Nefario ran his payment script twice

[casascius]

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.
 

[1715431002]

1715431002

[1715431002]

1715431002

[1715431002]

1715431002

[Herodes]

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

Can the FUD please stop it is annoying and no one is going to believe you anyway.

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.

[repentance]

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.
 

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".

[casascius]

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.

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")

[Herodes]

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.

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.

[AndyRossy]

Pretty funny goof up.

[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.

(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%.)

[Herodes]

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.

(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 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.)

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.