Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error

[johnj]

I agree sir. With the numerous scams and claims occuring these days, I propose we set up a sortof "BitCourt" where these cases can be heard... the judges could be trusted members of the community who are elected every few years or so, that way if there is any corruption the MARKET will move to eliminate it. The bitcoin client will have to be modified to enforce their decisions, but this is a small price to pay to ensure that values like honour and integrity are upheld and our currency flourishes.

Centralize bitcoin under a 'bitcourt' which even modifies the client to enforce their decisions?  Isn't that against the whole point of Bitcoin?

[1713937516]

1713937516

[1713937516]

1713937516

[1713937516]

1713937516

[1713937516]

1713937516

[1713937516]

1713937516

[greyhawk]

In this economy that we are in now i dont see how anyone can argue ethics here at all.

No doubts! It seems that most of population here does not even know what ethic is, let alone at least trying to act ethically, not even at least sometimes.

In keeping with Surawit's proposal of a Bitcourt, maybe we should codify a set of ethical guidelines for this economy, with appropriate consequences to be doled out by the Bitcourt in case of transgression.

[Vladimir]

Irreversible transactions do not make honour, ethic and law irrelevant.

I agree sir. With the numerous scams and claims occuring these days, I propose we set up a sortof "BitCourt" where these cases can be heard... the judges could be trusted members of the community who are elected every few years or so, that way if there is any corruption the MARKET will move to eliminate it. The bitcoin client will have to be modified to enforce their decisions, but this is a small price to pay to ensure that values like honour and integrity are upheld and our currency flourishes.

It is not going to work. And I personally will be against any modifications of fundamentals of the Bitcoin protocol, as surely will be all/most others with enough hashing power to matter.

Some mediation service could be viable eventually, but both parties would have to agree to use those...

Just be careful who you do business with.

[buttcoin]

I believe we already have prior case law on this kind of thing guys

[sliderider]

Irreversible transactions do not make honour, ethic and law irrelevant.

I agree sir. With the numerous scams and claims occuring these days, I propose we set up a sortof "BitCourt" where these cases can be heard... the judges could be trusted members of the community who are elected every few years or so, that way if there is any corruption the MARKET will move to eliminate it. The bitcoin client will have to be modified to enforce their decisions, but this is a small price to pay to ensure that values like honour and integrity are upheld and our currency flourishes.

And once someone sells stolen bitcoins bitcoins sent in error for cash, how do you propose to get them back? You can't force them to buy more bitcoins to replace the ones they cashed out once they have the money in hand.

Even if you could enforce something like putting a negative balance on their account, they'll just create another one so what's the point?

[sliderider]

If this had happened in the land of USD then the transaction could probably be reversed and the poor guy that accidentally received all this money would probably have the police knocking on his door.

But this aint USD land lol and there aint no btc police or corporate banks in control here, This is the world of BTC and if you make a mistake here it will cost you dearly.

Its the fault of the guy that made the coding error, Not the fault of the guy that got the BTC accidentally.

It's his money now and what he chooses to do with it is up to him, You can argue morality here if you want but it would be irrelevant.

Al it boils down to is this, Someone made an error and that error cost them alot of BTC.

Tuff luck.

No, what would have happened is the Treasury department would have investigated like they did to egold and come to the conclusion that bitcoin is a massive money laundering operation and forced them to stop allowing Americans to use it. They would also have notified the corresponding authorities in other countries and they would have also done the same thing and bitcoin would be over.

Be careful about dragging the authorities into matters concerning bitcoin or it's users. you never know where the investigation will end.

[casascius]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

Laws and regulations do nothing but choke the free market, if you can't live without them, you have no place here. 

As much as I'm willing to disagree with many laws, they do form the foundation of a civil and prosperous society.  You know, in a blighted neighborhood, they hate all laws, and any codes of ethics people actually follow are mainly pacts of silence.  And the people who live there wonder why opportunity is so scarce.

[Surawit]

And once someone sells stolen bitcoins bitcoins sent in error for cash, how do you propose to get them back? You can't force them to buy more bitcoins to replace the ones they cashed out once they have the money in hand.

Even if you could enforce something like putting a negative balance on their account, they'll just create another one so what's the point?

So quick to point out problems and so slow to offer solutions! Here is one possibility:

At present, as I understand it for each bitcoin transaction a small fee is paid to the minors. Bitcoin could add an additional small fee to each transaction, paid to an account owned by the Bitcourt. The Bitcourt could then use this money to hire local "judgement enforcement officers", who would collect the money from those criminals who had fled the internet and withdrawn their cash in non-cryptocurrency.

[sliderider]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

Wrong, because you don't agree that transferring fountains is irreversible when you build yours. When you sign up for bitcoin you DO agree that transactions are irreversible so you have no legal leg to stand on if you make an erroneous spend.

[skilo]

A bitcourt would contradict the very reason crypto currency was created in the first place.

Crypto currency isint just money, Its a revolution.

[greyhawk]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

[JeffK]

Irreversible transactions do not make honour, ethic and law irrelevant.

A system that depends on human honor and ethics in order to be successful has very little solid basis, you people all know this as well.

Bitcoin makes the law irrelevant in this case as
A) Bitcoin, and claims to ownership of Bitcoin, are not something courts are concerned about.
B) The irreversible nature and the way the blockchain verifies transactions mean that the new owner of the coins is, in fact, the actual owner now.

If you are concerned about honor, ethics, and law, maybe you should not be dealing in Bitcoin, at least until the law recognises them or you can accept that expecting someone to have "honor" only means you will get burned.

Sorry if it sounds "fuck you, got mine", but this is literally FYGM technology

[JeffK]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

It is more akin to you putting 4 fountains in my yard, having it mathematically verified that you did so, and then coming back to me and saying "although all four fountains are yours now, I only intended to give you one. Give me three fountains back."

[casascius]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

You mean to say that if my neighbor puts together his fountain and accidentally does so in my yard, that title to his fountain passes to me?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  By that logic, if I go to an auto parts store, buy a new pair of headlights, and install them on my car in their parking lot (their property), that they suddenly own my headlights and/or my car.  Obviously that's ridiculous.

[sliderider]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

You mean to say that if my neighbor puts together his fountain and accidentally does so in my yard, that title to his fountain passes to me?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  By that logic, if I go to an auto parts store, buy a new pair of headlights, and install them on my car in their parking lot (their property), that they suddenly own my headlights and/or my car.  Obviously that's ridiculous.

If the kids from the neighborhood hit their baseball through your window, you don't have to give it back.

Oh, and if you go the auto parts store and buy headlights then install them on MY car and I drive off you don't have the right to follow me home and take them off or you get clubbed with a baseball bat.

[greyhawk]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

You mean to say that if my neighbor puts together his fountain and accidentally does so in my yard, that title to his fountain passes to me?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  By that logic, if I go to an auto parts store, buy a new pair of headlights, and install them on my car in their parking lot (their property), that they suddenly own my headlights and/or my car.  Obviously that's ridiculous.

I suggest parking further away, you can't trust those car parts dealers.  

[casascius]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

It is more akin to you putting 4 fountains in my yard, having it mathematically verified that you did so, and then coming back to me and saying "although all four fountains are yours now, I only intended to give you one. Give me three fountains back."

I would say more like putting 4 fountains in your yard, and then coming back to you and saying, "although you were delivered four fountains, that was a mistake, you only paid for one.  Please allow me to pick up the other three."

[PinkiePie]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

You mean to say that if my neighbor puts together his fountain and accidentally does so in my yard, that title to his fountain passes to me?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  By that logic, if I go to an auto parts store, buy a new pair of headlights, and install them on my car in their parking lot (their property), that they suddenly own my headlights and/or my car.  Obviously that's ridiculous.

Your metaphors are as bad as the 1987 hit song "Bad" by Micheal Jackson.

[Gerken]

Jesus fuck, whats wrong with you people and your retarded analogies.  

[hightax]

By the logic I'm reading here, if I put a new fountain in my front yard, and someone steals it, it was their right, because when you start putting fountains in places without locking them down, it becomes other people's right to steal them if they can.  And that if someone steals my fountain, title to the fountain transfers rightfully to the thief because the nature of fountains is that possession is nine tenths of the law and that transferring fountains (just like cash) is irreversible.

No, when someone accidentally builds a fountain in your front yard, you get to keep it.

You mean to say that if my neighbor puts together his fountain and accidentally does so in my yard, that title to his fountain passes to me?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  By that logic, if I go to an auto parts store, buy a new pair of headlights, and install them on my car in their parking lot (their property), that they suddenly own my headlights and/or my car.  Obviously that's ridiculous.

When toner sales men ship you a crate of toner cartridges you didn't ask for, and then sends you a bill for those toner cartridges, you don't have to send them back, and you don't have to pay for them either.  Welcome to the real world.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/supplies.asp