[Controversial] Who's to blame when an account gets hacked?

[Dead Shot]

Well, at first i find your topic intriguing, understanding that the accounts here at bitcointalk forum are stored securely in a private database and hacking through these needs superb skill so the other known option to why your account is hacked is if you're phised or if you're scammed both are commonly owner's error. The forum already provided a warning to be careful and vigilant, its up to you to do what ever precaution necessary to prevent these from happening.

[1715604102]

1715604102

[1715604102]

1715604102

[1715604102]

1715604102

[1715604102]

1715604102

[1715604102]

1715604102

[1715604102]

1715604102

[ndnh]

Why is the lender at just 13% votes?

The lender is liable to hand over the ownership of the collateral to the original owner (on making certain the claim is really true and valid)
The lender is subsequently entitled to get back the lent money from the hacker. With interest.



I hack an account, lend myself and the owner pays me the 'lent' money (or half of that). Interesting.

[actmyname]

Why is the lender at just 13% votes?

The lender is liable to hand over the ownership of the collateral to the original owner (on making certain the claim is really true and valid)
The lender is subsequently entitled to get back the lent money from the hacker. With interest.



I hack an account, lend myself and the owner pays me the 'lent' money (or half of that). Interesting.

Or, alternatively, you pretend as if your account were hacked and then take out a loan, paying back only half of it. This is where I think the lender is to blame - a signed message is always essential.

In the end, they made the decision to lend to a user, carrying all the risks. Under no circumstances can you state that it is the fault of the account that was hacked, since the lender willingly chose to lend to the account which did not provide sufficient evidence of validation.


It's a shame that you can't prove that a user was hacked or wasn't hacked - I have a feeling that some "hacked" users attempted (and succeeded in) scamming via loan requests.

[KenR]

Why are people even voting for lenders ? If the hacked account is asking for a loan,it is completely the owner's fault that due to improper precautions taken the hacker managed to hack the account.Not only lending but also trading or anything general that happens with the hacked account is solely owners fault.

[actmyname]

Why are people even voting for lenders ? If the hacked account is asking for a loan,it is completely the owner's fault that due to improper precautions taken the hacker managed to hack the account.Not only lending but also trading or anything general that happens with the hacked account is solely owners fault.

So you're saying the owner of the hacked account should repay the loan in full?

Here's my question for you: do you think that the fault doesn't lie with the lender when they allow the loan without asking for a signed message or proof that the account-holder is the true owner?

Obviously not, so then the fault should lie with the lender. This is where it goes into a case-by-case basis because primarily I would expect that the account-holder would pay at least a significant amount of the funds but the lender shouldn't get a free pass, either.

This leads into the problem where people may claim to be hacked but rather simply defaulting on a loan and then paying back either nothing or an amount less than what they received.


I'm saying that at least for lower-status accounts, all of the blame is on the lender. They took the risk, knowing full well that the loan could be defaulted. Things are a bit more blurred when you get into BiPolar territory.

[Chris!]

Why are people even voting for lenders ? If the hacked account is asking for a loan,it is completely the owner's fault that due to improper precautions taken the hacker managed to hack the account.Not only lending but also trading or anything general that happens with the hacked account is solely owners fault.

If I go and buy a legendary account for 0.01BTC with no signed message and it turns out to be hacked, should I be allowed to keep that account? I can tell you what's going to happen. The original owner of the account signs a message in a  to Theymos and the account is stripped from me. Why did it happen to me? I didn't get the signed message.

[Deep In The Mines LLC]

Indeed, I hope those who victim-blame see how its really not helping, and more likely to drive away users from using Bitcoin itself, instead you should sympathize and provide them with tips on how to be secure and remove any vulnerabilty they may have.

It should be obvious that the blame should always be on the aggressor (hacker), rather than the defendant (victim), but when it comes to exchanges where a lot of money is being held, you should remember you are putting your trust into a entity that may go insolvent, and likely protected itself from any law-suites you may use against them should they get "hacked".

Overall, when it comes to exchanges it falls into more of a grey area, since we can't really know if they got hacked, or if they have an insider who took the money and made a coverup.

[shorena]

Indeed, I hope those who victim-blame see how its really not helping, and more likely to drive away users from using Bitcoin itself, instead you should sympathize and provide them with tips on how to be secure and remove any vulnerabilty they may have.

It should be obvious that the blame should always be on the aggressor (hacker), rather than the defendant (victim), but when it comes to exchanges where a lot of money is being held, you should remember you are putting your trust into a entity that may go insolvent, and likely protected itself from any law-suites you may use against them should they get "hacked".

Overall, when it comes to exchanges it falls into more of a grey area, since we can't really know if they got hacked, or if they have an insider who took the money and made a coverup.

*cough cough* you are posting in meta, it might help to read the entire thread instead of just the title.

[darklus123]

If the girl didnt went out that night, or didnt wears skirt? Or to lessen the volume that she take. Would it be possible for her not to get raped? Of course yes, She knew her responsibility as a woman. That would go the same for your responsibility of your account

[lordquanta]

If the girl didnt went out that night, or didnt wears skirt? Or to lessen the volume that she take. Would it be possible for her not to get raped? Of course yes, She knew her responsibility as a woman. That would go the same for your responsibility of your account

In the world of permutation combinations there is this possibility:  If the girl didn't went out that night, there is possibility of break-in and attacker/rapist cause the damage.

Proving account is hacked could be difficult? rather proving hack was unintentional is difficult. Once hacked activity is proved then something could be done. Personally didn't like the analogy of rape with hacking. Each person would have different perception. Lender was at fault because he did not verified the account details of person.  If lender is innocent then how verification process was conducted. Tomorrow lender could run a scam and claim you requested for loan.
Imagine same hacking and loan scenario happened with 100s of people. Would you still blame victims or lender or hacker? 

It is difficult to find real culprit and person who is responsible for it.  These kind of scenario are too intricate to deal with.

[lottery248]

for me, i carried out the other option:
if the lender lent to a hacked account, in which the address given was not identical to the original owner, that would be a failure to the lender. blame the hacker as soon as felt to be scammed, so you can indicate if it was a hacker or original, then blame theymos for not giving a warning on the accounts' reply which their passwords were recently changed.