborhood crack dealer.
Which means that the ideal of Bitcoin being better than fiat because there's less inflation with a fixed number of Bitcoins compared to a government fiat controlled by the banking system was crap to attract money of those fed up with the upward migration of wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
This wasn't the first ripoff and it won't be the last. Last year MtGox got ripped off and they came back by paying out of their own if I recall recall correctly.
There needs to be a mechanism for making ripoffs unprofitable and correctable.
Businesses would prefer accountability SR and SR2 criminals notwithstanding.
If Bitcoin does not address the concerns of the honest and allows crime to go on without an appropriate response, it will bring down law enforcement by major governments with the consent of the populous, Bitcoin owners or not. Then they'll tax it unmercifully. I note someone said that earlier on this thread and better.
|
|
|
|
The exploitation of MtGox to the point it fails is in itself an abuse that should not be allowed to succeed. Why, exactly, are you even involved with bitcoin in the first place if you think like that? Perhaps you should go back to dealing with fiat, and stay there. =squeak= Do you even consider what you say? The idea your reply addresses? You are on my ignore list now. |
|
|
|
Good faith is the important part. no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part I was speaking more on the law. Bitcoin is trustless and fungible and should remain so. That doesn't mean that someone can't be arrested by law enforcement. Generally speaking accepting currency in good faith for goods or services is not a crime even if the currency is the proceeds of a crime. The accepting party acting in good faith is not liable for the return of the funds. However knowingly accepting stolen funds is generally speaking a crime and rarely are criminals allowed to keep the proceeds of a crime. Flagging the stolen Bitcoins and fractions thereof in a way that clearly lets the potential buyer or store know the Bitcoin is questionable and may at some future date be redlisted would be a start. The thief should not be allowed to profit from the theft. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
