Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:41:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Making it public: I have moved the disputed 643.2771 BTC into an escrow account  (Read 15831 times)
bbjansen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:04:01 AM
 #41

An exchange cant revert hours of trades back just because one account got hacked.

Why do you speak lies?  Ever heard of the flash crash?  Trades are backed out all the time on global exchanges.  You are ignorant and uneducated.
I was referring in terms of Bitcoin exchange, my bad for not making that clear. If we were to follow the Bitcoin philosophy than reverting hours of trading would go against that philosophy and that's why so many people are against the idea of changing the trades back.
1481107298
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481107298

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481107298
Reply with quote  #2

1481107298
Report to moderator
1481107298
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481107298

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481107298
Reply with quote  #2

1481107298
Report to moderator
1481107298
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481107298

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481107298
Reply with quote  #2

1481107298
Report to moderator
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a transaction fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481107298
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481107298

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481107298
Reply with quote  #2

1481107298
Report to moderator
1481107298
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481107298

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481107298
Reply with quote  #2

1481107298
Report to moderator
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:22:36 AM
 #42

2) The FBI accepts "Kevin logged in within 15 minutes of the attacker" as enough evidence to arrest me and seize my wallet as evidence and/or I end up convicted and the FBI buys some new socks and night lights for the whole office with the balance.

Why in the seven blazes would the FBI be after you?

Serious question, what do you think they could possibly charge you with?

This is of course, assuming you are not the hacker, but if you were, you would not be here.
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:24:21 AM
 #43

Well, I don't know other country's laws that well, but here in germany the transactions would be invalid.
MtGox would have no choice and has to do a rollback.

Really? Can you be more specific as to what law applies in this case?
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:27:21 AM
 #44

I'm not totally sure I know all the details in this case, but according to Swedish law (IIRC) buying something in good faith doesn't give you possession of what you bought, in case it was previously stolen.

For example, if someone comes to you and offers to sell you diamonds at a discounted price, and you buy, that doesn't mean you can keep them if it turns out they were stolen in the first place.


That only applies to tangible goods. BTCs are an unregulated market in virtual currency, so theft laws do not apply. There was no theft, there was hacking, and Kevin was not the perpetrator.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 01:29:37 AM
 #45

That only applies to tangible goods. BTCs are an unregulated market in virtual currency, so theft laws do not apply. There was no theft, there was hacking, and Kevin was not the perpetrator.

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
 #46

This is why gov't exist. Because people are dishonorable dicks. There doesn't need to be a law. Kevin knowingly profitted from an illegal act and has CONFESSED to suspecting the market's performance was a result of an illegal act AT THE TIME HE PUT IN HIS BUY ORDER.

There is your mens rea people.

You don't need a law to know buying what is in essence someone else property is wrong. Bitcoins are a right to a service (a nonreversible multipeer authenticated data transfer and record keeping). They don't need to be tangible.

Kevin knows in his heart  that's why he keeps trying to rationalize this.

tominator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:44:37 AM
 #47

In my opinion, this whole debate has been nothing more than a publicity stunt by Kevin who is desperately trying to paint himself as a "good guy" in hopes that he wins over the hearts of the community so they rally behind him and persuade Mt. Gox to ultimately end up letting him keep all 200,000+ bitcoins.

The 643 BTC is just a distraction. The real thing Kevin is fighting to keep (without actually coming outright and saying it) is the motherload.

I'm sorry, but Kevin just needs to accept the fact that all those bitcoins were stolen and they need to be returned to their rightful owner(s), regardless of who that owner is. That's the right thing to do, and ultimately, the decision isn't even his (since the BTC are still all in the hands of Mt. Gox).

And that's all I have to say about that... until I post another reply, that is.
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:46:35 AM
 #48

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

Hehe. I am serious though. Theft has very specific connotations (warning, this discussion is about UK law, but this is typical of most systems I am familiar with). Most intangible theft, that is, money transfers, securities, etc. are classified as fraud, and that would depend on BTCs having some form of legal value. At the moment, BTCs are at best in a legal grey area. I cannot imagine that any enforcement agency would take theft (or fraud) in BTCs seriously (yet).

Hacking however is a well recognised offence, so the hacker is certainly liable regardless of Bitcoin's legal status. But Kevin would not be liable for making an exchange.
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:51:24 AM
 #49

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

Hehe. I am serious though. Theft has very specific connotations (warning, this discussion is about UK law, but this is typical of most systems I am familiar with). Most intangible theft, that is, money transfers, securities, etc. are classified as fraud, and that would depend on BTCs having some form of legal value. At the moment, BTCs are at best in a legal grey area. I cannot imagine that any enforcement agency would take theft (or fraud) in BTCs seriously (yet).

Hacking however is a well recognised offence, so the hacker is certainly liable regardless of Bitcoin's legal status. But Kevin would not be liable for making an exchange.

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:54:14 AM
 #50

This is why gov't exist. Because people are dishonorable dicks. There doesn't need to be a law. Kevin knowingly profitted from an illegal act and has CONFESSED to suspecting the market's performance was a result of an illegal act AT THE TIME HE PUT IN HIS BUY ORDER.

Feeling guilty about something is not mean that a crime is committed, there has to be a crime. Here there is one clear act of hacking, but we cannot establish theft yet until we determine that BTCs are even subject of theft.

You don't need a law to know buying what is in essence someone else property is wrong. Bitcoins are a right to a service (a nonreversible multipeer authenticated data transfer and record keeping). They don't need to be tangible.

Ahh, you are talking about ethical conduct. Sure, Kevin keeping the BTCs would be ethically wrong, but is it illegal? You do need a law for determining that.

Bitcoin cannot have its pie and eat it too. It wants to be a decentralised system operating outside of the law and of government's jurisdiction. To do that, its legal status has to remain clouded, otherwise you would have regulators intervening. Unless that happens, law enforcement officials will laugh and treat this as the theft of gold in WoW.
CharlieContent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:54:48 AM
 #51

To be honest I kinda wish Kevin got away with all the coins.

For one thing, it would force Mt. Gox out of business when they had to compensate those who lost coins in the hack which I think most of us can agree is a good thing. Now that Bitcoins are actually worth a good chunk of change, it's preposterous to have the leading exchange be run by an idiot and a liar like MagicalTux.

For another, a very lucky innocent person would have received the windfall instead of a malicious hacker.

It would be a massive win/win.

Kevin: I stand to gain absolutely nothing, but I think you should get your $5m. The only person who should be punished is the person who allowed all this to happen: MagicalTux.
stic.man
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:01:16 AM
 #52

Kevin deserves what he gets for ruining a perfectly good PFMS community

KEVIN WE HAD A GOOD THING GOING AND YOU THREW IT ALL AWAY Sad
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:05:46 AM
 #53

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:06:04 AM
 #54

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

It's no different than "digging a ditch" dollars.

I can't even believe we are having a tangibility argument in a world of nonredeemable fiat paper .
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:11:04 AM
 #55

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:13:44 AM
 #56

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.

There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?
Is it amateur hour at the Apollo in here?
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:25:34 AM
 #57

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.

Bitcoins are created by confirming a block. That is performing a service for compensation. You solve a block, the network will solve blocks you create for a "network value" of up to 50 bitcoins + fees earned in return for your work.


I see right through the contract gibberish. I don't fall for distractions. These are rights under a license.  A grant of authority. That would make it more like a trust.

Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:26:49 AM
 #58


There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?
Is it amateur hour at the Apollo in here?

I am confused, are the 600 BTCs in the Escrow the same ones that were withdrawn? My understanding is that the transaction is way bigger than that, and that not all of the BTCs were transferred before the shut down, if that is not the case, then I completely withdraw my above argument.  

However, the heart of the argument remains. It seems like there are about 6 different theories as to what Bitcoin is in the eyes of the law. I've seen it refereed to as currency (therefore, it would be an illegal currency as only governments can issue currency in most jurisdictions). I've seen it referred to as a commodity (but it is not, it does not meet the legal requirement for one). It is not a security, and it is not a service. Each one of those would carry different legal consequences.

At the moment, the best legal security for BTC is not property law, but hacking laws.
buttcoin
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 117



View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 02:31:00 AM
 #59

If you want something to say Kevin, you can email me and I'll post it on my site.
http://buttcoin.org , the contact link is on the site.

Flappy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:33:40 AM
 #60

Quote
There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?

Because this forum is full of home alone teens.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!