Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:20:47 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 15822 times)
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:36:37 AM
 #61

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.

That does not answer my question. Who do you have the right against? To have a service right, you must have two parties. Who are you fulfilling the service for?

If there is no such contract, you have no right, simple as that. Using your "dollars for ditch" analogy, you have someone paying you to dig a ditch, hence the service contract (you know, offer, acceptance, consideration).

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.

It's not gibberish, you are the one who claims that BTCs are a service right.

As to the rights under a licence, which licence would that be? (don't tell me the MIT Licence or I'll laugh). The only licence involved in any Bitcoin transaction is the program installation licence. No rights to a service arising from the MIT last time I read it.

I'd be even more surprised if you could claim a the existence of a trust from a software licence. Trusts can only exist from clear sources, such as a written trust, an oral agreement, a court order, or a will. Even implied trusts require the existence of a structured relationship between the parties. Good luck getting Bitcoin recognised as a trust in a court of law.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Horkabork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:42:46 AM
 #62

Jesus Christ, people. We still don't know enough information to take sides on this matter. I don't know enough facts to say that Kevin did or did not do anything wrong.

Sure, I know enough about Mt. Gox's behavior of either actively lying about or being ignorant of the security breach. I also blame them for not having a circuit breaker, which would be like 2 lines of code. I also blame them for a multitude of issues that have come up, such as accounts that don't even have email addresses associated, the lack of trading logs, no password strength enforcement, no address locks, no stop losses, and generally crappy communication for a place that can pull down $13k a day in fees.

But this is a separate matter. Right or wrong, I don't know. I'm saying that I don't think anyone is thinking straight if they're taking definitive sides on what happened with Kevin, specifically, and what should be done about it. We've seen scant evidence in favor of either claim.

However, Kevin, in realizing how his own actions could be perceived, has done a smart thing here by putting coins in escrow. It doesn't really do anything in terms of providing evidence, but it does indicate that he really is willing to let the other parties investigate to clear his name.

That's a class act. In fact, because so many people feel like this issue will impact their trading and trust of Mt. Gox, an investigation does need to be done by an impartial party with a neutral arbitrator. I do know this: Mt. Gox coming to their own conclusions and then announcing and attempting to enforce them is only sufficient if their conclusion is in clearing Kevin's name. I'll restate that: Mt. Gox can only possibly relieve Kevin of guilt, not reliably prove it. If they do investigate and believe that Kevin is guilty of something or should return the coins, then they need to then involve a third party.
You can't be both the plaintiff and the judge. You can, at best, only act to withdraw your accusation.

Mt. Gox should know that they are not perceived as being impartial, let alone trustable right now. It's akin to paypal's famous habit of pretending to arbitrate disputes, but usually just settling their own favor (freezing funds) or going with whichever account-holder brings them the most business.

Now, because we all know Kevin's name and what should have been private details, it really is up to Mt. Gox to see this through publicly. My guess is that, in one month, Kevin will have his coins and Mt. Gox will neither have accused Kevin of anything nor absolved him. They'll just have hoped that this quietly will have gone away.

That is not acceptable. If he gets to keep the coins, it needs to be confirmed by Mt. Gox that they will not pursue him in the future.

Me: 15gbWvpLPfbLJZBsL2u5gkBdL3BUXDbTuF
A goat: http://i52.tinypic.com/34pj4v6.jpg
Anduril
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:45:39 AM
 #63

We still don't know enough information to take sides on this matter.

Good advice.
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:49:36 AM
 #64

Keep the coins plain and simple.  MTGox knew they should have updated their system well before hand and did nothing.  They should bite the bullet on this one. 

And if on the small chance this dude had some inside knowledge on the thing and reaped the reward?  Well, Karma is a bitch anyway and what goes around comes around.

What's done is done move on.
Capitan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 03:13:16 AM
 #65

Although I am new to the community and been only a Bitcoin follower and trader for a week now I have analyzed and studied many articles and papers about Bitcoin. I follow the market closely and I have ready dozens of articles, threads, and comments relating to the Mt. Gox incident. As a web developer and using my logic my personal opinion is that Mt. Gox fucked up big time when we look at their website security and how they are handling this. Although we can't verify if the account with the 500k Bitcoins really existed or not does not matter when you look at the dispute between Mt. Gox and Kevin.

So far Kevin has done nothing wrong, just like anyone would do in this situation and tried to buy as many Bitcoins as possible for .01 cents and than tried to withdraw them as fast as possible before the market and Mt. Gox crashed. If I had 3000 dollars on my Mt. Gox account I would have done the same freaking thing. Some people argue that it's impossible that Kevin was able to place a bid after the hacking started as the website was to laggy or down. This is different for every PC and totally depends on the connection, DNS, location, server, etc. A website may be down or slower for someone than for someone else.

If is telling the truth I believe that he should be allowed to keep the Bitcoins he legally bought even if the account with the 500k Bitcoins was hacked. In a real exchange the same thing would happen. An exchange cant revert hours of trades back just because one account got hacked. No matter how much money there is on it. If Mt. Gox reverts all the traders because of this than I want to see them do the same thing when my account gets hacked and my 10 Bitcoins get sold.

10 BTC getting stolen due to a hack is not the same as someone hacking in and crashing the entire market. I support the reversal of the broken trades. The whole thing was a situation created by a criminal. All the trades that took place after the hack were based on the unnatural prices created by a criminal crashing the market.
Capitan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 03:24:44 AM
 #66

Also, Kevin should just return the bitcoins, if it can be proven that MtGox was hacked. Why have we not heard from the owner of the account that was hacked? Has MtGox mentioned anything about contacting that person? If not that seems super fishy.

But assuming that MtGox were telling the truth, the right thing for Kevin to do would be to return the Bitcoins. He bought something that was stolen from someone else, and sold at a price much lower than its market value. Anyone who thinks he has a right to own those is not thinking.

But the problem is that one cannot simply assume Gox is telling the truth. And if they were in the right they would be pursuing him for the withdrawn bitcoins. The only reason they would not pursue him for it is because they have something to cover up. Whatever they are covering up may or may not be related to the hack&crash. They might have other (unrelated) reasons for not wanting law enforcement's eyes on their operations.

I haven't read any statement by kevin saying why he doesn't return them (he may have written that, I just haven't seen it if he has). If he is not returning them because he wants proof that there was a hack, then I support his decision. Any other reason for not returning them doesn't make sense to me.
opticbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 676


PGP: 6EBEBCE1E0507C38


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 03:45:57 AM
 #67

should have filled my penny dish, instead of using escrow to hold them.

14KF98JRK9tEMM22eQU4URBPZykQgaNmHP
http://blockexplorer.com/a/2NuwvUdxKi

I'm sure people will only take .01 btc at a time, when theres no limits

Just let me know before you start the transfer ;

Set up the same thing..
http://bit.ly/btcrefs
Get more bitcoins.
Phil21
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 152


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 04:58:18 AM
 #68

I haven't read any statement by kevin saying why he doesn't return them (he may have written that, I just haven't seen it if he has). If he is not returning them because he wants proof that there was a hack, then I support his decision. Any other reason for not returning them doesn't make sense to me.

Who is he supposed to return them to?  A currently completely owned MtGox system?  The original "hacked account owner" who has not been identified?  Someone else?  I know if I held them and wanted to give them back I'd have no clue who the rightful owner is at this time.

That seems pretty key to me Smiley
dana.powers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 05:58:25 AM
 #69

MtGox will revert his 250k purchase, Kevin will keep the 600 withdrawn, and MtGox will take Kevin's $3000 from rollback as collateral.  Kevin makes out with 600 BTC at market price - $3000.  $5/BTC to break-even.
imperi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:02:35 AM
 #70

MtGox will revert his 250k purchase, Kevin will keep the 600 withdrawn, and MtGox will take Kevin's $3000 from rollback as collateral.  Kevin makes out with 600 BTC at market price - $3000.  $5/BTC to break-even.

I love the lurkers who silently observe everything that's going on, and occasionally come out of the darkness to report news before others.
dana.powers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:05:12 AM
 #71

heh. merely a prediction.
malditonuke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 145


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:19:05 AM
 #72

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.
imperi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:21:57 AM
 #73

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

The community is basically brand new. Did you know 75% of the forum posts are since early April?

It's a pity I don't have a holodeck yet. Just a pity.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 06:23:30 AM
 #74

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

Agreed.

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
malditonuke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 145


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:27:46 AM
 #75

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.
It's a pity I don't have a holodeck yet. Just a pity.

cuz with a virtual girlfriend you wouldn't post douche comments?
Tasty Champa
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:39:29 AM
 #76

calling this guy a thief is way overboard.
what is wrong with you people?  Shocked
=bipolar?

it's a volatile market you fucking stooges, everyone knows this, it's exactly why we are even on the exchange!

IT'S FUCKING EXCITING!!!!!!!!
it's better than porn, icecream and videogames, you know you thrive on this shit!

This guy did EXACTLY as any one of us would have done in that position, he just beat us to it. Like a Boss.
No one knew what was really going on during that 15 minutes, except undisclosed parties and whoever was awake at Mt. Gox.

we all thought it was business as usual.

If you disagree with that statement then I ask you this:
Why did you not rally them to rollback trades on LULZBOAT DAY?HuhHuh??

answer = business as usual, "BFD."

I remember that day, i lost 6 bitcoins, I'm not mad, the consensus across the board was:
Get the fuck out of the way when the LULZBOAT is sailing, NEWBS.

** If I hurt anyone's feelings because of this post, you probably deserved it.
Fact. Only reason so many people were on Mt Gox was because everyone else was.

Stop playing the game or stop calling this guy a thief.

stupid mob mentality.

all this sillyness is a headache.

and I still haven't gotten my answer as to why trade charges were doubled during the weekend.

/end of line
bitches
Horkabork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140



View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:47:26 AM
 #77

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

There is arbitration and, sometimes, options offers in IRC. There's even a #bitcoin-court channel. Smiley

Me: 15gbWvpLPfbLJZBsL2u5gkBdL3BUXDbTuF
A goat: http://i52.tinypic.com/34pj4v6.jpg
malditonuke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 145


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 06:53:31 AM
 #78

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

There is arbitration and, sometimes, options offers in IRC. There's even a #bitcoin-court channel. Smiley

I'll have to check that out.  ty
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 06:57:11 AM
 #79

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

There is arbitration and, sometimes, options offers in IRC. There's even a #bitcoin-court channel. Smiley

I'll have to check that out.  ty

FWIW, I also just offered my services in the 'Selling' forum. Donno how many hits I'll get, though.

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
nhodges
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 07:01:51 AM
 #80

You have 100% claim to those coins. If they were operating as a financial exchange, they should have had similar safeguards to REAL financial exchanges that prevents someone from placing ludicrous buy orders that end up getting filled.

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!