BitClub's fake offer to return fee blunder

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Blinken on May 28, 2016, 08:04:02 AM

Just to update everybody without having to read the links in the thread...

The "personage" who announced the mistaken transfer turns out to be operating a pyramid scheme of some sort and the announcement appears to be an attempt to generate publicity for the pyramid scheme. There is zero evidence that they have either returned the coins or "donated them to charity" (LOL).

So, as far as I am concerned the whole "we will send them to whoever 'verifies their identity'" thing was just a bullshit lie from the beginning, and my initial assessment that the party involved was sleazy turns out to have been an accurate assessment.

What are you talking about? Are you saying the miners who received the fee did not donate half of it to the Bitcoin Foundation as reported?

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-foundation-donation-mining-pool/

Then care to explain this transaction? https://blockchain.info/address/13jZA8YSVvDS3EKjs2jhPwrt6d1fqS6nRA

If you are going to claim to have the whole story, at least post some links. Don't expect anyone to take your word for it. And you might want to tell Coindesk if you think they got their story wrong.

Blinken

sr. member

Activity: 338

Merit: 253

Just to update everybody without having to read the links in the thread...

The "personage" who announced the mistaken transfer turns out to be operating a pyramid scheme of some sort and the announcement appears to be an attempt to generate publicity for the pyramid scheme. There is zero evidence that they have either returned the coins or "donated them to charity" (LOL).

So, as far as I am concerned the whole "we will send them to whoever 'verifies their identity'" thing was just a bullshit lie from the beginning, and my initial assessment that the party involved was sleazy turns out to have been an accurate assessment.

Blinken

sr. member

Activity: 338

Merit: 253

Quote from: BTCLovingDude on April 27, 2016, 10:16:32 PM

whatever they do, one thing is for sure. they cannot send the funds back to that address without anybody claiming it first. because even if it is not a mixer or a shared coin or something, the original owner of that address may not have access to that address anymore so sending it back would be like burning the coins.

How would they "not have access to the address anymore"?

Send $100,000 in coins, then delete any record you have of the key of the originating address. Doh, who would do that?

You are not describing a plausible scenario.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on April 28, 2016, 12:51:03 PM

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on April 28, 2016, 12:16:46 PM

Quote

This is apparently what happened to some unlucky person on Tuesday. A Twitter user spotted that somebody sent a bitcoin transaction amounting to roughly $5, but with a fee of 291.241 bitcoins, or $137,081.31, attached. This massive fee didn’t go to the intended recipient—they only got the fiver—but instead went to the person in the bitcoin network who processed the transaction.

According to the Twitter user, whomever sent this transaction likely meant to send the $137,000 to someone they knew, and just wanted to attach a $5 fee as a thank-you to the payment processor, but got it mixed up. Instead, they sent their pal enough change for a Starbucks coffee, and a bitcoin company enough cash to buy a new Maserati.

"Ten-hut! There's a mathematician on deck."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/04/27/man-accidentally-sends-137000-worth-of-bitcoin-instead-of-5/

wow... is it that hard for major news outlets to find authors that have a basic understanding of how bitcoin works? This particular one didn't even do a 30-minute google-fu to see how it works before writing the article.

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on April 28, 2016, 12:16:46 PM

Quote

This is apparently what happened to some unlucky person on Tuesday. A Twitter user spotted that somebody sent a bitcoin transaction amounting to roughly $5, but with a fee of 291.241 bitcoins, or $137,081.31, attached. This massive fee didn’t go to the intended recipient—they only got the fiver—but instead went to the person in the bitcoin network who processed the transaction.

According to the Twitter user, whomever sent this transaction likely meant to send the $137,000 to someone they knew, and just wanted to attach a $5 fee as a thank-you to the payment processor, but got it mixed up. Instead, they sent their pal enough change for a Starbucks coffee, and a bitcoin company enough cash to buy a new Maserati.

"Ten-hut! There's a mathematician on deck."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/04/27/man-accidentally-sends-137000-worth-of-bitcoin-instead-of-5/

eternalgloom

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Blinken on April 27, 2016, 11:45:52 AM

I thought it was pretty bogus for BitClub to first announce they collected an accidental 316 BTC fee, then say they would return it if the owner contacted them and "verified their identity".

Obviously they could just send the 316 BTC back to the address that sent it.

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block, but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

That would be a pretty terrible and unethical thing to do, I would not want to keep those Bitcoins if they were sent in error.
I think they're pretty serious about it, yes it's good publicity but also just a decent thing to do.

DimensionZ

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Shit, did I leave the stove on?

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on April 28, 2016, 10:59:10 AM

I might be way too cynical, but I would totally believe this isn't what it appears to be. It could be a publicity stunt as some have mentioned or it could be something more sinister.

I am more inclined to think these are probably stolen coins that someone tried to run through a mixer that crapped up and spewed out the wrong amount. I am not sure what the benefit would have been and who would have profited from a publicity stunt like that. As for the sinister part, well the worst thing that could be is stolen money so if Bitclub network is really going to donate the coins to charity the balance in the universe will be restored. Karma is a ***** Wink

cpfreeplz

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1042

If someone sent from that address and now doesn't have access to it then clearly they screwed up and can't get it back. Also it's not very safe to just send the transaction back to the same address because what if they don't see it, or they just swept an address because it was compromised?

I'd say they're doing the right thing here. I don't understand where this hostility is coming from.

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Quote

This is apparently what happened to some unlucky person on Tuesday. A Twitter user spotted that somebody sent a bitcoin transaction amounting to roughly $5, but with a fee of 291.241 bitcoins, or $137,081.31, attached. This massive fee didn’t go to the intended recipient—they only got the fiver—but instead went to the person in the bitcoin network who processed the transaction.

According to the Twitter user, whomever sent this transaction likely meant to send the $137,000 to someone they knew, and just wanted to attach a $5 fee as a thank-you to the payment processor, but got it mixed up. Instead, they sent their pal enough change for a Starbucks coffee, and a bitcoin company enough cash to buy a new Maserati.

"Ten-hut! There's a mathematician on deck."

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: odolvlobo on April 27, 2016, 06:16:13 PM

It is possible for Bitclub to have inserted the transaction into their block (without transmitting over the network to other miners).

This was not the case. My node had the transaction for over three minutes before the block. It also heard from of the transaction from more than two dozen peers before the block, If you have logging turned up enough to see it-- you'll see you did too.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

This story of a human error won't take place if we had proper regulation of Fees implemented. There is no way that we need Fee to be higher than 1BTC.
I wish hard coded fee limit would be coded in every wallet, it is pretty easy to implement. No Bitcoin code change is needed.

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: Kprawn on April 28, 2016, 10:36:23 AM

How long after the transaction were submitted, was it picked up by the miners and what chance did the miners have to pick their own block

before anyone else picked it up? It sounds a bit risky to me... BUT I guess if they did fail to mine that block, they would have stepped forward to claim it as a mistake. Roll Eyes

They don't have to broadcast the transaction until they have found a block, so only they would mine it.

The risk is if their block gets orphaned, someone else could re-mine that transaction into another block.

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 7011

Top Crypto Casino

I might be way too cynical, but I would totally believe this isn't what it appears to be. It could be a publicity stunt as some have mentioned or it could be something more sinister.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: Dabs on April 28, 2016, 10:15:00 AM

Quote from: alani123 on April 27, 2016, 07:48:58 PM

Running an MLM isn't ethical in the first place.

Not all. I'm not actively involved in one, but the general concept isn't unethical. It's the application of the concept by some or a lot of big entities that twists the idea, as well as some or a lot of individuals in these organizations that makes the practice unethical.

For BitClub in particular, Roger Ver does not like it ... without going too much into what actually happened, I would tend to believe that BitClub itself has suspicious practices.

I've never heard of BitClub until today, so if it's a marketing strategy, it's working.

So what you are saying is, Bitclub are doing this with their own funds to attract positive attention and to gain trust from people to mask their other possibly unethical activities? I must say this is a

brilliant idea, if it was. It sure did get a lot of attention... How long after the transaction were submitted, was it picked up by the miners and what chance did the miners have to pick their own block

before anyone else picked it up? It sounds a bit risky to me... BUT I guess if they did fail to mine that block, they would have stepped forward to claim it as a mistake. Roll Eyes

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

Quote from: alani123 on April 27, 2016, 07:48:58 PM

Running an MLM isn't ethical in the first place.

Not all. I'm not actively involved in one, but the general concept isn't unethical. It's the application of the concept by some or a lot of big entities that twists the idea, as well as some or a lot of individuals in these organizations that makes the practice unethical.

For BitClub in particular, Roger Ver does not like it ... without going too much into what actually happened, I would tend to believe that BitClub itself has suspicious practices.

I've never heard of BitClub until today, so if it's a marketing strategy, it's working.

Wendigo

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1036

Hmm in that Motherboard article it's written that there are speculations and allegations against the Bitclub network being a shady high-tech pyramid scheme and that Twitter user who posted the big news is not one of the employees but a shareholder in the mining operation. So I think we need to take this Bitclub network promise with a grain of salt unless some of the anonymous owners step forward and confirm what's going on.

alyssa85

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1088

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: ebliever on April 27, 2016, 12:33:50 PM

Danny is right on all points.

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward. In which case there was some discussion about donating the funds or a portion thereof to a bitcoin charity. I think that's very good of Bitclub, a good precedent in general. While there would be many good recipients for such a donation, if it does turn out these were stolen bitcoins, an ironically suitable charitable contribution might involve recompensing those who've been robbed of their bitcoin (in those cases where the theft can be independently verified).

If it came from a mixer it's impossible to verify ownership, right?

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Quote from: alani123 on April 27, 2016, 09:42:42 PM

Quote from: ebliever on April 27, 2016, 09:34:21 PM

Quote from: elliptic_kid on April 27, 2016, 06:39:50 PM

Quote from: ebliever on April 27, 2016, 12:33:50 PM

The Coindesk article also indicated that there is evidence these funds may have come from a mixer, which means it is likely they were stolen funds and the sender will not come forward.

I don't think that's correct.

From: http://www.coindesk.com/accidental-136000-bitcoin-mining-pool/

Quote

The mining service said it has been researching the transaction and that it believes it was possibly sent by a bitcoin mixing service, a type of online offering aimed at privacy and anonymity but that is nonetheless associated with illicit use.

It's a claim from BitClub and not even a reasonable one... Everyone can see the TX on the blockchain, it's not like BitClub has access to secret information that would help them come to that conclusion just with certainty by being on the receiving end of it.

From the Motherboard article (https://motherboard.vice.com/read/someone-tried-to-pay-5-in-bitcoin-sent-137k-instead):

Quote

Finally, and perhaps most damning, the wallet that the $137,000 transaction came from had the entire amount sent to it in a series of 13 transactions all made on Tuesday, and all from a series of different wallets which themselves only have transactions dating back to Tuesday. This indicates that the coins were likely sent through a “mixing” service, which sends coins through a Byzantine series of wallets in order to hide their true origin.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Turns out that OP here was right...

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/someone-tried-to-pay-5-in-bitcoin-sent-137k-instead

Wendigo

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1036

May I ask how the original sender will identify himself/herself if he/she sent the coins through a mixer? Hasn't the mixer obfuscated the Bitcoin address who started the mixing process so as to not be possible to trace back to the original owner. So I guess only the output address is visible on the Blockchain but not the input address which would need some Blockchain detective work to be found? So how will Bitclub network know who the real sender is without the cooperation of the Bitcoin mixer?

Topic: BitClub's fake offer to return fee blunder (Read 3734 times)