Bitcoinica stolen coin returns

[Justin00]

have sent back the 1.6 btc i recieved - http://www.blockchain.info/tx-index/6386814/b071a3d1218e88f976d73ca5a820a6c825201f5bf6aaf1856db1a8b77f8b6360



just curious why people are only mentioning the police and prosecution etc etc now ? Were the police called in for the hack that took apparently took place ? something doesn't quite seem right with a few things....


*edit* I hope I sent back the same coins I recieved.. I'd hate for the police to knock on my door  

*edit 2* btw.. why did someone send 0.10 to some of the accts that recieved coins ?

[1714949196]

1714949196

[1714949196]

1714949196

[hazek]

Wow.  

Also with fiat money you don't have a government made up of luke and his friends that launch crusades against tainted coins

I think I need to clarify my position here:

• Coins that have theft in their history ("tainted coins") shouldn't be taken out of circulation
• People who knowingly accepted coins they know came from a computer break-in and fraud ("stolen coins") should return them

Says who? You? How can they be sure that what you or anyone else say is stolen is actually stolen? When have the rest of us agreed to your "oughts"?

• People who knowingly accept stolen coins and insist they are their own are guilty themselves to some degree

Again how can people be sure what you or anyone else describes is stolen is actually stolen?

• I never demanded people return the coins to Bitcoinica or the address I created for them. I politely asked and made it easy for honest people to do so

In a free society with some mandatroy and consistent rules (i.e. anarchy) that's all you can do.

• I don't have the authority to prosecute people who don't return stolen coins, or even the original criminal

In a free society with some mandatroy and consistent rules (i.e. anarchy) no one does without a prearranged contract with the party found guilty of a theft.

• Tainted coins should be flagged as such, using arbitrary algorithms, for the purposes of finding the criminal

Again, who will make the determination what is a genuine stolen coin and what is not? You?  

• MtGox and other service providers are justified in requiring additional verification before making withdrawls, if you have deposited a significant amount of tainted coins

Says who, you? Was this specified beforehand in the contract these service providers have with their clients?

• The government does have the authority to investigate and prosecute these cases

Yeah? Where did they get this authority from? Did we agree to this? Did we give our consent?

• Everyone with information on these cases should cooperate with law enforcement's investigation

Says who? You? Why should I? Did I sign a contract I would?

• Even confidential information on these cases should be shared with law enforcement after they have followed due process for their jurisdiction

Again says who? You? Why should I? Did I sign a contract I would?




Luke I'm deeply disappointed to see such arrogance and presumption of authority over other free people. Bitcoin doesn't care for the monopolies of violence that are the governments and their laws in the real world and their merely presumed and under threat of violence enforced authority and if we want this to remain a market regulated by strictly us, the market consumers, neither should we.

There are no guarantees in life, especially not when one has true freedom. That's why man invented insurance. If you are afraid of a theft, insure your belongings, if you can't get insurance, improve your security but don't assume you can punish other free people for your lack of preparation for tackling the risk preemptively.

As for the thief, if he is caught prevent him from being part of society until he repays the damages by preventing him from doing any further transactions through his identity. Problem solved.


Just please, I beg you and anyone thinking like you, stop supporting that stupid and destructive tyranny that we have in the real world today of slavery and monopolies on violence.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

have sent back the 1.6 btc i recieved - http://www.blockchain.info/tx-index/6386814/b071a3d1218e88f976d73ca5a820a6c825201f5bf6aaf1856db1a8b77f8b6360

just curious why people are only mentioning the police and prosecution etc etc now ? Were the police called in for the hack that took apparently took place ? something doesn't quite seem right with a few things....

*edit* I hope I sent back the same coins I recieved.. I'd hate for the police to knock on my door  

*edit 2* btw.. why did someone send 0.10 to some of the accts that recieved coins ?

Interesting! If I were a hacker and hacked into any server owned by Rackspace, simply fucking around, I'm sure an investigation consisting of law enforcement would pursue. It would not bode well for the owners of Rackspace to say to themselves, "Oh, well!" then move on. They have no choice but to contact the proper authorities if, for nothing else, to show their users that they'll do anything to protect them.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/289320,police-investigate-netfleet-hack.aspx

The company is cooperating with the Australian Federal Police and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Australia to “undergo an exhaustive investigation in this matter”.

[realnowhereman]

The sad reality is most people are afraid of freedom.  Freedom is scary.  They may talk about freedom, and being free of the man but the first time something happens (they lose coins) they suddenly don't want freedom.  Tainted coin registry is all about control.  The "Oh Noes someone got coins they don't deserve WE need to stop them". Honestly it is just one step above chargebacks.  I mean if a thief steals 18K from 1 person we should block that via tainted coin registry?  What if a scammer steals 18 coins from 1000 people?  Why not just implement chargebacks into the protocol to get rid of the need for a taint registry with millions of coins and thousands of participants.

It seems like you haven't taken your argument about freedom far enough.  Why shouldn't any accepter of coins be free to track tainted coins?  Isn't that their choice?

If Mt.Gox want to look for tainted coins and make it harder for the person who deposits them, they should be free to do that.  Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen; but just as we don't need an authority telling us some coins are bad, we don't need an authority telling us that all coins are good.

To be honest; the bitcoin community seems to be handling these issues as well as is possible.  And look: it's happening in an emergent way without diktat, just as we thought it would.

[ribuck]

Just please, I beg you [Luke] and anyone thinking like you ...

Don't beg, hazek, it just gives power to the person you're begging to.

The only "wrong" that is being done is by the thief, and it is that person who should be pursued.

If someone unintentionally receives, as part of an honest and innocent exchange of value, a transaction descended from stolen coins, that recipient should not be penalised in any way.

To do otherwise would indeed be tyrannical.

[hazek]

The sad reality is most people are afraid of freedom.  Freedom is scary.  They may talk about freedom, and being free of the man but the first time something happens (they lose coins) they suddenly don't want freedom.  Tainted coin registry is all about control.  The "Oh Noes someone got coins they don't deserve WE need to stop them". Honestly it is just one step above chargebacks.  I mean if a thief steals 18K from 1 person we should block that via tainted coin registry?  What if a scammer steals 18 coins from 1000 people?  Why not just implement chargebacks into the protocol to get rid of the need for a taint registry with millions of coins and thousands of participants.

It seems like you haven't taken your argument about freedom far enough.  Why shouldn't any accepter of coins be free to track tainted coins?  Isn't that their choice?

If Mt.Gox want to look for tainted coins and make it harder for the person who deposits them, they should be free to do that.  Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen; but just as we don't need an authority telling us some coins are bad, we don't need an authority telling us that all coins are good.

To be honest; the bitcoin community seems to be handling these issues as well as is possible.  And look: it's happening in an emergent way without diktat, just as we thought it would.

Yes freedom indeed does also mean that anyone can decide to not accept certain bitcoins. But they must do so openly in their contract before a client signs up for their service. Anything else is breach of contract and should be resolved accordingly.

I can tell you this much, if mtgox does not accept those coins, there are plenty of other exchanges who will.

[Luke-Jr]

• People who knowingly accepted coins they know came from a computer break-in and fraud ("stolen coins") should return them

Says who? You? How can they be sure that what you or anyone else say is stolen is actually stolen?

That these coins were stolen is not disputed, at least not by anyone relevant here (the victim, the thief, and the person who accepted the stolen coins).

When have the rest of us agreed to your "oughts"?

Hence "I think I need to clarify my position here:"

• I never demanded people return the coins to Bitcoinica or the address I created for them. I politely asked and made it easy for honest people to do so

In a free society with some mandatroy and consistent rules (i.e. anarchy) that's all you can do.

The one and only purpose of anarchy is to enable the creation of a new State. Extended anarchy is bad, and anarchy for anarchy's sake is pure insanity.

• MtGox and other service providers are justified in requiring additional verification before making withdrawls, if you have deposited a significant amount of tainted coins

Says who, you? Was this specified beforehand in the contract these service providers have with their clients?

Pretty sure it is, yes.

• The government does have the authority to investigate and prosecute these cases

Yeah? Where did they get this authority from? Did we agree to this? Did we give our consent?

The State's authority comes from God, who is the source of all authority and life. God's rights are unlimited, and don't require your consent.

Bitcoin doesn't care for the monopolies of violence that are the governments and their laws in the real world and their merely presumed and under threat of violence enforced authority and if we want this to remain a market regulated by strictly us, the market consumers, neither should we.

You are not Bitcoin. Nobody represents Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a technology. People who try to abuse the technology to further their anti-State agendas are just as harmful (maybe even more harmful) to Bitcoin as thieves.

[hazek]

]The State's authority comes from God, who is the source of all authority and life. God's rights are unlimited, and don't require your consent.

Well that's pretty much all I needed to see. It's sad to see someone as smart and as capable as you clearly are showing as little or no knowledge about how to think rationally and logically about the world. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I do not consent to being a slave to any person or their invisible friends.

Bitcoin doesn't care for the monopolies of violence that are the governments and their laws in the real world and their merely presumed and under threat of violence enforced authority and if we want this to remain a market regulated by strictly us, the market consumers, neither should we.

You are not Bitcoin.

Neither are you.

[Justin00]

have sent back the 1.6 btc i recieved - http://www.blockchain.info/tx-index/6386814/b071a3d1218e88f976d73ca5a820a6c825201f5bf6aaf1856db1a8b77f8b6360

just curious why people are only mentioning the police and prosecution etc etc now ? Were the police called in for the hack that took apparently took place ? something doesn't quite seem right with a few things....

*edit* I hope I sent back the same coins I recieved.. I'd hate for the police to knock on my door  

*edit 2* btw.. why did someone send 0.10 to some of the accts that recieved coins ?

Interesting! If I were a hacker and hacked into any server owned by Rackspace, simply fucking around, I'm sure an investigation consisting of law enforcement would pursue. It would not bode well for the owners of Rackspace to say to themselves, "Oh, well!" then move on. They have no choice but to contact the proper authorities if, for nothing else, to show their users that they'll do anything to protect them.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/289320,police-investigate-netfleet-hack.aspx

The company is cooperating with the Australian Federal Police and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Australia to “undergo an exhaustive investigation in this matter”.

Yip I would agree. Perhaps they have been informed and we just dont know about it. I have alot of questions.. but I shall not ask because the matter doesnt concern me. I didn't lose anything.



If anyone wants to reward me for my honesty..feel free... =)  1JubtMLVDy1D169GkHLshf8kiYdqoqLM5b  

[rjk]

The one and only purpose of anarchy is to enable the creation of a new State. Extended anarchy is bad, and anarchy for anarchy's sake is pure insanity.

Very well said. It has even been proven in real-life situations.

[hazek]

The one and only purpose of anarchy is to enable the creation of a new State. Extended anarchy is bad, and anarchy for anarchy's sake is pure insanity.

Very well said. It has even been proven in real-life situations.

What real life situations? Where have we had a society with some private mandatory and consistent rules i.e. an anarchy before??

Btw SR provides a glimpse at what I'm talking about.. so please explain to me how their market place is bad for any of the participants?

[rjk]

The one and only purpose of anarchy is to enable the creation of a new State. Extended anarchy is bad, and anarchy for anarchy's sake is pure insanity.

Very well said. It has even been proven in real-life situations.

What real life situations? Where have we had a society with some private mandatory and consistent rules before i.e. an anarchy??

Mandatory and consistent rules? That doesn't sound like anarchy. Anarchy is the complete riddance of all government, whether centralized or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_City is one example. How many hippie communes still exist that actually have no government?

[hazek]

I'm sorry but you have been mislead. Anarchy is a society not without rules but witout ruleRs. There certainly are rules in anarchy, it's just that they are private, mandatory, consistent and above all else voluntary(meaning no one is forced to sing a contract to follow those rules and be part of such a society).

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

[Luke-Jr]

I'm sorry but you have been mislead. Anarchy is a society not without rules but witout ruleRs. There certainly are rules in anarchy, it's just that they are private, mandatory, consistent and above all else voluntary(meaning no one is forced to sing a contract to follow those rules and be part of such a society).

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

anarchy

• • absence of government
  • a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
• • absence or denial of any authority or established order
  • absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

[rjk]

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

Who enforces them?

[Daily Anarchist]

• The government does have the authority to investigate and prosecute these cases
• Everyone with information on these cases should cooperate with law enforcement's investigation
• Even confidential information on these cases should be shared with law enforcement after they have followed due process for their jurisdiction

The government doesn't have the *moral* authority to give candy to a baby let alone prosecute anyone for theft. I would discourage everyone from ever going to the state for help, period.

That being said, the individual that stole the coins can ethically be forced to pay restitution, but I wouldn't look to the government to do it. This is why we need competing defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations. [/list]

[hazek]

I'm sorry but you have been mislead. Anarchy is a society not without rules but witout ruleRs. There certainly are rules in anarchy, it's just that they are private, mandatory, consistent and above all else voluntary(meaning no one is forced to sing a contract to follow those rules and be part of such a society).

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

anarchy

• • absence of government
  • a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
• • absence or denial of any authority or established order
  • absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

I was not talking about a word, I was talking about the real world circumstances. Describe a society with some private, mandatory and consistent rules how ever you like. I only used the word anarchy because most people use that word to describe such a society where there is no central authority and no monopoly on violence i.e. a government.

[hazek]

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

Who enforces them?

Rules are private, so who do you think?

[hazek]

• The government does have the authority to investigate and prosecute these cases
• Everyone with information on these cases should cooperate with law enforcement's investigation
• Even confidential information on these cases should be shared with law enforcement after they have followed due process for their jurisdiction

The government doesn't have the *moral* authority to give candy to a baby let alone prosecute anyone for theft. I would discourage everyone from ever going to the state for help, period.

That being said, the individual that stole the coins can ethically be forced to pay restitution, but I wouldn't look to the government to do it. This is why we need competing defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations.

That's interesting.   So which is it Luke?[/list]

[rjk]

Anarchy != chaos.

Anarchy == society with some private mandatory and consistent rules.

Who enforces them?

Rules are private, so who do you think?

So we can go around killing each other for whatever reason? Nice way to devolve back into the fucking Dark Ages.