BitClub's fake offer to return fee blunder - page 2.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: bitkilo on April 27, 2016, 10:41:10 PM

If you have the TX could you please post it.

Here's the tx id: cc455ae816e6cdafdb58d54e35d4f46d860047458eacf1c7405dc634631c570d

Quote from: bitkilo on April 27, 2016, 10:41:10 PM

Can you look up transactions with unusually high fees on blockchain.info or other block explorers?

blockchain.info has a graph

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

bitkilo

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1010

https://www.bitcoin.com/

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.

If you have the TX could you please post it.

Can you look up transactions with unusually high fees on blockchain.info or other block explorers?

BTCLovingDude

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1010

BTC to the moon is inevitable...

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.

mobnepal

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1006

I don't think this just a fake offer as if all will know which company have mined that block so its better they return that bitcoin back to owner for their reputation and thats why they willing to give it back. But they atleast need someone to claim that bitcoin with signing message from on of the sending address which is not hard for owner to do to get his money back. I am sure owner will do it and get his coin back, he should and bitclub should send all of those coin back for their reputation.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

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.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

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.

Jasad

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1002

= jasad =

Quote from: -ck on April 27, 2016, 07:05:41 PM

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

Really?so its gonna be happen in some time and if this is not the last,which pool have any chance to make same mistake?can it identified since now?
i'm afraid its happen to me. Huh

bitkilo

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1010

https://www.bitcoin.com/

Quote from: h3rlihy on April 27, 2016, 07:55:47 PM

Just seems like if you've got that amount of btc in the first place you should really know how to correctly send transactions. but I do agree that it is a mistake and should be returned

Why would you say that just because someone has 316btc they should know how to send it correctly, we are all human and we all make mistakes from time to time, nothing will change our ways.
There was talk about implementing "insane fee check" awhile ago, was this done?

h3rlihy

sr. member

Activity: 356

Merit: 250

Just seems like if you've got that amount of btc in the first place you should really know how to correctly send transactions. but I do agree that it is a mistake and should be returned

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: -ck on April 27, 2016, 07:05:41 PM

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

Maybe the fact that they're an organisation trying to lure money from newbies into their MLM scheme leads people to the assumption that they'd rather keep the coins instead of doing the ethical thing. Running an MLM isn't ethical in the first place.

bittrojan

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

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.

its become viral news that bitclub make mistake with accidental 316BTC fees,its a bad news for bitclub and for bitcoin world,and its also make me wondering who is really have that address.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

This isn't the first time and won't be the last. On every occasion a high fee mistake has occurred in the past that I can recall, if a known entity has mined the transaction - i.e. a pool - if the person who sent the transaction has come forth, the pool has returned their BTC. There is no reason to suspect bitclub would do otherwise here.

elliptic_kid

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 1

Quote from: DannyHamilton on April 27, 2016, 12:09:35 PM

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".

Why is that bogus?

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

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

That is a bad idea. I'm very glad they are not doing that. There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess. Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

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

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block

And you are accusing BitClub of bogus behavior? Clearly you never developed proper morals and ethics. Thank you for making it clear that you are not a trustworthy person and that you prefer to take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit.

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

but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

So, not only do you admit that you would take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit, but you also make accusations of lying without any indication that the statement is a lie.

Clearly I'd never count you among a list of friends.

intensely attacking the OP, chill out man

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.

btccashacc

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DimensionZ on April 27, 2016, 01:29:44 PM

Is it really possible that those funds came from a mixer? But how did the mixer input 219 Bitcoins as the fee and 0.001 as the actual amount being transacted? Was it a bug in the script or a human error? Also how do people know this TX is from a mixer were they able to follow the trace back to the original address?

well, it make sense if it came from mixer, so is this human error or something else?
any progress about this problem?
Are they have claimed or sign the address? i dont know just money laundring came to my mind for the first time

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

Since I am suspicious of BitClub, I am suspicious of the whole episode.

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

It would have cost them nothing, and they could gain a favorable opinion by returning the bitcoins to themselves.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on April 27, 2016, 12:09:35 PM

That is a bad idea. I'm very glad they are not doing that. There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess. Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

Danny, I'm curious why you write that the "from" address is just a guess. The transaction inputs all refer to ouputs in standard pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions with an address of 1QgT...agbh

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

are you serious you would have kept it, knowing that it was a mistake, that is not right man, yes i can understand the temptation but to actually do it ..... Angry

DimensionZ

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 251

Shit, did I leave the stove on?

Is it really possible that those funds came from a mixer? But how did the mixer input 219 Bitcoins as the fee and 0.001 as the actual amount being transacted? Was it a bug in the script or a human error? Also how do people know this TX is from a mixer were they able to follow the trace back to the original address?

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

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).

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

It would be cool if they did send it back and the sender rewarded them with a good amount of BTC. This way, the other miners will see that people get rewarded when this happens and they will be more

willing to do the same. The sender should obviously just provide proof that he/she owns the coins send from that address. I wonder how people make mistakes like that and then never send a message

in a next transaction to ask the miners to refund them. Huh

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

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".

Why is that bogus?

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

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

That is a bad idea. I'm very glad they are not doing that. There is no such thing at the protocol level as "the address that sent it", and any attempt to guess what address sent it is just that, a guess. Guessing is a bad way to decide where to send $140,000 worth of BTC!

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

I have to admit I would have kept the coins if I had mined the block

And you are accusing BitClub of bogus behavior? Clearly you never developed proper morals and ethics. Thank you for making it clear that you are not a trustworthy person and that you prefer to take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit.

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

but at least I would not be so sleazy as to make up some lie about verifying people.

So, not only do you admit that you would take advantage of the mistakes of others for your own personal benefit, but you also make accusations of lying without any indication that the statement is a lie.

Clearly I'd never count you among a list of friends.

Topic: BitClub's fake offer to return fee blunder - page 2. (Read 3734 times)