291.2409 BTC for a 0.0001 BTC transaction .

[Cyaren]

WTF... The miner of that block must have been so lucky.

But I seriously doubt that that person did this unintentionally. It has to be intentional. Perhaps he owns the address 155fzsEBHy9Ri2bMQ8uuuR3tv1YzcDywd4 as well.

[pawel7777]

...
But I seriously doubt that that person did this unintentionally. It has to be intentional. Perhaps he owns the address 155fzsEBHy9Ri2bMQ8uuuR3tv1YzcDywd4 as well.

That's BitClub Network's mining address. So you're essentially saying that tx was staged by the miner, as discussed above it's possible but pretty risky. BCN did get a lot of publicity because of that including some mainstream news press hits.

[PassThePopcorn]

...
But I seriously doubt that that person did this unintentionally. It has to be intentional. Perhaps he owns the address 155fzsEBHy9Ri2bMQ8uuuR3tv1YzcDywd4 as well.

That's BitClub Network's mining address. So you're essentially saying that tx was staged by the miner, as discussed above it's possible but pretty risky. BCN did get a lot of publicity because of that including some mainstream news press hits.

It was more likely the sender forgot to send the 291BTC to a change address and just sent x BTC to where he wanted to send it using a raw transaction or a wallet that makes you do  change manually.

All BTC must be sent, first to where you want it sent and then either back to your own address or a change address. If you fail to do this any left overs get given as a miners fee, most wallets will automatically send to a change address.

[tmfp]

...
But I seriously doubt that that person did this unintentionally. It has to be intentional. Perhaps he owns the address 155fzsEBHy9Ri2bMQ8uuuR3tv1YzcDywd4 as well.

That's BitClub Network's mining address. So you're essentially saying that tx was staged by the miner, as discussed above it's possible but pretty risky. BCN did get a lot of publicity because of that including some mainstream news press hits.

Probably nothing to do with the fact that today is the day that they are withdrawing from the U.S.market, probably because of legal concerns about being a Ponzi selling unlicenced securities.

[bitraine]

0mg that was a serious money, whoever own that btc is very  rich that dont need to double check transactions before sending.. hope he get it back.

[BitcoinSupremo]

Another sad story but much much sad unfortunately, we had one before and it was from human error, not very long time ago, and it was 15 BTC sent as transaction fee, but now we are talking of about almost 300 BTC transaction fee. I read the story and it looks like this amount got to the Bitclub Network based in Netherlands.

So I am curious to know are they still in charge of this amount or new developments have happened ?

[DOGE12321]

He lost 291.2409 BTC during the transaction and 0.0001 BTC was transacted.

It probably a thief or someone who was trying to speed up the transaction and messed up big time. If it was anyone else, I would just call him unlucky.

[traderbit]

This is terrible, haven't seen a sad story for a long time, spending 135,901 us dollars on fees is terrifying, how can these mistakes prevent, it's simply absurd.

[SebastianJu]

I did not read the whole thread but I would like to know if he received his coins back or if bitclub kept it and did not want to pay back.

Besides... did he lose all his coins that way or was it only a part of the coins he had?

[exadex.org]

https://blockchain.info/tx/cc455ae816e6cdafdb58d54e35d4f46d860047458eacf1c7405dc634631c570d


 

Hahaha, poor rich man.

[mikehersh2]

Im sure its some sort of honest mistake. Pretty funny though if i do say so myself. Im sure this isn't the only case of something like this though, maybe not to this extent however.

[boyptc]

He lost 291.2409 BTC during the transaction and 0.0001 BTC was transacted.

It probably a thief or someone who was trying to speed up the transaction and messed up big time. If it was anyone else, I would just call him unlucky.

Surely with that big amount of btc attentions of thieves / hackers were on it.

So just be careful when you have large transaction you do. Make sure you correctly and double check it.

[Decoded]

I don't see why all you newbies are immediately excusing this to hackers/thiefs. It could simply be a human error. I use the electrum command line version, and I once used 0.1 as my transaction fee 

I think it's a human error.

[boyptc]

I don't see why all you newbies are immediately excusing this to hackers/thiefs. It could simply be a human error. I use the electrum command line version, and I once used 0.1 as my transaction fee 

I think it's a human error.

I see , so we are wrong thinking that hackers/ thieves did this.

To particularly whose error is that? By the sender?

[Shinpako09]

snip

I see , so we are wrong thinking that hackers/ thieves did this.

To particularly whose error is that? By the sender?

Are you serious, you really dont know? Isnt it obvious mate? of course its sender's error. Hes the one sending the transaction. He didnt double check it before clicking send.

[richjohn]

snip

I see , so we are wrong thinking that hackers/ thieves did this.

To particularly whose error is that? By the sender?

Are you serious, you really dont know? Isnt it obvious mate? of course its sender's error. Hes the one sending the transaction. He didnt double check it before clicking send.

Oh no. He didn't double checked the fees in transaction. I know the sender is started to cry with that.

[PassThePopcorn]

snip

I see , so we are wrong thinking that hackers/ thieves did this.

To particularly whose error is that? By the sender?

Are you serious, you really dont know? Isnt it obvious mate? of course its sender's error. Hes the one sending the transaction. He didnt double check it before clicking send.

Oh no. He didn't double checked the fees in transaction. I know the sender is started to cry with that.

He didn't check to send the 291BTC to a change address or back to the originating address, not that he sent a 291BTC fee. If you don't spend the BTC in the transaction even by sending the remainder to  yourself it is automatically considered a miners fee.

You originally have 300BTC in 1YYYYYYYY->> you send 9 BTC to 1XXXXXXx ->>291 BTC is now the miner fee as you didn't also send it back to yourself (1YYYYYYYY or a change address). Using a poorly programmed wallet could do this or trying to send a raw transaction.

Bitclubpool has stated they would send it back to the original sender if they prove ownership, if no one proves to them that they owned the BTC Bitclubpool "will" donate it to charity.

[AGD]

I see a nigerian prince, who failed at trying to mix stolen coins. Good thing is: he obviously doesn't know he could get it back.

Btw Bitclub: Please don't give this money to the Bitcoin Foundation. It's just like giving it back to the nigerian prince.

[Boosterious]

He lost 291.2409 BTC during the transaction and 0.0001 BTC was transacted.

It probably a thief or someone who was trying to speed up the transaction and messed up big time. If it was anyone else, I would just call him unlucky.

No,people already mentioned that it was a bitclub pool mistake,so nothing bitcoin stolen,its just a mistak,and its not first time mistake and not the last,i wish i will never found any other mistake like this.

[Etaren]

He lost 291.2409 BTC during the transaction and 0.0001 BTC was transacted.

It probably a thief or someone who was trying to speed up the transaction and messed up big time. If it was anyone else, I would just call him unlucky.

Surely with that big amount of btc attentions of thieves / hackers were on it.

So just be careful when you have large transaction you do. Make sure you correctly and double check it.

The transaction cost of Bitcoin is really low and that is because also that there are not that many people are using it and the banks also hate it because now more people are using Bitcoin and that is perfect.
The transaction time is also faster than your banks so that is also nice for Bitcoin, you see that Bitcoin will be the future money.