BitClub's fake offer to return fee blunder

[Blinken]

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block, but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

[AgentofCoin]

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block, but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

That is not a lie. Normally when this happens and a miner is willing to return it,
the miner will first need the owner to sign a message from the address that sent it.
After the owner proves control and a right to those funds, they usually provide a new address to send back the coins.
It is not smart to send the funds back automatically to the address that sent it to you for many different reasons.

At the end of the day, we will see how this plays out. But ultimately, the miner has no obligation to return it.

[DannyHamilton]

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Why is that bogus?

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

That is a bad idea.  I'm very glad they are not doing that.  There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess.  Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block

And you are accusing BitClub of bogus behavior?  Clearly you never developed proper morals and ethics.  Thank you for making it clear that you are not a trustworthy person and that you prefer to take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit.

but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

So, not only do you admit that you would take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit, but you also make accusations of lying without any indication that the statement is a lie.

Clearly I'd never count you among a list of friends.

[Kprawn]

It would be cool if they did send it back and the sender rewarded them with a good amount of BTC. This way, the other miners will see that people get rewarded when this happens and they will be more

willing to do the same. The sender should obviously just provide proof that he/she owns the coins send from that address. I wonder how people make mistakes like that and then never send a message

in a next transaction to ask the miners to refund them.  

[ebliever]

Danny is right on all points.

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward. In which case there was some discussion about donating the funds or a portion thereof to a bitcoin charity. I think that's very good of Bitclub, a good precedent in general. While there would be many good recipients for such a donation, if it does turn out these were stolen bitcoins, an ironically suitable charitable contribution might involve recompensing those who've been robbed of their bitcoin (in those cases where the theft can be independently verified).

[DimensionZ]

Is it really possible that those funds came from a mixer? But how did the mixer input 219 Bitcoins as the fee and 0.001 as the actual amount being transacted? Was it a bug in the script or a human error? Also how do people know this TX is from a mixer were they able to follow the trace back to the original address?

[calkob]

are you serious you would have kept it, knowing that it was a mistake, that is not right man, yes i can understand the temptation but to actually do it .....

[odolvlobo]

Since I am suspicious of BitClub, I am suspicious of the whole episode.

It is possible for Bitclub to have inserted the transaction into their block (without transmitting over the network to other miners).

It would have cost them nothing, and they could gain a favorable opinion by returning the bitcoins to themselves.

That is a bad idea.  I'm very glad they are not doing that.  There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess.  Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

Danny, I'm curious why you write that the "from" address is just a guess. The transaction inputs all refer to ouputs in standard pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions with an address of 1QgT...agbh

[btccashacc]

Is it really possible that those funds came from a mixer? But how did the mixer input 219 Bitcoins as the fee and 0.001 as the actual amount being transacted? Was it a bug in the script or a human error? Also how do people know this TX is from a mixer were they able to follow the trace back to the original address?

well, it make sense if it came from mixer, so is this human error or something else?
any progress about this problem?
Are they have claimed or sign the address? i dont know just money laundring came to my mind for the first time

[elliptic_kid]

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Why is that bogus?

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

That is a bad idea.  I'm very glad they are not doing that.  There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess.  Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block

And you are accusing BitClub of bogus behavior?  Clearly you never developed proper morals and ethics.  Thank you for making it clear that you are not a trustworthy person and that you prefer to take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit.

but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

So, not only do you admit that you would take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit, but you also make accusations of lying without any indication that the statement is a lie.

Clearly I'd never count you among a list of friends.

intensely attacking the OP, chill out man

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward.

I don't think that's correct.

[-ck]

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

[bittrojan]

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block, but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

its become viral news that bitclub make mistake with accidental 316BTC fees,its a bad news for bitclub and for bitcoin world,and its also make me wondering who is really have that address.

[alani123]

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

Maybe the fact that they're an organisation trying to lure money from newbies into their MLM scheme leads people to the assumption that they'd rather keep the coins instead of doing the ethical thing. Running an MLM isn't ethical in the first place.

[h3rlihy]

Just seems like if you've got that amount of btc in the first place you should really know how to correctly send transactions. but I do agree that it is a mistake and should be returned

[bitkilo]

Just seems like if you've got that amount of btc in the first place you should really know how to correctly send transactions. but I do agree that it is a mistake and should be returned

Why would you say that just because someone has 316btc they should know how to send it correctly, we are all human and we all make mistakes from time to time, nothing will change our ways.
There was talk about implementing "insane fee check" awhile ago, was this done?

[Jasad]

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

Really?so its gonna be happen in some time and if this is not the last,which pool have any chance to make same mistake?can it identified since now?
i'm afraid its happen to me. 

[ebliever]

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward.

I don't think that's correct.

From: http://www.coindesk.com/accidental-136000-bitcoin-mining-pool/

The mining service said it has been researching the transaction and that it believes it was possibly sent by a bitcoin mixing service, a type of online offering aimed at privacy and anonymity but that is nonetheless associated with illicit use.

[alani123]

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward.

I don't think that's correct.

From: http://www.coindesk.com/accidental-136000-bitcoin-mining-pool/

The mining service said it has been researching the transaction and that it believes it was possibly sent by a bitcoin mixing service, a type of online offering aimed at privacy and anonymity but that is nonetheless associated with illicit use.

It's a claim from BitClub and not even a reasonable one... Everyone can see the TX on the blockchain, it's not like BitClub has access to secret information that would help them come to that conclusion just with certainty by being on the receiving end of it.

[mobnepal]

I don't think this just a fake offer as if all will know which company have mined that block so its better they return that bitcoin back to owner for their reputation and thats why they willing to give it back. But they atleast need someone to claim that bitcoin with signing message from on of the sending address which is not hard for owner to do to get his money back. I am sure owner will do it and get his coin back, he should and bitclub should send all of those coin back for their reputation.

[BTCLovingDude]

whatever they do, one thing is for sure. they cannot send the funds back to that address without anybody claiming it first. because even if it is not a mixer or a shared coin or something, the original owner of that address may not have access to that address anymore so sending it back would be like burning the coins.