Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error

[johnj]

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

I would really like to see a Bitcoin Adjudication service set up that, after considering the evidence presented before it, issues judgements not about statist law but about honour, ethic and reputation.

It would then be up to the perpetrator to decide whether to restore their honour. If they didn't, it would be up to the community to ostracise them. In a well-defined community, ostracism is a very powerful mechanism.

... until this 'service' became even slightly corrupt or makes a mistake, and now you have torches and pitchforks chasing some dude who is innocent.

[greyhawk]

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

I would really like to see a Bitcoin Adjudication service set up that, after considering the evidence presented before it, issues judgements not about statist law but about honour, ethic and reputation.

It would then be up to the perpetrator to decide whether to restore their honour. If they didn't, it would be up to the community to ostracise them. In a well-defined community, ostracism is a very powerful mechanism.

Ostracism only works in a community where the individual members are not anonymous.

[Gerken]

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

I would really like to see a Bitcoin Adjudication service set up that, after considering the evidence presented before it, issues judgements not about statist law but about honour, ethic and reputation.

It would then be up to the perpetrator to decide whether to restore their honour. If they didn't, it would be up to the community to ostracise them. In a well-defined community, ostracism is a very powerful mechanism.

This sounds like something a five year old would come up with, that has no experience with other people or the world in general. 

[ribuck]

But if it's too easy for businesses to get back coins that they accidentally send, they're going to keep accidentally sending them.

Are you sure the condition for that if statement is accurate?

if (too easy for businesses to get back coins accidentally sent) { accidentallysendcoins(); }
if (not easy for businesses to get back coins accidentally sent) { tryanotherstrategy(); }

Are you sure 'businesses" is correct way to reference these types of ethics/morals?  Perhaps something more evil or scammalicious is suitable in place of "business?"

I'm not even referring to scamming, just to incompetence. If a business can make money when they do the right thing, and not lose money when they do the wrong thing, there's no incentive for them to stop doing the wrong thing. But if the business loses money when they do the wrong thing, they'll very promptly stop doing the wrong thing.

Although, there are many consensually agreed upon businesses that are evil (e.g. Sony, Microsoft, SCO, etc.), yet, trying to think of a business that is opposite, good, actually seems a bit difficult.  Even Nintendo has its share of evils.  Therefore, perhaps "business" alone is indication of evilness?

I was going to use Witcoin as an example of a business that doesn't seem to be evil, but then it occurred to me that you might be assuming that business == corporation. As I use the words, a business provides goods or services in a voluntary way that benefits itself and its customers. A corporation depends on the power of the state to protect its profits whilst socializing any losses (i.e. distributing them to others). In theory, and sometimes in practice, a corporation can also be a legitimate business.

You mentioned Sony, which illustrates my earlier point. If Sony doesn't lose money by installing rootkits, they will keep installing rootkits. If Sony makes a financial loss by installing rootkits, they will very quickly stop installing rootkits.

[ribuck]

This sounds like something a five year old would come up with, that has no experience with other people or the world in general.  

Try posting something constructive instead of an ad-hominem attack. Besides, I'm only four years old.

[Gerken]

Saving people money, time, and effort on dumb ideas isnt constructive?  At least I'm being helpful, all you are doing is telling other people they aren't being constructive.  Who isn't being constructive here?

[dbooti]

If you think that the person who unfortunately sent his BitCoins deserves them back or that somehow contract law applies or that a BitCourt should be in force, you don't understand the purpose of BitCoin. To remedy this situation, I recommend you read paragraph #1 Satoshi's whitepaper.

Worse yet, your ideas invalidate the very mechanism that makes BitCoin what it is. Once you have a 3rd party to enforce "Trust" BitCoin is no longer BitCoin. If you want a "Trust" system then go to a Bank of America or PayPal or code one on top of BitCoin. I hear there are a few programmers out there. 

From Parapraph #1 of the whitePaper. Please note RED.

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable.

[defxor]

If you think that the person who unfortunately sent his BitCoins deserves them back or that somehow contract law applies or that a BitCourt should be in force, you don't understand the purpose of BitCoin.

I'm in envy of you, since you apparently live in a country of your own with your own separate laws. The rest of us, no matter how much we might like or dislike the technical workings of Bitcoin, must still abide by national laws and international agreements.

According to those, not only does Intersango "deserve" their bitcoins back, they're entitled to by law.

[indio007]

I'm going to just pile on. The fact that Bitcoin is not "legal tender" or "authorized currency" does not matter.

A treatise on the law of conversion By Renzo Dee Bowers

§ 236. Owner Divested of Property only by Own Act. — Therefore, the general principle being well established that a person cannot be divested of his property except through his voluntary act or by POSSESSION NOT EVIDENCE OF RIGHT TO SELL CHATTELS § 237
transferring temporary possession to another under such circumstances that he will be estopped to say that such other had not the right to dispose of it, it remains to be seen what is the status of such owner as regards a purchaser from one who had no authority to sell. That the owner may bring replevin if he can trace the property, is well established.1 But this is not his only remedy. A person purchasing property of the party in possession, without ascertaining where the true title is, does so at his peril, and although honestly mistaken, will be liable to the owner for a conversion.2 A seller of personal property can convey no greater title than he has, and it makes no difference that the purchaser has no notice and is ignorant of the existence of other parties in interest.8 "The defendant stands in no better situation than any other who purchases an article from a party without title or authority to dispose of such article; in such case the purchaser acquires no title. The true owner has the right to reclaim his property and to hold any one responsible who has assumed the right to dispose of it." 4 Plaintiff was the owner of a ten-dollar gold piece of "Moffat's issue" of California coins, and not United States issue. By mistake this was passed as a half dollar, and by such other passed as a half dollar to the defendant who knew its value. Upon defendant's refusal to surrender it, trover was brought against him for the value of the coin, and the court held that by the receiving plaintiff's coin and claiming it as his own, the defendant was guilty of a conversion of it.6

Just so you know Moffat's issue was private coinage.

[dbooti]

I'm going to just pile on. The fact that Bitcoin is not "legal tender" or "authorized currency" does not matter.

A treatise on the law of conversion By Renzo Dee Bowers

§ 236. Owner Divested of Property only by Own Act. — Therefore, the general principle being well established that a person cannot be divested of his property except through his voluntary act or by POSSESSION NOT EVIDENCE OF RIGHT TO SELL CHATTELS § 237
transferring temporary possession to another under such circumstances that he will be estopped to say that such other had not the right to dispose of it, it remains to be seen what is the status of such owner as regards a purchaser from one who had no authority to sell. That the owner may bring replevin if he can trace the property, is well established.1 But this is not his only remedy. A person purchasing property of the party in possession, without ascertaining where the true title is, does so at his peril, and although honestly mistaken, will be liable to the owner for a conversion.2 A seller of personal property can convey no greater title than he has, and it makes no difference that the purchaser has no notice and is ignorant of the existence of other parties in interest.8 "The defendant stands in no better situation than any other who purchases an article from a party without title or authority to dispose of such article; in such case the purchaser acquires no title. The true owner has the right to reclaim his property and to hold any one responsible who has assumed the right to dispose of it." 4 Plaintiff was the owner of a ten-dollar gold piece of "Moffat's issue" of California coins, and not United States issue. By mistake this was passed as a half dollar, and by such other passed as a half dollar to the defendant who knew its value. Upon defendant's refusal to surrender it, trover was brought against him for the value of the coin, and the court held that by the receiving plaintiff's coin and claiming it as his own, the defendant was guilty of a conversion of it.6

Just so you know Moffat's issue was private coinage.

indio007,

You're missing one major aspect of your "Contract"

When you click send or put your crappy up script in the live environment you are agreeing to transact in an anonymous, irreversible, trust-less transaction. Your contract is implied and self enforcing and thus you are not getting your BitCoins back nor do you deserve to. It really doesn't matter that the doggie ate your homework and the last thing BitCoin needs is a pile of lawyers kicking down doors so to find "stolen" bitcoins.

[defxor]

you are agreeing to

No. As to why you think your personal fantasies are of interest to anyone but yourself we can only speculate.

[johnj]

You're missing one major aspect of your "Contract"

When you click send or put your crappy up script in the live environment you are agreeing to transact in an anonymous, irreversible, trust-less transaction. Your contract is implied and self enforcing and thus you are not getting your BitCoins back nor do you deserve to. It really doesn't matter that the doggie ate your homework and the last thing BitCoin needs is a pile of lawyers kicking down doors so to find "stolen" bitcoins.

You're missing one major aspect of your "Replying"

When you reply by hitting 'post' or just put crappy words together in a row in the live environment you are agreeing to be mocked if you can't back up your assertions with any citations.  Your 'reply' is self enforcing and thus you aren't getting any of your credibility back nor do you deserve to.  It really doesn't matter that you didn't read the whole thread and the last thing Critical Thinking needs is a pile of pretend-lawyers making fools of themselves to "correct" others.

[Vladimir]

The only reason why "pile of lawyers [is not] kicking down doors so to find stolen bitcoins" is because 1 BTC does not worth 10 000 USD just yet.

[dbooti]

You're missing one major aspect of your "Contract"

When you click send or put your crappy up script in the live environment you are agreeing to transact in an anonymous, irreversible, trust-less transaction. Your contract is implied and self enforcing and thus you are not getting your BitCoins back nor do you deserve to. It really doesn't matter that the doggie ate your homework and the last thing BitCoin needs is a pile of lawyers kicking down doors so to find "stolen" bitcoins.

You're missing one major aspect of your "Replying"

When you reply by hitting 'post' or just put crappy words together in a row in the live environment you are agreeing to be mocked if you can't back up your assertions with any citations.  Your 'reply' is self enforcing and thus you aren't getting any of your credibility back nor do you deserve to.  It really doesn't matter that you didn't read the whole thread and the last thing Critical Thinking needs is a pile of pretend-lawyers making fools of themselves to "correct" others.

This could be a fun game. Tell this forum that you "accidentally" sent a few bitcoins to a address and then see if the lemmings will help you find that person. We could really test how anonymous this system is. I say we find this guy and serve him and make sure to use the correct citation or else we might get yelled out of BitCourt.

[johnj]

This could be a fun game. Tell this forum that you "accidentally" sent a few bitcoins to a address and then see if the lemmings will help you find that person. We could really test how anonymous this system is. I say we find this guy and serve him and make sure to use the correct citation or else we might get yelled out of BitCourt.

That might be a fun game.  I like the one we're playing now though.  You know, the one where the receiver has already admitted to both receiving the coins, understanding they were not intentionally appropriated to him,  and selling them while inside a jurisdiction that interprets that as theft.

[Rassah]

All you people bitching about keeping government out of Bitcoin, you're forgetting that a legal system for solving didputes =/= government. I agree with Vladimir, that this seems like a case of contract law and tort, and is a pretty clear cut case. Even in a purely anarcho-capitalist society this dispute can be solved in a private legal court or through arbitration. Also, if you want capitalism, you need business, and if you want business, you need an environment where parties can trust each other and have ways to solve disputes. Up to you Bitcoin anarchists to figure out how that should work, but personally, I think (private?) courts and arbitrage would work well.

That being said, I'd love to see this end up in court and the defendant lose. Maybe that would even set a precedent for the similar situation that happened at MtGox, and allow them to pursue recovery if the money they lost to that withdrawal hasn't been recovered yet.

[Blackout]

You could always just go old school and just go to his house and kick his ass.  Of course then he'll call the police on you but
at least you'll feel satisfaction.  Release his full info out into the bitcoin community and oh woe the retaliation. He will be wishing he sent the bitcoins back.

Karma is a beotch.

[dbooti]

If it's WWII Germany and a Jewish person is hiding in a sewer when a German soldier drops HIS Gold coin down such said sewer.

Is the Jew morally required to destroy his anonymity and secrecy to give the German back his coin?   I mean contract law says it belongs to the German. Doesn't it? Of course not, this is rubbish.

BitCoin is supposed to be anonymous. "Sender Beware" You morally can't compel anyone to even acknowledge such said receipt. What me? I don't even own a bitcoin account. What is bitcoin? My email/computer/life was hacked.

[Blackout]

It is just the all out 'jackassholessnesss" of the receiver of the 512 that is captured in the log that deserves some
backlash.  Yes, the sender screwed up and technically, those bitcoins are gone because of his mistake and the nature of bitcoin, but the log captures the receiver admitting and taunting the sender.

If you go to a store and by something and the guy actually gives you back the wrong change... this has happened to me a few times... one time I kept it not knowing, till later, one time I gave it back because I know the store owner and immediately realized and he was a nice guy and I couldn't feel right about taking it....  it's a completely another thing if I gave the store owner a $10, he gave me change thinking it was $100, but then realized right there, and I not only refused to give it back, but I taunted him, and the whole thing was documented on tape.

[indio007]

indio007,

You're missing one major aspect of your "Contract"

When you click send or put your crappy up script in the live environment you are agreeing to transact in an anonymous, irreversible, trust-less transaction. Your contract is implied and self enforcing and thus you are not getting your BitCoins back nor do you deserve to. It really doesn't matter that the doggie ate your homework and the last thing BitCoin needs is a pile of lawyers kicking down doors so to find "stolen" bitcoins.

There is no implied contract until there is a consideration from both parties. However even if there was the presumption of a contract the fact would be rebuttable by evidence. Such as the confession of the receiver. No one is going to kick down his door and seize bitcoins  because he already sold them, so  once again bittalk.org become the home of the red herring. What the courts will do is make him pay for his ill-gotten gain.

Bitcoins are not anonymous BTW.

I love how people keep draggin the government into this as if they are a party to the dispute. They aren't ,there are two people involved. One demands justice. The other demands free profit at the expense of another. The government is supposed to be a neutral third party acting to ensure a fair result to the dispute. Like I said before , we can go to self help justice and start taking pounds of flesh instead. I 100% certain that if that happened you would be crying "Where is the gov't to protect us?"