If MtGox can ident the Bitcoins, why not fix it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

btw. the solution is not asking for more fascism but good old fiduciary trust; using segregated storage such as proposed by Coinkite. Malled transactions would fail in such a case, due to the fact that people could steal only from themselves.

Agreed.  BitSimple takes it a step further in that we never hold any user bitcoins.  The transferring a coin to BitSimple IS the sale, and the transferring of a coin to the user IS the purchase.  The only coins in our wallet our company coins.  Users are free to retain control of their private keys, secure their wallet however they best see fit and still have instant liquidity.  There is no need for confirmations so any user can sell their securely held coins at any time by simply making a bitcoin transactions.

Bitcoiners need to start expecting more from their exchanges and not grasping for implausible centralized authority solutions for a decentralized network.

[MrTeal]

Why do you think each Bitcoin has a serial number, anyway? What has the serial number, each BTC? Each satoshi?

If you send 1.5BTC to 1AAAAA... and I later send 2BTC there, when the owner of that key later sends 3BTC to 1BBBBB... and 0.5BTC is change to 1CCCCC, which Bitcoins are yours and which are mine?

[leopard2]

Not sure about US law (maybe D&T can comment?), but German law is crystal clear on that. If someone accepts money in good faith (as part of a legal transaction) then he owns that money. It is not possible to legally acquire stolen goods, but money is an exception (§935 BGB).

That is my understanding.  Good faith is the important part.  Obviously it doesn't protect someone who knows (or should have a reasonable suspicion) that the money is the proceeds of a crime.   Doing otherwise would undermine the confidence in the currency, much like the OP proposal would fatally undermine the confidence in bitcoin.  If a merchant, user, or exchange can accept Bitcoins in good faith and then have those coins rendered worthless through no fault of their own .... why would they want to accept a bitcoin?  Even if they are interested in crypto-currency they would just support a coin without that risk.

Exactly.

So if one would want to support a centralized thing like Ripple, he would be very interested in events like the Gox crash. A wonderful way of undermining Bitcoin, and much room for conspiracy theories 

[mgburks77]

Back to the missing Bitcoins and the original question.  Identify the Bitcoins and stop them in their tracks.  Whether double spent or stolen, mine are mine and if MtGox sent them to someone else that's theft.

You're not a newbie based on the post count... you should know by now that what you suggest is impossible. Even if it was possible, it would not be fair: The "illegal" bitcoins may have been part of hundreds of transactions after leaving Gox. Those transactions may be totally normal trades between people who had no idea that you would later declare their money illegal. Who are you to say those trades are now void?

Who am I?  the rightful owner of those Bitcoins.

No, bitcoins are fungible. That means one coin is exactly the same as another.

If you had title for ownership for particular coins it would no longer be fungible currency as each bitcoin would have a different title for ownership. Bitcoins no longer interchangeable unless transaction is just like buying a house with transfer of title. .

[mgburks77]

Good faith is the important part.

no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part

[DeathAndTaxes]

Good faith is the important part.

no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part

I was speaking more on the law.  Bitcoin is trustless and fungible and should remain so.  That doesn't mean that someone can't be arrested by law enforcement.  Generally speaking accepting currency in good faith for goods or services is not a crime even if the currency is the proceeds of a crime.  The accepting party acting in good faith is not liable for the return of the funds.  However knowingly accepting stolen funds is generally speaking a crime and rarely are criminals allowed to keep the proceeds of a crime.

[Squeaker]

The exploitation of MtGox to the point it fails is in itself an abuse that should not be allowed to succeed.

Why, exactly, are you even involved with bitcoin in the first place if you think like that?

Perhaps you should go back to dealing with fiat, and stay there.

=squeak=

[Squeaker]

I take $100 out of an ATM in $20 bills.  The ATM has recorded those serial numbers.  I immediately get mugged.  I identify the mugger to the police.  The money is seized.  The twenty dollar bills are identified as those I withdrew from the ATM.  The mugger gets tried, convicted, goes to jail or gets counseling (liberals) and I get my $20 bills back.

What if you got your cash from the grocery store in change instead of a bank? Do you have the serial numbers then?

I mean if you think using a bank is preferable, be my guest...

...and to take that further, say once you got home, you decided to go out to McDonald's... while you're there, a police officer has spotted your car (with its identification number/license plate), has been looking for you as you had received stolen money with the change you got at the grocery store... they meet up with you inside McDonald's, and confiscate the $ from you as stolen property, and if you're a jerk about it (and judging from this thread, I'm pretty sure you would be), you find yourself in cuffs in the back of a police car, maybe with a bruise or two, charged with receiving stolen currency and resisting arrest (since you might end up fighting the arrest, as you don't feel you did anything wrong collecting your change, and you in fact didn't do anything wrong)... so on top of that, then you're still owed monies from the store, for the change that you ended up not being able to keep... but hey, you were in possession of stolen monies, so you're a thief, and who's gonna believe a known thief when he claims to have not received his proper change, anyways?

=squeak=

[soy]

Good faith is the important part.

no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part

I was speaking more on the law.  Bitcoin is trustless and fungible and should remain so.  That doesn't mean that someone can't be arrested by law enforcement.  Generally speaking accepting currency in good faith for goods or services is not a crime even if the currency is the proceeds of a crime.  The accepting party acting in good faith is not liable for the return of the funds.  However knowingly accepting stolen funds is generally speaking a crime and rarely are criminals allowed to keep the proceeds of a crime.

Flagging the stolen Bitcoins and fractions thereof in a way that clearly lets the potential buyer or store know the Bitcoin is questionable and may at some future date be redlisted would be a start.  The thief should not be allowed to profit from the theft. 

[soy]

The exploitation of MtGox to the point it fails is in itself an abuse that should not be allowed to succeed.

Why, exactly, are you even involved with bitcoin in the first place if you think like that?

Perhaps you should go back to dealing with fiat, and stay there.

=squeak=

Do you even consider what you say?  The idea your reply addresses?  You are on my ignore list now.

[cloverme]

I can understand that they may be fiat broke but how can they have fewer Bitcoins than their legal transactions indicate?

You send me 10BTC.

I lose those BTC by some means.

You ask for your BTC back.

I say I have halted withdrawals of your BTC because $PROBLEMS

You say, "it's OK, grifferz must have my BTC because trades have indicated it"

I sit on a big blue ball.

You forgot that you have to order a fancy coffee too, THEN sit on the blue ball.

[Squeaker]

Good faith is the important part.

no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part

I was speaking more on the law.  Bitcoin is trustless and fungible and should remain so.  That doesn't mean that someone can't be arrested by law enforcement.  Generally speaking accepting currency in good faith for goods or services is not a crime even if the currency is the proceeds of a crime.  The accepting party acting in good faith is not liable for the return of the funds.  However knowingly accepting stolen funds is generally speaking a crime and rarely are criminals allowed to keep the proceeds of a crime.

Flagging the stolen Bitcoins and fractions thereof in a way that clearly lets the potential buyer or store know the Bitcoin is questionable and may at some future date be redlisted would be a start.  The thief should not be allowed to profit from the theft.  

The bitcoin isn't questionable, however... some bitcoin is just as valid as other bitcoin.

You're willfully ignoring (since it has been pointed out several times to you so far and you don't acknowledge it) that it isn't "your" bitcoin. "Your" bitcoin became MtGox's bitcoin when you deposited it with MtGox... and MtGox's bitcoin became whoever's bitcoin when whoever withdrew from MtGox...

and btw... if you had sent in fiat and bought bitcoin at MtGox, and left it there? Then you NEVER had any bitcoin to begin with. You just had a balance with MtGox that you never cashed out for bitcoin.

What you think of as yours in a physical object sense, just doesn't exist.

=squeak=

[Squeaker]

The exploitation of MtGox to the point it fails is in itself an abuse that should not be allowed to succeed.

Why, exactly, are you even involved with bitcoin in the first place if you think like that?

Perhaps you should go back to dealing with fiat, and stay there.

=squeak=

Do you even consider what you say?

Wow... that's so funny coming from you...

The idea your reply addresses?

What is that even supposed to mean?

You are on my ignore list now.

So... you give up in utter defeat then and aren't big enough to acknowledge it then?
Just throw a tantrum, pick up your marbles, and go home?
Right... .. . Go back to fiat, where you can be protected from yourself.

=squeak=

[soy]

This wasn't the first ripoff and it won't be the last.  Last year MtGox got ripped off and they came back by paying out of their own if I recall recall correctly.

There needs to be a mechanism for making ripoffs unprofitable and correctable.

Businesses would prefer accountability SR and SR2 criminals notwithstanding. 

If Bitcoin does not address the concerns of the honest and allows crime to go on without an appropriate response, it will bring down law enforcement by major governments with the consent of the populous, Bitcoin owners or not.  Then they'll tax it unmercifully.  I note someone said that earlier on this thread and better.

[soy]

Or perhaps the whole idea of Bitcoin cryptocurrency was to facility the movement of money for organized crime right down to the neighborhood crack dealer. 

Which means that the ideal of Bitcoin being better than fiat because there's less inflation with a fixed number of Bitcoins compared to a government fiat controlled by the banking system was crap to attract money of those fed up with the upward migration of wealth.

[Keyser Soze]

Flagging the stolen Bitcoins and fractions thereof in a way that clearly lets the potential buyer or store know the Bitcoin is questionable and may at some future date be redlisted would be a start.  The thief should not be allowed to profit from the theft. 

How would this actually be accomplished? Who maintains this list? How is the list maintained? Why does the network have to comply with the list? What happens in disputes? Where do the funds come from to pay for this?

People are generally against forms of black listing as it destroys fungibility and causes many other issues.

[soy]

Theft of Bitcoins the result of which I have fewer Bitcoins, deprives me of my capacity to spend those Bitcoins.  What kind of fungibility is that?

But this smacks of a pissing contest without benefit.

[mgburks77]

Good faith is the important part.

no, trustlessness and fungibility is the important part

I was speaking more on the law.  Bitcoin is trustless and fungible and should remain so.  That doesn't mean that someone can't be arrested by law enforcement.  Generally speaking accepting currency in good faith for goods or services is not a crime even if the currency is the proceeds of a crime.  The accepting party acting in good faith is not liable for the return of the funds.  However knowingly accepting stolen funds is generally speaking a crime and rarely are criminals allowed to keep the proceeds of a crime.

Agreed.

[mgburks77]

Theft of Bitcoins the result of which I have fewer Bitcoins, deprives me of my capacity to spend those Bitcoins.  What kind of fungibility is that?

It refers only to the equivalence of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity. Fungibility does not describe or relate to any exchange of one commodity for some other, different commodity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

[frito]

Why do you think each Bitcoin has a serial number, anyway? What has the serial number, each BTC? Each satoshi?

If you send 1.5BTC to 1AAAAA... and I later send 2BTC there, when the owner of that key later sends 3BTC to 1BBBBB... and 0.5BTC is change to 1CCCCC, which Bitcoins are yours and which are mine?

there are NO serial numbers, only transactions(records) in the blockchain.