Who has the authority?

[hazek]

To the community;

A free society perspective on the matter


The answer to the question who has the authority over what happens now at Mt.gox is Mt.Gox has. Period.
They own the place, they (temporarily) own your money and they can do what ever the hell they want.



Yes the money was yours and you had(past tense) the authority when it was in your possession but the second you deposited that money into Mt.Gox you gave up that authority and surrendered it to Mt.Gox and that's the reality of the situation.

True, you voluntarily surrendered your authority because you trusted Mt.Gox and you even rewarded this trust by paying a commission on all of your trades. But that doesn't mean you have any guarantees you're money or your trades are being properly protected. Mt.Gox may promise you they'll protect your money and trades but you can't force them to.

Unless you signed a private contract with them stating otherwise, all you can do is trust them and ultimately they're in control. Again, the reality of the situation.


If they break your trust, if they mishandle your money and trades the only recourse you have is to withdraw your money and take it and your commissions some place else, hurt them where it hurts them the most, their wallet.


And that dear Bitcoin community is how a free society and the free market would deal with this fiasco.

[JoelKatz]

Unless you signed a private contract with them stating otherwise, all you can do is trust them and ultimately they're in control. Again, the reality of the situation.

I don't follow the logic of your argument. What do you think is special about a signed contract?

If I walk into a store that has a sign, "Bubble gum, $1" and I hand $1 across the counter and ask for some bubble gum, do you think there's any legal, moral, or practical difference between the sign being up and a signed contract?

[hazek]

There is in courts. A signed contract gives you legal recourse, a sign does not.

[MrJoshua]

If I walk into a store that has a sign, "Bubble gum, $1" and I hand $1 across the counter and ask for some bubble gum, do you think there's any legal, moral, or practical difference between the sign being up and a signed contract?

Yes.

[JoelKatz]

There is in courts. A signed contract gives you legal recourse, a sign does not.

Yes, it does. Otherwise, you could hand the money over the counter and the store owner could simply put it in his pocket and kick you out of the store. An offer (with precise terms) and acceptance (with consideration) is approximately equivalent to a written contract in every legal jurisdiction I know of and by common sense.

[indio007]

Contracts don't have to be in writing to be enforceable with the exception of a conveyance of land. The only thing that matters is the actions of the parties and their reasonable expectations.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

To the community;

A free society perspective on the matter


The answer to the question who has the authority over what happens now at Mt.gox is Mt.Gox has. Period.
They own the place, they (temporarily) own your money and they can do what ever the hell they want.



Yes the money was yours and you had(past tense) the authority when it was in your possession but the second you deposited that money into Mt.Gox you gave up that authority and surrendered it to Mt.Gox and that's the reality of the situation.

True, you voluntarily surrendered your authority because you trusted Mt.Gox and you even rewarded this trust by paying a commission on all of your trades. But that doesn't mean you have any guarantees you're money or your trades are being properly protected. Mt.Gox may promise you they'll protect your money and trades but you can't force them to.

Unless you signed a private contract with them stating otherwise, all you can do is trust them and ultimately they're in control. Again, the reality of the situation.


If they break your trust, if they mishandle your money and trades the only recourse you have is to withdraw your money and take it and your commissions some place else, hurt them where it hurts them the most, their wallet.


And that dear Bitcoin community is how a free society and the free market would deal with this fiasco.

You logic makes no sense and I'm not gonna justify your comments with a response

[Klestin]

Contracts don't have to be in writing to be enforceable with the exception of a conveyance of land. The only thing that matters is the actions of the parties and their reasonable expectations.

This.

[gigi]

I had to sign 60-page contracts with my Forex brokers. Everything is mentioned in there, including the fact that the take ownership of the money that I send, that I can get it back under certain circumstances, that they will buy currencies on my behalf, what happens in case something goes wrong, ....

While Mt. Gox couldn't probably just take the money, there is nothing preventing him doing a rollback for example, or canceling whatever order he wants, including ones before the hack. For example, if in your account lifetime you only sent 1000 USD to your account, then by trading bitcoins you grow your account to 10000 USD, he could just say that he owns you only the original 1000 USD you sent to him, that everything else was a game. You couldn't do nothing in that case.

[hazek]

There is in courts. A signed contract gives you legal recourse, a sign does not.

Yes, it does. Otherwise, you could hand the money over the counter and the store owner could simply put it in his pocket and kick you out of the store. An offer (with precise terms) and acceptance (with consideration) is approximately equivalent to a written contract in every legal jurisdiction I know of and by common sense.

Ok, so you're saying all I have to do is make a fake sign that a car costs $1, take that sign into a car dealership and place it next to a new car and if my fake was perfect, that's legal grounds to stand on and demand that car for $1?

Really now?

Btw if you're going to argue against my analogy, I believe a hacker dumping a lot of money on the exchange crashing the price to $0.01 almost perfectly resembles a fake sign for $1 next to a new car, wouldn't you say?

[Maxxx]

While Mt. Gox couldn't probably just take the money, there is nothing preventing him doing a rollback for example, or canceling whatever order he wants, including ones before the hack. For example, if in your account lifetime you only sent 1000 USD to your account, then by trading bitcoins you grow your account to 10000 USD, he could just say that he owns you only the original 1000 USD you sent to him, that everything else was a game. You couldn't do nothing in that case.

Would the rollback not make Mt. Gox insolvent? There were withdrawals during the incident. Unless they are funding from their own pockets, not everyone would receive all of their BTC if everyone withdrew at the same time. Correct?

[silverman]

A contract is a contract. Its form is irrelevant.

If the parties do not agree that the contract has been fulfilled, who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

I think it is stupid to call in the government. Look at the mess they have made with their own fiat money.

But it seems that half of the people here will not be happy until Big Brother comes to settle their arguments.

Too bad they won't stick with their own fucked-up money and legal system, and leave Bitcoin alone.

[bitsalame]

Not only signed and written. There is an ancient way of doing contracts.
As strange as it may sound to many of you, an oral contract/agreement is legally binding, and they are as valid as written ones.

[d.james]

AFAIK, Mt.God, i mean gox, has full Authoritaii! and you all should respect that.

[gigi]

While Mt. Gox couldn't probably just take the money, there is nothing preventing him doing a rollback for example, or canceling whatever order he wants, including ones before the hack. For example, if in your account lifetime you only sent 1000 USD to your account, then by trading bitcoins you grow your account to 10000 USD, he could just say that he owns you only the original 1000 USD you sent to him, that everything else was a game. You couldn't do nothing in that case.

Would the rollback not make Mt. Gox insolvent? There were withdrawals during the incident. Unless they are funding from their own pockets, not everyone would receive all of their BTC if everyone withdrew at the same time. Correct?

He could do a partial rollback. Again, nothing forces him to treat all of it's members equally. He could give whatever money he has back to the "investors" in whatever order he pleases. Regulated financial entities, like brokers, are bound to follow certain rules which force them to treat clients equally. For example, my Forex broker is not allowed to quote different prices to different clients at one moment in time. Everybody must get the same price. Mt. Gox is not under this obligation for example. I'm not saying that he messes with the price, probably he doesn't, that would be very obvious.

What I'm saying is that Mt. Gox is not regulated like a bank or like a stock/forex dealer. The normal protections that are in place at these entities are not applicable to Mt. Gox. He is under no legal obligation to behave in fair ways. BTW, brokers are forced by regulators to keep large amount of cash with third parties OUTSIDE their reach, just in case shit like this happens. For example all US forex dealers are required to deposit $21 mil USD as guarantee in case something goes wrong.

[Epinnoia]

The concept of fraud seems beyond the OP.  Either that, or he believes in a world where nobody can go after anyone legally for fraud.

[silverman]

The concept of fraud seems beyond the OP.  Either that, or he believes in a world where nobody can go after anyone legally for fraud.

And the question is who has the authority to prosecute?

I think it's not a good idea to give anyone that authority, especially one of the world's present governments, but that's just my opinion.

[Batouzo]

Ok, so you're saying all I have to do is make a fake sign that a car costs $1, take that sign into a car dealership and place it next to a new car and if my fake was perfect, that's legal grounds to stand on and demand that car for $1?
Really now?
Btw if you're going to argue against my analogy, I believe a hacker dumping a lot of money on the exchange crashing the price to $0.01 almost perfectly resembles a fake sign for $1 next to a new car, wouldn't you say?

Yes, this is how it DOES work on auctions.

Look:

If the car salon has no real security as they should,
and its car AUCTIONS, with NO MINIMAL PRICES,
and they did not implement too much rules to stop or freeze obviously strange auctions or just close the shop,
then in many countries - YES.

There was a case where guy placed car on auction site, didn't set a minimal price. He claimed his kid do it etc. Either way, his problem. The car got sold for like 100 usd (whit it was worth ~10,000 usd on open markets). He was oredered by court to complete the deal..

[Timo Y]

Everybody, please realize this important truth about Bitcoin:

You only own what you control.  You lose ownership of your Bitcoins the minute you cede control over them to somebody else.  Simple as that.

I'm not saying this is a good thing or bad thing. I'm not saying that this is how it should be. All I'm saying is that this is how it is.  That is the way bitcoin is designed to work.  Don't treat them like credit or physical property because they are not.

[kjj]

Unless you signed a private contract with them stating otherwise, all you can do is trust them and ultimately they're in control. Again, the reality of the situation.

I don't follow the logic of your argument. What do you think is special about a signed contract?

If I walk into a store that has a sign, "Bubble gum, $1" and I hand $1 across the counter and ask for some bubble gum, do you think there's any legal, moral, or practical difference between the sign being up and a signed contract?

In contract law, there is a requirement for an offer and for an acceptance of the offer.  In almost all contexts, including retail, a sign or a price tag is not considered an offer.  It is an advisory that the other party is likely to make the offer at that price if asked, but they are not required to.