If you still trust MtGox read this story -- 700 EUR stolen!

[eve]

kind of scarry

[glebm]

Well, SD is probably assuming that money is coming from a wallet that you control--which is not a bad assumption.  The alternative would be to require a return address somehow and creation of accounts and that's probably just a lot more trouble than it's worth.  But yes, the hard part is proving that the money isn't someone else's. Gox is well within the realm of logic to assume that the BTC that was sent back to you from SD was a deposit to someone else's account.

Right. The point is that Gox did the right thing. You can argue endlessly over whether Bitcoin is broken because it doesn't provide a return mechanism, SD is broken because it acts as if Bitcoin did provide such a mechanism, SD is broken because it didn't provide adequate warnings, the user is at fault because they didn't pay attention to the clear warnings, and so on. But there is no way this is Gox's fault. Either SD didn't provide adequate warnings that they make unusual assumptions or the user didn't pay attention to adequate warnings. Gox's behavior here is completely normal and, most likely, they credited the deposit to another user.

Right, but since all this data is available, they can trace it (remember, in your scenario, that they also have internal ids for transactions and tie them to users, and that is how it is resolvable). Surely they should charge a retrieval fee and return the money.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Right, but since all this data is available, they can trace it (remember, in your scenario, that they also have internal ids for transactions and tie them to users, and that is how it is resolvable). Surely they should charge a retrieval fee and return the money.

You are assuming the BTC are still in the account of the person who "owned" the address.  And the internal ID would just show that a deposit came into the said address and that the proper user account was credited with the BTC.  None of that will have any of your information in it.

[Korbman]

Right, but since all this data is available, they can trace it (remember, in your scenario, that they also have internal ids for transactions and tie them to users, and that is how it is resolvable). Surely they should charge a retrieval fee and return the money.

That may be true that they could probably trace it, but how would you propose "returning the money" when it's already sitting in another person's account?

[glebm]

Right, but since all this data is available, they can trace it (remember, in your scenario, that they also have internal ids for transactions and tie them to users, and that is how it is resolvable). Surely they should charge a retrieval fee and return the money.

That may be true that they could probably trace it, but how would you propose "returning the money" when it's already sitting in another person's account?

If it's in their MtGox account, there is no problem. If their balance is not sufficient for the account to remain solvent, it should still be put as a liability on their account.

There is no simple way Gox can make this work.

If that were true, they should make it a lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot. Like a real warning!
Although, I bet it is surprisingly easy to figure out what's where from that data (just a graph traversal).

[JoelKatz]

There is no simple way Gox can make this work.

If that were true, they should make it a lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot. Like a real warning!

I'm not sure who the "they" is here. If you mean Gox, I'm not sure how much effort it is fair to require of them to work around other people's assumptions that are known to be broken.

Although, I bet it is surprisingly easy to figure out what's where from that data (just a graph traversal).

It is if you investigate it. I would analogize it to intentionally depositing money in the wrong bank account -- if some company keeps sending them money over and over addressed to the wrong account, at some point the bank has to draw the line. It's not fair to expect them to continue debiting the accounts of innocent customers incorrectly credited by someone else's mistake. It's not unreasonable for them to say that they'll credit the accounts the depositor asks them to credit rather than having to constantly tell innocent customers that their balance is wrong.

[glebm]

You are assuming the BTC are still in the account of the person who "owned" the address.  And the internal ID would just show that a deposit came into the said address and that the proper user account was credited with the BTC.  None of that will have any of your information in it.

Correct, I am assuming that once the money is inside MtGox they log all the internal transaction with BTC addresses. I know they log them because I have account history. I assume they are associated with BTC txn data because I can't see it working otherwise.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

I'm not sure who the "they" is here. If you mean Gox, I'm not sure how much effort it is fair to require of them to work around other people's assumptions that are known to be broken.

I think that's part of the reason there was so much confusion in the first place with the email thread you posted.  Like it's said below, someone who intentionally uses something that they know won't work isn't something that people are going to be thinking about and it'll require a lot of explanation!

It is if you investigate it. I would analogize it to intentionally depositing money in the wrong bank account -- if some company keeps sending them money over and over addressed to the wrong account, at some point the bank has to draw the line. It's not fair to expect them to continue debiting the accounts of innocent customers incorrectly credited by someone else's mistake. It's not unreasonable for them to say that they'll credit the accounts the depositor asks them to credit rather than having to constantly tell innocent customers that their balance is wrong.

Agreed.  If it were a large sum of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars), a reasonable person could be expected to question it, but for someone who deals in large volumes, which this other account user might be, a reasonable person may not bat an eye that their books are off by about 3 BTC (or whatever the transaction was for).

[glebm]

It is if you investigate it. I would analogize it to intentionally depositing money in the wrong bank account -- if some company keeps sending them money over and over addressed to the wrong account, at some point the bank has to draw the line. It's not fair to expect them to continue debiting the accounts of innocent customers incorrectly credited by someone else's mistake. It's not unreasonable for them to say that they'll credit the accounts the depositor asks them to credit rather than having to constantly tell innocent customers that their balance is wrong.

You would be surprised how this turns out when the responsible party is an actual bank http://www.calbankers.com/compliance-bulletin/bank-held-liable-wire-transfer-losses-phishing-scam
Of course MtGox is not one. If it were one, it would be required to either refund all of them, or put barriers in place

[WuLabsWuTecH]

You are assuming the BTC are still in the account of the person who "owned" the address.  And the internal ID would just show that a deposit came into the said address and that the proper user account was credited with the BTC.  None of that will have any of your information in it.

Correct, I am assuming that once the money is inside MtGox they log all the internal transaction with BTC addresses. I know they log them because I have account history. I assume they are associated with BTC txn data because I can't see it working otherwise.

And it could be that they are logged somehow that the support team can't access or know how to access.  Similarly, if you were to call Bank of America or Chase up, and had an issue with your account, you can't just talk to the support people.  There are account research specialists whose sole job it is to research issues like these!  But once again, we are making assumptions about a system we know nothing (or close to nothing) about.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

It is if you investigate it. I would analogize it to intentionally depositing money in the wrong bank account -- if some company keeps sending them money over and over addressed to the wrong account, at some point the bank has to draw the line. It's not fair to expect them to continue debiting the accounts of innocent customers incorrectly credited by someone else's mistake. It's not unreasonable for them to say that they'll credit the accounts the depositor asks them to credit rather than having to constantly tell innocent customers that their balance is wrong.

You would be surprised how this turns out when the responsible party is an actual bank http://www.calbankers.com/compliance-bulletin/bank-held-liable-wire-transfer-losses-phishing-scam
Of course MtGox is not one. If it were one, it would be required to either refund all of them, or put barriers in place

And once again you are confounding the banking system with the bitcoin system.  While there are parallels  the two systems are inherently different.  As someone who is new to bitcoin, I understand your confusion, but remember that you are dealing in a different system with different rules here.

[nottm28]

Dont trust mtgox

Well said Frank - clearly a trusted member who knows his stuff...

[glebm]

And once again you are confounding the banking system with the bitcoin system.  While there are parallels  the two systems are inherently different.  As someone who is new to bitcoin, I understand your confusion, but remember that you are dealing in a different system with different rules here.

I will not bring real banks into this anymore getting tired as well as it's 3 AM here, logging off now. It was good to talk!

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Dont trust mtgox

Well said Frank - clearly a trusted member who knows his stuff...

And once again you are confounding the banking system with the bitcoin system.  While there are parallels  the two systems are inherently different.  As someone who is new to bitcoin, I understand your confusion, but remember that you are dealing in a different system with different rules here.

I will not bring real banks into this anymore getting tired as well as it's 3 AM here, logging off now. It was good to talk!

It's a learning process.  And it's ok to make some mistakes along the way as long as you learn from them.  But nottm28 has a point--look at all of the members on this thread that had something useful to contribute (and ignore the others who still have newbie tags).  We are all basically saying the same thing but I think it's finally sinking into you that you cannot think of bitcoin in the same way that you think of other currencies.  It's something unlike anything else you have ever done.  But those of us with some experience are all saying basically the same thing because in this ecosystem that's how the rules are.  It'll take some time to get used to it, and there are definite advantages and disadvantages with bitcoin vs fiat currency, but this is why you are here in this forum trying to learn.  hopefully you have learned a lot today from this thread and from reading the other subforums and are on your way to becoming more proficient in BTC.

G'night mate!

[ISAWHIM]

It's your fault mate, mtgox is a trading site, you shouldn't use it as your online wallet and on top of that there is a warning on SD too.
Ps: I don't know if they recycle those address as sending address or not but if they do, someone will get those funds.

Adding to comment...

Unless they were never sent any of the funds in the first place... From the gambling site, who "knows", that mtgox is not an acceptable deposit. As far as you know, they just kept the funds, and said they sent them. Ask them for the address they sent the funds to. The proof should be there, in the block-chain.

Yea, it is not wise to use an "exchange" or "trader" as a "personal bank/wallet". They are there only to get money from you, and give it to you... not to your friends. If they failed to send it to you, or get it from you... then you could justify your complaint. However, YOU abused the system, and got burned.

There are warnings all over. Obviously you don't read the "I agree..." things you sign.

You made the choice to send it to an account that wasn't yours. You gambled, and lost. That is NOT their problem if the person you sent the money to, did not return it to YOUR account, with the correct method. Stop gambling... or do what is legally required for a dispute... "Get a police report, make a case, present the case with the evidence to a judge, and have it settled."

If you are in Germany, you should use a German exchange. Why risk using a foreign exchange? Did you plan on flying there to settle the dispute? Do you have "international lawyers" to settle your disputes? Then stop dealing with international crap! Hmmm, regulation and insured handlers are not looking so bad now, after all... are they...

[Korbman]

Dont trust mtgox

DO NOT TRUST SCAM MTGOX

mtgox is no good

I'm noticing a theme here...I suppose that's one way to spam a thread and boost your post count...

But back to the point of the thread:

I know this is just rehashing what others have said at this point, but I suppose it also bears repeating. Reversing a Bitcoin transaction (accidental or otherwise) isn't possible, unless you manage to get the receiving party to cooperate. If the funds you sent to SDice ended up going back to another user's account, then that would be mighty hard to retrieve. It may be worth it to keep up the fight with Gox, but I'd say let it go. I'm sure you'll know for next time, even though it was quite a pricey learning experience.

[JoelKatz]

And once again you are confounding the banking system with the bitcoin system.  While there are parallels  the two systems are inherently different.  As someone who is new to bitcoin, I understand your confusion, but remember that you are dealing in a different system with different rules here.

More specifically, it's the difference between hard money (cash or its equivalent) and soft money (promises to pay). Americans particularly are not used to dealing with hard money systems, other than cash, because American banking and consumer finance is pretty much all soft money. Gox is a hard money system. When you send Bitcoins to someone's Gox deposit address, it's supposed to be, semantically, as if you handed that person cash. This rule is needed because Bitcoins can very easily leave Gox as hard money and the only practical way to soften the money would be to add friction to this path.

[BitPappa]

This was a tough lesson, I'm sorry it happened. To help me learn from this event (and simultaneously admit my lack of knowledge), will Bitcoin QT wallet addresses send and receive? How about online wallets like Blockchain.info or Coinbase.com)?

[ranlo]

This was a tough lesson, I'm sorry it happened. To help me learn from this event (and simultaneously admit my lack of knowledge), will Bitcoin QT wallet addresses send and receive? How about online wallets like Blockchain.info or Coinbase.com)?

I think Bitcoin QT and Coinbase do (BQT should, and Coinbase had a FAQ where others said it worked fine). I'm thinking I read somewhere that Blockchain.info doesn't though.

What most people say to do is send the smallest amount possible as a test.

[pdicediddy]

Same thing happened to me at Mt. Gox with a different Plinko Pinball site. I sent in .1 BTC and won .2BTC.
support there is a joke. I'm a support manager and they couldn't understand (though I suspect they do).
They finally admitted that the sending address they assigned me was a "temporary address" that "someone else owns".

Mt Gox should give better warning not exclusive to Satoshi but specify that if you Withdraw fund to an address that a return reply of funds will go to someone else's account.

I use mt gox still with primedice but now will move to coinbase.