Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error

[defxor]

Also, anyone who thinks that a court will set precedent with this is retarded...in would open the doors for a veritable onslaught of e-currencies that the court system is completely unprepared to tackle. 'I'm gonna sue you for stealing my WoW gold and never delivering my +69 dragoncock sword". It's not gonna happen. One quick google of this clusterfuck and any judge will slap it off his desk as fast as they can.

Finnish police raid homes over stolen Habbo Hotel furniture and Dutch courts have convicted Runescape sword stealers to community service (due to their youth, not the severity of the crime).

[1714005995]

1714005995

[1714005995]

1714005995

[1714005995]

1714005995

[1714005995]

1714005995

[bitlane]

What goes around, comes around...

Isn't there enough proof to boot this Scammer's Ass out of here for good ?

Does this community really need people who screw over those who strive to make BTC better by atleast offering services ?

Other than scamming 511 BTC, what has Ben Davis done for Bitcoin ?

How many developers will situations like THIS attract to the Bitcoin world ?

Whoa now, there is far from enough information for me to take a side here, but how exactly did he 'scam' the exchange out of these coins? You drop the S-bomb twice without merit. Semantics matter, even if your mtv and justin-bieber fried brain doesn't think so.

Admission of possesion, Awareness of mistake, taunting the Sender and refusal to return them back is not enough proof ?

GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE and perhaps READ THE WHOLE THREAD and familiarize yourself with the entire situation like the rest of us who are commenting here, have taken the time to do - THEN COMMENT ON MY MTV FRIED BRAIN.

I get it....Don't tell me: American Law perhaps ? Judge Judy or The People's Court ? Innocent through submission of guilt  

[kjj]

Also, anyone who thinks that a court will set precedent with this is retarded...in would open the doors for a veritable onslaught of e-currencies that the court system is completely unprepared to tackle. 'I'm gonna sue you for stealing my WoW gold and never delivering my +69 dragoncock sword". It's not gonna happen. One quick google of this clusterfuck and any judge will slap it off his desk as fast as they can.

All the court has to do is continue to recognize the existence of an ownership interest in an intangible property, something they've been doing for literally thousands of years.  The only way this could set a precedent is if they decided that the entire history of jurisprudence from the dawn of history until now was wrong.

This case has the potential to silence a bunch of fools on the internet, but is otherwise totally mundane and ordinary.

[bosschair]

I'm curious about something.  A hypothetical situation.  If Ben was asleep while the coins were being sent to his wallet, which was stored in an encrypted file on his computer, and when he woke up, he couldn't remember the keys for decrypting that wallet file, would he still owe the sender the bitcoins?

I would say no.

In this case, I would argue that he never had possession, and thus never had an opportunity to return them to the rightful owner.  By statute, and by common sense, in this case the theft wasn't the reception of the coins, but the willful failure to return them.

On the other hand, if they ever moved in the future, I would expect the defendant to end up back in court for theft, and possibly perjury.  No problem with the statute of limitations, because again, the crime happens when the defendant has an opportunity to return them, but fails to do so.

This all just comes back to the fact that the anonymity means there's a lot of deniability, and it puts the onus on the sender to make sure they're not sending their money to the wrong place.  You're not sending bitcoins to a person, you're sending them to an address.  You can't prove that the address is connected to the person.  You can't prove Ben didn't lose the USB key that had his wallet on it well before the transaction even took place.  Did phantomcircuit send Ben money, or did phantomcircuit send money to a USB key that's in a garbage can somewhere?  If someone finds that USB key and spends the money, is that proof Ben lied?  Even the fact that Ben has acknowledged the transfer doesn't mean anything, depending on what exactly he acknowledged: he knows the address, so maybe his acknowledgement was just based on seeing it in blockexplorer, not actually having the wallet.  Knowledge of a specific transaction isn't proof of anything, because everyone has knowledge of all transactions.

It's fairly obvious that this isn't what's going on here, because if it were, Ben would have said something to that effect, rather than taunting phantomcircuit.  But proving bitcoins were moved to a specific person is difficult to do, and in fact is something that the system was designed to prevent.

[Tomatocage]

lulz

[RandyFolds]

What goes around, comes around...

Isn't there enough proof to boot this Scammer's Ass out of here for good ?

Does this community really need people who screw over those who strive to make BTC better by atleast offering services ?

Other than scamming 511 BTC, what has Ben Davis done for Bitcoin ?

How many developers will situations like THIS attract to the Bitcoin world ?

Whoa now, there is far from enough information for me to take a side here, but how exactly did he 'scam' the exchange out of these coins? You drop the S-bomb twice without merit. Semantics matter, even if your mtv and justin-bieber fried brain doesn't think so.

Admission of possesion, Awareness of mistake, taunting the Sender and refusal to return them back is not enough proof ?

GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE and perhaps READ THE WHOLE THREAD and familiarize yourself with the entire situation like the rest of us who are commenting here, have taken the time to do - THEN COMMENT ON MY MTV FRIED BRAIN.

I get it....Don't tell me: American Law perhaps ? Judge Judy or The People's Court ? Innocent through submission of guilt  

This whole thing is being hashed out in the newbie section. There is no real information in it. It could very well be an hilarious troll. No one has proved possession or ownership of anything.

I read the thread, and wish I could take it back. A bunch of fucking internet lawyers talking bullshit. I am not participating in that, I am just pointing out that waking up to more money in your bank account is not a scam. This all gets back to the semantics that you don't seem to grasp.

noun 1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

Also, anyone who thinks that a court will set precedent with this is retarded...in would open the doors for a veritable onslaught of e-currencies that the court system is completely unprepared to tackle. 'I'm gonna sue you for stealing my WoW gold and never delivering my +69 dragoncock sword". It's not gonna happen. One quick google of this clusterfuck and any judge will slap it off his desk as fast as they can.

All the court has to do is continue to recognize the existence of an ownership interest in an intangible property, something they've been doing for literally thousands of years.  The only way this could set a precedent is if they decided that the entire history of jurisprudence from the dawn of history until now was wrong.

This case has the potential to silence a bunch of fools on the internet, but is otherwise totally mundane and ordinary.

Give me some precedent for which a value was ascribed to intangible digital goods...don't just claim more bullshit like everyone else on this thread. How is this not akin to a kid suing some other kid for stealing his wow gold? Both have an obscure place on the internet at which they can be exchanged for USD, so they both have this 'value' everyone keeps jerking themselves off over.

[hightax]

Other than scamming 51% of all MBC, what has Bruce Wagner done for Bitcoin ?

How many developers will situations like THIS attract to the Bitcoin world ?

Yeah tell me about it.

[bitlane]

Yeah tell me about it.

Please quote me correctly.

I have no comment on the Bruce Wagner situation and I DID NOT make the comment you quoted.
THAT witch hunt is currently going on in another thread or 2 and due to the senstitive subject matter being discussed there, I have chosen NOT to participate.

This thread is about Trailer Trash Windfalls between Wellfare Checks and The Scum that profit/

Please correct your post by removing the reference to my quote, or quote it correctly if you don't mind.

Thanks in advance,
Allan

[bg002h]

511 BTC? LOL well i guess your rich now....

Screw that guy, i wouldent give him anything back there is nothing he can do.

Have fun with your $4,333.28  

I kinda think we should play nice...I mean, if we don't protect those who are creating and inventing and pushing the limits of what can be done with bitcoins, we all lose...everyone is gonna make a mistake, but if we encourage the clever ones and hassle the dumb ones to do the right thing, we'll all be better off. 

DrG
1DrGossc3QidjzgDXzveCAQGiPWsoiDZ8C

[mizerydearia]

This all just comes back to the fact that the anonymity means there's a lot of deniability, and it puts the onus on the sender to make sure they're not sending their money to the wrong place.  You're not sending bitcoins to a person, you're sending them to an address.  You can't prove that the address is connected to the person.

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1LmHwPxGdUbnSMyomDeWtz85GkxUG2c31X


August 15/16 (depending on time zone), 2011 in #bitcoinpool

<BenDavis> 1LmHwPxGdUbnSMyomDeWtz85GkxUG2c31X
<BenDavis>

At Block 143440 (2011-09-01 05:36:32) BenDavis had 0 bitcoins at that address.
...
By Block 143458 (2011-09-01 09:13:50) BenDavis had received a total of 95 bitcoins from phantomcircuit due to bug.
...
By Block 143460 (2011-09-01 09:37:52) BenDavis had received a total of 111 bitcoins from phantomcircuit due to bug.
By Block 143461 (2011-09-01 09:40:55) BenDavis had received a total of 510 bitcoins from phantomcircuit due to bug.  This is 399 bitcoins received in this block alone.
At Block 143461 (2011-09-01 09:40:55) BenDavis had also sent 94 bitcoins to 1M8v28U9SnxMgebJM5wmNdkd5TB9V7haUX
At Block 143461 (2011-09-01 09:40:55) BenDavis had also sent 17 bitcoins to 1CYGeK9mozuLWsGxYdhYw1RYtpXZAdiUse
At Block 143462 (2011-09-01 09:46:44) BenDavis had also sent 200 bitcoins to 1CYGeK9mozuLWsGxYdhYw1RYtpXZAdiUse
At Block 143463 (2011-09-01 09:47:37) BenDavis had also sent 199 bitcoins to 1M8v28U9SnxMgebJM5wmNdkd5TB9V7haUX thus having a 0 bitcoin balance at this point.

Although the following quotes are hypothetical and not declarative:

If you wake up, and there are 511 BTC in your wallet, THEY ARE YOURS.

If I wake up in the morning, and I find 511 BTC in my account, how did I steal it?  Please explain that.

The data above proves that BenDavis was active immediately upon receiving the bitcoins.

[indio007]

Real fast. Bitcoins are network access  and certain network authentication services. The legal term is an incorporeal hereditament. Yes they can be stolen. Yes there is title to them. Possession alone passes no title even for negotiable instruments, which happen to construe possession most strongly.

There is no legal or moral excuse for this behavior. At the very least there is UNJUST ENRICHMENT which is a tort.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool and an idiot. You are so dependent on the nanny state to define your rights you forget them some rights are strictly sui generis.

[hightax]

Yeah tell me about it.

Please quote me

Thanks in advance,
Allan

You're funny.  You're bitching about somebody who was sent 500BTC in error and cashes it in, when you're completely glossing over the GLARING FRAUD everywhere else on these forums.  This isn't a scam.  There was no confidence game played here.  This is a programmer's gross negligence come back to haunt him.

If you want to stop scammers, then you should be haunting all of the yes-men who're playing the speculative pump-and-dump schemes, and the pyramid scheme operators and exchange operators who disappear overnight or "lose" half their value.  There's the real scam.

[hightax]

Yes there is title to them. 

Really?  Who guarantees/underwrites/enforces said title?  You?  I didn't think so.

[bitconformist]

You'd have to be crazy to go to the police or a lawyer over this. Any judge or copper is - at best - just going to ask you what you're jabbering on about.

Anyone suggesting lawsuits or prosecution is weird.

[indio007]

Mr. and Mrs. 1 and 11 posts , you have no idea what your talking about. The law always works around new inventions and always has.
There is a legal maxim. For every  right , there is a remedy. Bitcoin was released under the MIT License. So there is a right of use. A court of equity will fashion a remedy suited for the controversy.

AS far as enforcing said title. I could , if phantomcircuit would sell me his claim. That's called an assignment of a chose in action. He called also do  what is called a election of remedies. He can waive the tort and sue in assumpsit  for the received value of the stolen items.


Seriously you guys haven't a clue in the world. You are talking out your ass.

[hightax]

Mr. and Mrs. 1 and 11 posts , you have no idea what your talking about. The law always works around new inventions and always has.
There is a legal maxim. For every  right , there is a remedy. Bitcoin was released under the MIT License. So there is a right of use. A court of equity will fashion a remedy suited for the controversy.

AS far as enforcing said title. I could , if phantomcircuit would sell me his claim. That's called an assignment of a chose in action. He called also do  what is called a election of remedies. He can waive the tort and sue in assumpsit  for the received value of the stolen items.


Seriously you guys haven't a clue in the world. You are talking out your ass.

This is hilarous.  You are hilarious.  At best you might be able to file a civil suit against him in small claims court.  How much are flights from the UK these days?  ~600BTC?  No, he's not going to jail.  There was no "theft."  Failure to return data that was IM'd to you is not theft.  Failure to return something sent to you unsolicited is not a scam.

But please, reach harder.

[johnj]

This is hilarous.  You are hilarious.  At best you might be able to file a civil suit against him in small claims court.  How much are flights from the UK these days?  ~600BTC?  No, he's not going to jail.  There was no "theft."  Failure to return data that was IM'd to you is not theft.  Failure to return something sent to you unsolicited is not a scam.

But please, reach harder.

Guy, read the thread.  It's already been established that where this guy lives, "failiure to return data that was IM'd on accident" IS theft.  It's written down on paper.  Now, you can argue if that is 'fair' or not, but that'd be for after the trial 

[bitconformist]

Mr. and Mrs. 1 and 11 posts , you have no idea what your talking about. The law always works around new inventions and always has.
There is a legal maxim. For every  right , there is a remedy. Bitcoin was released under the MIT License. So there is a right of use. A court of equity will fashion a remedy suited for the controversy.

AS far as enforcing said title. I could , if phantomcircuit would sell me his claim. That's called an assignment of a chose in action. He called also do  what is called a election of remedies. He can waive the tort and sue in assumpsit  for the received value of the stolen items.


Seriously you guys haven't a clue in the world. You are talking out your ass.

It really doesn't matter what legal gibberish you can spout or what your briefs say, any judge is simply going to look at it, not understand any of it, and tell you to get out of his court room before he fines you for contempt. You may think you're a legal expert but this is how that sort of esoteric technology is handled in a court that deals in fiat money and physical property.

[hightax]

This is hilarous.  You are hilarious.  At best you might be able to file a civil suit against him in small claims court.  How much are flights from the UK these days?  ~600BTC?  No, he's not going to jail.  There was no "theft."  Failure to return data that was IM'd to you is not theft.  Failure to return something sent to you unsolicited is not a scam.

But please, reach harder.

Guy, read the thread.  It's already been established that where this guy lives, "failiure to return data that was IM'd on accident" IS theft.  It's written down on paper.  Now, you can argue if that is 'fair' or not, but that'd be for after the trial 

You have downloaded my posts, each valued their virtual weight in gold, which I demand that you return to me immediately.  Failure to return my moneyposts is theft.  Turn them over immediately or else I will call the police and tell them that you stole my posts.

[johnj]

You have downloaded my posts, each valued their virtual weight in gold, which I demand that you return to me immediately.  Failure to return my moneyposts is theft.  Turn them over immediately or else I will call the police and tell them that you stole my posts.

Surely you realize that by posting to a public forum...


Nevermind.  Go ahead and sue me