Kevin Day, New Bitcoin Multimillionaire worth 5 Million dollars

[Phil21]

Do you trade? Did you look at the trading when all went to shit?

You would not ask these questions if you were indeed live trading at the time, I was.

And it was as clear as "humans needing water to live" that an account was hacked, price was dropped down as fast as possible to 0.01 per BTC

There isnt any more evidence needed for this, it happened, there is abundance of proof and this is verifiable by alot of people who were here at the time commenting on it aswell as on irc.

What exactly do you think is being hide? dont you believe this guy bought stolen bitcoins that was part of the 0.01 sell-off ? If this is your position then I will simply have to point out too you that you may be completely disorientated.

I did not trade, I unfortunately (fortunately?) was out of town when this happened.  I was only being fed updates via telephone.

I guess if I had to summarize my points, they are as follows:

1) I agree the market fluctuation was due to abnormal/hacker/illegal/whatever activity.
2) I agree the market should be rolled back
3) I do not believe that an actual user account was hacked.  There is zero information to support this statement, and requests for this simple information have been strangely been ignored.
4) I believe that there is very likely some serious ass covering going on here, hiding a much larger problem with the system
5) I also believe that full disclosure is both appropriate and important here, now that the "cat is out of the bag" and the lack of it is both dissapointing and extremely concerning to me.

Shit happens.  All reasonable people know that.  I don't hate the creator of MtGox at *all* - I owe him many thanks.  However, it is quite apparent this was an amateur site that simply exploded in recent months, and they were simply unprepared for the reality of dealing with such a beast.  Simple things were missed - amateur coding on the trade engine side is apparent, etc.  No big deal at all, we all knew what we were getting into (I personally vuln tested mtgox and found a few glaring ridiculously common mistakes, but accepted that risk and modified my exposure accordingly).

However, once "shit happens" and it's obvious you are out of your depth - it's time to come clean and provide full disclosure IMO.  The fact this has not happened (and from my understanding the direct parties involved have been told it is NOT going to happen) is concerning to me, and signifies (to me, perhaps not to you) a much deeper/wider problem that would likely effect the Bitcoin market even more drastically.

This is ALL complete speculation and paranoia of course.  I have access to only slightly more information than everyone else here does.

Responding in between work tasks, so it may take awhile but I do appreciate the civil debate.  And yes, I am obviously playing devils advocate for the "other side" since it seems everyone here is just completely taking in the information fed to them as the absolute truth.

Edit: stupid spelling

[1714071885]

1714071885

[1714071885]

1714071885

[1714071885]

1714071885

[1714071885]

1714071885

[1714071885]

1714071885

[bitrebel]

Criminal law doesn't work like that, vlaue is not the only way to determine criminality. People pay for drugs all the time, they have value, but you cannot go to court to have your busted drug deal enforced. Bitcoins could be illegal, so you could not even argue this in court.

Yes.  Bitcoins could be illegal.  And if they were illegal, no court would bother hearing your case.  But they aren't.

In the United States they are almost certainly illegal, as only the Mint and the Fed can issue currency. The FBI stated this about the Liberty Dollar affair: “It is a violation of federal law for individuals, or organizations, to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.”

In Europe they are certainly illegal, as only Electronic Money Institutions can issue electronic currency in accordance to the EMI Directive.

In most other countries, including where I am right now, the issuing of currency is monopolised by government or central banks.

you are assuming bitcoins fit the definition of a "currency".

I'm no lawyer, but I do have some background research I have done.

Bitcoins may not be defined as a "currency" or a "commodity". They may reside in a legally "grey" area for many years to come. When something is "grey", nobody is right or wrong, completely.

Bitcoins do not fall into the same category as the Liberty Dollar, I know this for sure. They also do not fit the definition of a "Alternative Currency", and like was stated previously, they do not have any set value and constantly fluctuate, so therefore the legal term of "commodity" may not apply either.

Internet itself has spawned a whole new series of cybercrimes and cyber laws that do not fit into the regular body of law. Bitcoins may need entirely new legislation as P2P regulation, instead of regulations as they apply to "currencies", "commodities" or tangible goods.

[Anduril]

By convention in western jurisprudence, all is legal unless specifically illegal.

Agreed. There are more than enough laws that declare all currencies not issued by the authorised issuer as illegal. To give an example of the law where I am:

"Only the Central Bank will have the exclusive right to issue banknotes and currencies in the country. Neither the state nor any other person or entity, may issue notes, coins or other documents or certificates that can circulate as money."

The law then imposes civil and criminal sanctions for breaking the law. The same applies to the creation of new currencies everywhere in the world.

There are laws against possession of drugs, so a court will not be interested in hearing a case to remedy a loss of them.

There are no similar laws against bitcoin, so a court would have to hear the case.

Not specifically against Bitcoin, but against all unofficial currencies.

[bitrebel]

By convention in western jurisprudence, all is legal unless specifically illegal.

Agreed. There are more than enough laws that declare all currencies not issued by the authorised issuer as illegal. To give an example of the law where I am:

"Only the Central Bank will have the exclusive right to issue banknotes and currencies in the country. Neither the state nor any other person or entity, may issue notes, coins or other documents or certificates that can circulate as money."

The law then imposes civil and criminal sanctions for breaking the law. The same applies to the creation of new currencies everywhere in the world.

There are laws against possession of drugs, so a court will not be interested in hearing a case to remedy a loss of them.

There are no similar laws against bitcoin, so a court would have to hear the case.

Not specifically against Bitcoin, but against all unofficial currencies.

Once again, I reiterate, YOU ARE ASSUMING BITCOINS FIT THE DEFINITION OF A CURRENCY.
They are not necessarily a "currency" legally. I do not believe they are.

[Anduril]

you are assuming bitcoins fit the definition of a "currency".

A legal definition of currency is a generally accepted medium of exchange for goods and services. Most legal definitions require that a currency must be accepted as means of payment by a party other than the issuer.

Bitcoin fits this definition. Moreover, it advertises itself as a currency.

I'm no lawyer, but I do have some background research I have done.

Bitcoins may not be defined as a "currency" or a "commodity". They may reside in a legally "grey" area for many years to come. When something is "grey", nobody is right or wrong, completely.

I am lawyer   They are certainly a currency in my view, but not a commodity or a security.

Internet itself has spawned a whole new series of cybercrimes and cyber laws that do not fit into the regular body of law.

This is often not true, you would be surprised of how many laws apply neatly to most Internet phenomena. In fact, there have been very few instances that I have seen something online that truly does not fit an existing legal category. Phishing was initially in a bit of a grey area in some countries, but in Common Law systems it fell under common law fraud. Non-commercial file-sharing was also briefly in a bit of a grey area in some countries (particularly in Europe), but this was later plugged.

Bitcoin in my opinion is clearly a currency, and if it is, then it is illegal.

[kjj]

By convention in western jurisprudence, all is legal unless specifically illegal.

Agreed. There are more than enough laws that declare all currencies not issued by the authorised issuer as illegal. To give an example of the law where I am:

"Only the Central Bank will have the exclusive right to issue banknotes and currencies in the country. Neither the state nor any other person or entity, may issue notes, coins or other documents or certificates that can circulate as money."

The law then imposes civil and criminal sanctions for breaking the law. The same applies to the creation of new currencies everywhere in the world.

There are laws against possession of drugs, so a court will not be interested in hearing a case to remedy a loss of them.

There are no similar laws against bitcoin, so a court would have to hear the case.

Not specifically against Bitcoin, but against all unofficial currencies.

I thought lawyers were supposed to do research before running their mouths.

You quote anti-counterfeiting laws, when you should instead have dusted off your copy of Black's and looked into money, currency and current money.  Bitcoin is neither a banknote, nor a currency, as so defined, and makes no claims to be either.

To be sure, we talk informally on these forums, and toss around the terms "money" and "currency" with wild abandon.  Our informal words don't change the reality of the situation, nor their legal status.

Bitcoin is even better, since there is no such thing that anyone can point to, not even an abstract concept, and say "This is a bitcoin".  What we are really doing when we "send bitcoins" to others is transferring an interest, another word you have forgotten since law school.

And I can assure you that the courts have been dealing with intangible interests for hundreds of years, and have no problem with the idea.

[Synaptic]

By convention in western jurisprudence, all is legal unless specifically illegal.

Agreed. There are more than enough laws that declare all currencies not issued by the authorised issuer as illegal. To give an example of the law where I am:

"Only the Central Bank will have the exclusive right to issue banknotes and currencies in the country. Neither the state nor any other person or entity, may issue notes, coins or other documents or certificates that can circulate as money."

The law then imposes civil and criminal sanctions for breaking the law. The same applies to the creation of new currencies everywhere in the world.

There are laws against possession of drugs, so a court will not be interested in hearing a case to remedy a loss of them.

There are no similar laws against bitcoin, so a court would have to hear the case.

Not specifically against Bitcoin, but against all unofficial currencies.

I thought lawyers were supposed to do research before running their mouths.

You quote anti-counterfeiting laws, when you should instead have dusted off your copy of Black's and looked into money, currency and current money.  Bitcoin is neither a banknote, nor a currency, as so defined, and makes no claims to be either.

To be sure, we talk informally on these forums, and toss around the terms "money" and "currency" with wild abandon.  Our informal words don't change the reality of the situation, nor their legal status.

Bitcoin is even better, since there is no such thing that anyone can point to, not even an abstract concept, and say "This is a bitcoin".  What we are really doing when we "send bitcoins" to others is transferring an interest, another word you have forgotten since law school.

And I can assure you that the courts have been dealing with intangible interests for hundreds of years, and have no problem with the idea.

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

[wol-va-rine]

lol, this is fucking hilarious, HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS...!!!

ZOMGBITCOINSFORAPENNY!!1!11!!11!11!SURELYNOTHING'SUP,THISLOOKSTOTALLYLEGITIMATE!!!!1!11!!!!ZOMGI'MRICH!!!11!!!1!!1!!!

lol...

someone steal Kevin's car and sell it to me for $100, that'd be totally legit as well because I didn't steal it, right...? right Kevin...? lol

and to all you that think you'll just simply go to TradeHill because "they don't have this rollback bullshit"...think again, the cat's out of the bag, ALL the exchanges will have rollbacks now, ALL OF THEM, if they don't then guess who the next hacker target will be...?

[kjj]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

[bitrebel]

By convention in western jurisprudence, all is legal unless specifically illegal.

Agreed. There are more than enough laws that declare all currencies not issued by the authorised issuer as illegal. To give an example of the law where I am:

"Only the Central Bank will have the exclusive right to issue banknotes and currencies in the country. Neither the state nor any other person or entity, may issue notes, coins or other documents or certificates that can circulate as money."

The law then imposes civil and criminal sanctions for breaking the law. The same applies to the creation of new currencies everywhere in the world.

There are laws against possession of drugs, so a court will not be interested in hearing a case to remedy a loss of them.

There are no similar laws against bitcoin, so a court would have to hear the case.

Not specifically against Bitcoin, but against all unofficial currencies.

I thought lawyers were supposed to do research before running their mouths.

You quote anti-counterfeiting laws, when you should instead have dusted off your copy of Black's and looked into money, currency and current money.  Bitcoin is neither a banknote, nor a currency, as so defined, and makes no claims to be either.

To be sure, we talk informally on these forums, and toss around the terms "money" and "currency" with wild abandon.  Our informal words don't change the reality of the situation, nor their legal status.

Bitcoin is even better, since there is no such thing that anyone can point to, not even an abstract concept, and say "This is a bitcoin".  What we are really doing when we "send bitcoins" to others is transferring an interest, another word you have forgotten since law school.

And I can assure you that the courts have been dealing with intangible interests for hundreds of years, and have no problem with the idea.

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Whoever wrote the FAQ is only adding their own definition, even if Satoshi himself wrote it, it does not alter it's position within law, which is NOT defined as a "currency" no more than shoelaces would be currency in jail.

[Synaptic]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins have value because they are accepted as payment by many. See the list of Bitcoin-accepting sites.

When we say that a currency is backed up by gold, we mean that there's a promise in place that you can exchange the currency for gold. In a sense, you could say that Bitcoin is "backed up" by the price tags of merchants – a price tag is a promise to exchange goods for a specified amount of currency."

Are you going to keep shoving your thumb up your ass or be quiet now.

You said bitcoins were never ADVERTISED as a currency.

Now sit down.

[bitrebel]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

Exactly!
lol, We both posted the same response at the same time.

[Anduril]

Once again, I reiterate, YOU ARE ASSUMING BITCOINS FIT THE DEFINITION OF A CURRENCY.
They are not necessarily a "currency" legally. I do not believe they are.

You will have to show me that you have a legal definition of currency that is different from what Bitcoin does. It acts like a currency, it advertises itself as a currency, ergo it is a currency.

[Synaptic]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

Exactly!
lol, We both posted the same response at the same time.

HAHA,

You're like the ambiguously gay duo of stupidity!

Congrats!

[bitrebel]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins have value because they are accepted as payment by many. See the list of Bitcoin-accepting sites.

When we say that a currency is backed up by gold, we mean that there's a promise in place that you can exchange the currency for gold. In a sense, you could say that Bitcoin is "backed up" by the price tags of merchants – a price tag is a promise to exchange goods for a specified amount of currency."

Are you going to keep shoving your thumb up your ass or be quiet now.

You said bitcoins were never ADVERTISED as a currency.

Now sit down.

hahaha, this is hilarious...

Bitcoins do not advertise themselves!!!  WAKE UP!

too much!  way too fucking funny!

[Synaptic]

You stupid

Dumbfuck.

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins are the unit of currency of the Bitcoin system."

Are you going somewhere with this?  Did you miss the part about informal speech using common words not changing the legal reality?

From the FAQ:

"Bitcoins have value because they are accepted as payment by many. See the list of Bitcoin-accepting sites.

When we say that a currency is backed up by gold, we mean that there's a promise in place that you can exchange the currency for gold. In a sense, you could say that Bitcoin is "backed up" by the price tags of merchants – a price tag is a promise to exchange goods for a specified amount of currency."

Are you going to keep shoving your thumb up your ass or be quiet now.

You said bitcoins were never ADVERTISED as a currency.

Now sit down.

hahaha, this is hilarious...

Bitcoins do not advertise themselves!!!  WAKE UP!

too much!  way too fucking funny!

HAHA, wow, looks like your TOTALLY right about that.

Gosh, everything on bitcoin.org must just be a bunch of random words typed by an infinite set of monkeys at typewriters!

I admit defeat!

You are the superior being!

[airdata]

§ 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.  (a) A person
commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer,
computer network, or computer system without the effective consent
of the owner.
   (b)  An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor
unless in committing the offense the actor knowingly obtains a
benefit, defrauds or harms another, or alters, damages, or deletes
property, in which event the offense is:
      (1)  a Class A misdemeanor if the aggregate amount
involved is less than $1,500;
      (2)  a state jail felony if:                                                  
         (A)  the aggregate amount involved is $1,500 or
more but less than $20,000;  or
         (B)  the aggregate amount involved is less than
$1,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more
times of an offense under this chapter;
      (3)  a felony of the third degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
      (4)  a felony of the second degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000;  or
      (5)  a felony of the first degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $200,000 or more.

An interesting tid bit.  I know the btc community is spread out, but also that alot of us yanks are in the united states.  So of you just log in to snoop and do nothing wrong.. class B misdemeanor.  Up to 1500 damages, class A misdameanor.  More than 1500 = Felony.

It may be for the lulz but I'm just trying to point out to people that it is still a crime even if you're in your moms basement hammering away on your keyboard late at night cracking peoples passwords and stealing their btc.

[kjj]

Once again, I reiterate, YOU ARE ASSUMING BITCOINS FIT THE DEFINITION OF A CURRENCY.
They are not necessarily a "currency" legally. I do not believe they are.

You will have to show me that you have a legal definition of currency that is different from what Bitcoin does. It acts like a currency, it advertises itself as a currency, ergo it is a currency.

How about the definition in Black's?

Currency: Coined money and such bank notes or other paper money as are authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange.

Also, I find it humorous that you think that bitcoins, which don't exist even in the abstract, advertise themselves.

[Synaptic]

§ 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.  (a) A person
commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer,
computer network, or computer system without the effective consent
of the owner.
   (b)  An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor
unless in committing the offense the actor knowingly obtains a
benefit, defrauds or harms another, or alters, damages, or deletes
property, in which event the offense is:
      (1)  a Class A misdemeanor if the aggregate amount
involved is less than $1,500;
      (2)  a state jail felony if:                                                 
         (A)  the aggregate amount involved is $1,500 or
more but less than $20,000;  or
         (B)  the aggregate amount involved is less than
$1,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more
times of an offense under this chapter;
      (3)  a felony of the third degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
      (4)  a felony of the second degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000;  or
      (5)  a felony of the first degree if the aggregate
amount involved is $200,000 or more.

An interesting tid bit.  I know the btc community is spread out, but also that alot of us yanks are in the united states.

And since bitcoins effectively hold INFINITE value, the penalty is actually escalated to Gilgul, which is the execution of one's soul.

Bitcoin is serious business.

[bitrebel]

Once again, I reiterate, YOU ARE ASSUMING BITCOINS FIT THE DEFINITION OF A CURRENCY.
They are not necessarily a "currency" legally. I do not believe they are.

You will have to show me that you have a legal definition of currency that is different from what Bitcoin does. It acts like a currency, it advertises itself as a currency, ergo it is a currency.

Good thing I happen to have my Blacks Law 4th ed right here...

Currency. Coined Money and such banknotes or other paper money as are authorized by law and do in fatc circulate from hand to hand as a medium of exchange.

Bitcoins are not coined money
Bitcoins are not banknotes
Bitcoins are not authorized by law
Bitcoins do not circulate from hand to hand

What more do you want? My bill for legal counsel?