Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error - page 10. (Read 35511 times)
As long as you can prove there is a market value, the courts would enforce a recovery. You have to also remember that in civil suits the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence in small claims court.
Regardless of the law, what is the realistic expectation that a court would take this any more seriously than someone refusing to return WoW gold that was accidentally sent to them?
(I'm asking, not implying anything.)
(I'm asking, not implying anything.)
Whooly you are confusing dominion and control with ownership. The funny thing you are basing your opinion on a wiki article that wasn't created by the individual that created Bitcoin. He is a stranger to it.Where in the Bitcoin source does it same ownership is irrevocably transferred by sending a BTC? The fact is it does not say anything like that.
Uh well i'm no programmer so i cant exactly read source code but i thought it was common knowledge that bitcoin was irreversible, surely someone with 400+ posts to this forum would know that. I am familiar with the basic concept of public key encryption though: you have a public key (your bitcoin address) and an encrypted private key. You must use the private key as your personal signature that the transfer you are initiating is a legit one (this is why bitcoin is considered "secure" from hackers), that you no longer wish to be the owner, and the recipient is supposed to be.Sending cash in the mail is irreversible. Sending swiss cheese in the mail is irreversible. So what? Transfer is not ownership, delivery is not ownership, dominion and control is not ownership. There is no valid and voluntary transfer of ownership without a meeting of the minds. That is conspicuously absent. You do not fundamentally understand what a court of equity is or does.
This is what i'm not understanding with everyone arguing against me, it sounds like you guys want paypal, not bitcoin.
No one is talking about what they want here, maybe except you. We're talking about the laws governing us and Bitcoins, no matter if we want to or not.
w00ly, so we can see clearly now that you have no clue about programming and no clue about contract law. What is you area of expertise than?
if you want to argue on contact law expertise point, do you really think that a signature alone is enough to conclude a contract?
I have no clue about programming that's what i already said but i did just explain the basic concept of public key cryptography and bitcoin transactions. The private key does sign and validate the transaction, there's no getting around that. Explain to me how we have a functioning bitcoin if that's not the case and they can simply be reversed? And how to you propose we avoid this "intent" issue because we can never be 100% certain...should we no longer have processes to automatically sign for us? Should the signer not be responsible for his own signature?? This is what i'm not understanding with everyone arguing against me, it sounds like you guys want paypal, not bitcoin. if you want to argue on contact law expertise point, do you really think that a signature alone is enough to conclude a contract?
Whooly you are confusing dominion and control with ownership. The funny thing you are basing your opinion on a wiki article that wasn't created by the individual that created Bitcoin. He is a stranger to it.Where in the Bitcoin source does it same ownership is irrevocably transferred by sending a BTC? The fact is it does not say anything like that.
Uh well i'm no programmer so i cant exactly read source code but i thought it was common knowledge that bitcoin was irreversible, surely someone with 400+ posts to this forum would know that. I am familiar with the basic concept of public key encryption though: you have a public key (your bitcoin address) and an encrypted private key. You must use the private key as your personal signature that the transfer you are initiating is a legit one (this is why bitcoin is considered "secure" from hackers), that you no longer wish to be the owner, and the recipient is supposed to be.
Whooly you are confusing dominion and control with ownership. The funny thing you are basing your opinion on a wiki article that wasn't created by the individual that created Bitcoin. He is a stranger to it.Where in the Bitcoin source does it same ownership is irrevocably transferred by sending a BTC? The fact is it does not say anything like that.
Dominion and control is only rebuttable evidence of ownership. Unfortunately for the thief, there is ample parole and direct evidence (confession)that this transfer was not a gift, sale , lease, license, rental or loan. Whooly you have no leg to stand on . Your grasping at straws and making yourself a fool in the process.
Dominion and control is only rebuttable evidence of ownership. Unfortunately for the thief, there is ample parole and direct evidence (confession)that this transfer was not a gift, sale , lease, license, rental or loan. Whooly you have no leg to stand on . Your grasping at straws and making yourself a fool in the process.
This is an interesting situation.
I think, if you dragged this into a small claims court, and know the real name and address of the guy, you could probably get the judge to rule on your side since the Davis character clearly admits to getting the coins and his "ha screw you you sent me too many" attitude confirms he got the wrong amount and is laughing at the sender. If the log could be proven to be true and not manipulated or edited that is... and how would you prove that?
You could argue all of the bitcoin philosophy up, down, and sideways as Geebus was doing, but a judge is not going to understand nor listen to such philosophy in a small claims court and if the log can be proven somehow to be valid - that is that it is archived somewhere and time stamped and can be checked as legally valid - I think a small claims court would read it and side in favor of the plaintiff simply on the basis of the log alone.
Now if it were a huge amount and it turned into a serious case with lawyers - then, yeah, you might be screwed, but this would never get that far.
I think, if you dragged this into a small claims court, and know the real name and address of the guy, you could probably get the judge to rule on your side since the Davis character clearly admits to getting the coins and his "ha screw you you sent me too many" attitude confirms he got the wrong amount and is laughing at the sender. If the log could be proven to be true and not manipulated or edited that is... and how would you prove that?
You could argue all of the bitcoin philosophy up, down, and sideways as Geebus was doing, but a judge is not going to understand nor listen to such philosophy in a small claims court and if the log can be proven somehow to be valid - that is that it is archived somewhere and time stamped and can be checked as legally valid - I think a small claims court would read it and side in favor of the plaintiff simply on the basis of the log alone.
Now if it were a huge amount and it turned into a serious case with lawyers - then, yeah, you might be screwed, but this would never get that far.
Read what you just quoted me, because it's funny that you're defending my argument for me. You are entitled to keep the money if you honestly believe it's yours
The thief has already admitted to acting in bad faith. If you want to spout random nonsense at least try to acquire basic knowledge about the subject first.
quite to the contrary captain sarcastic, laws do still have relevance but there is no law that was broken here due to bendavis being the rightful owner because they were signed over to him. Situations like this are unfortunate but the kind of potential gray areas arising with "intent" and involving a governing body are the kinds of things bitcoin was intended to avoid (so in a way, yes, freedom of currency). They are not reversible no matter how badly many in this thread want it to be, in which case i submit that perhaps bitcoin should not be the currency for you if you wish to be able to retrieve your btc after accidentally sending them.
I think Stephen Molyneux has spoken a lot of noninitation of force and nonuse of violence including using others (e.g. police (hint: brutality)) to perform the violent deeds for you.
The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.
Quote
In English law (covering England and Wales), you are entitled to keep money paid to you in error “under mistake of fact”, but only if you honestly believe that the money is yours. Without any proof of mens rea (‘guilty mind’), mistake of fact can be used as a defence against civil and criminal liability, but only for unintentional mistakes.
But I suggest you keep making stuff up. It makes for fun reading.The parties never had intent to enter into a contract which would transfer the title to these money. No contract, no title transfer. The exchange has not received an offer and has not accepted it and surely has not received any consideration for it. Moreover, it is clear that party which refused to return the funds has acted in bad faith all the time.
This is a clean cut case from point of view of contract law.
Again, there is no contract for transfer of the title on these bitcoins. Therefore, the title on the money is still with it's rightful owner, the exchange.
I do not know much about criminal law, but basic principles of contract law are more or less the same everywhere.
Yes this can fall under basic contract law because they did enter into a contract by signing them away. Whether or not they intended to is entirely irrelevant, they signed it. How do we know that this exchange did not have a private vendetta against bendavis, sent him these coin, and are now attempting to defame/extort? We dont. The only true information/facts that we have are by looking at the blockchain and seeing that the coins were signed from one address to another, and the receiving party is therefore the rightful owner. Again, as I stated previously, if you do not *intend* for something to be automatically signed away, then dont setup and utilize software to do so This is a clean cut case from point of view of contract law.
Again, there is no contract for transfer of the title on these bitcoins. Therefore, the title on the money is still with it's rightful owner, the exchange.
I do not know much about criminal law, but basic principles of contract law are more or less the same everywhere.
There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though.
This is absolutely wrong. At the very least Bitcoin provides a network access.
People that adamantly believe Bitcoin have no value need to look up the law on what a valuable consideration is before opening their trap.
I know some of you people went to the GW Bush School of Logic but repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true.
I'm going to put this to bed FOREVER.
Quote
The word "value," in its commonly received signification, means the sum of money a thing will produce to the seller when it is sold. We are aware that this is not abstractly the true measure of value. The quantity of labor and capital necessary to produce a given article, or, in other words, the actual cost of its production. Is the true criterion of , Its worth. For instance, if a manufacturer | be asked the vafue of a yard of cloth, his opinion of the value will be determined by his calculation of the expense of producing a yard of cloth of similar quality. If we ask a retail dealer the value of a yard of cloth, his opinion of its value will be determined by the quantity of money such an article will produce in the market It is apparent that the marketable value may be affected by a multitude of circumstances which; will not in their results extend to the cost of production. Value Is in its nature so vague 'and indefinite that no human scrutiny can | seize all its constituent parts, and therefore opinions of value are admissible in evidence from the necessity of the case. Town of Rochester v. Town of Chester, 3 N. H. 349, j 358.
The word "value," It Is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other "value in exchange." State v. Yates, 10 Ohio Dec. 150, 158, 19 Wkly. Law Bui. 150 (citing Smith, Wealth of Nations).
The value of property consists in its use, and he who owns the use forever, though it be on condition subsequent, la the true owner of the property for the time being. Wells v. City of Savannah, 21 Sup. Ct. 697, 702, 181 U. S. 531, 45 L. Ed. 986.
The primary meaning of "value" Is worth; and this worth is made up of the useful or estimable qualities of the thing. Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in the market, and has a market value, there is no difference between Its value and the
market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of value. This Is not however, because "value" and "price" are really convertible terms, but only because they are ordinarily so In a fair market Kountz v. Kirkpatrick, 72 Pa. (22 P. F. Smith) 376. 386, 13 Am. Rep. 687.
As market value.
Bouvier, In his definition of value, says: "This term has two different meanings. It sometimes expresses the utility of an object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other articles with it The first may be called the 'value In use' and the latter the 'value in exchange.' Webster recognizes a difference between extrinsic and exchangeable value." But In condemnation proceedings "value" will be held to mean market value. Little Kock Junction Ky. v. Woodruff, 5 S. W. 792, 795, 49 Ark. 381, 4 Am. St. Rep. 51.
When applied to property, and no qualification is expressed or Implied, "value" moans the price which the property could command In the market. In re McGhee's Estate. 74 N. W. 695, 697. 105 Iowa. 9.
Value consists In the estimate or opinion of those influencing the market attachable to certain intrinsic qualities belonging to the article to be valued. Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 68 Me. 449, 463.
Price synonymous
All the lexicographers, both law and general. In certain instances, give the words "value" and "price" as convertible and synonymous. As used in Code, c. 145, g 14, requiring an indictment for larceny to state the value of a thing stolen, if not synonymous with, it is at least equivalent to, the word "price," as used in an indictment charging the larceny of property of a certain price. State v. Sparks, 3 S. E. 40, 41, SO W. Va. 101.
Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in
the market and has a market value, there is no difference between its value and the market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of the value. "Value" and "price" are, therefore, not synonymous, or the necessary equivalents of each other, though commonly "market value" and "market price" are legal equivalents. Theiss v. Weiss, 31 Atl. 63, 66, 166 Pa. 9, 45 Am. St Rep. 638 (citing Kountz v. Kirkpatrlck, 72 Pa. [22 P. F. Smith] 376, 13 Am. Rep. 687).
The primary meaning of "value" is ■worth. "Price" is not synonymous with "value," but frequently "market value" and "market price" are used synonymously. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Parsons, 32 Pac. 1083, 1084, 51 Kan. 40a
"'Value' is a word more comprehensive than 'price.' By the price of a thing, therefore, we shall henceforth understand Its val
ue in money; by the value or exchange value of a thing its general power of purchase; the command its position gives over purchasable commodities in general." Marriner v. John L. Roper Co., 16 S. E. 906, 907, 112 N. C. 164.
The terms "value of the use" of the premises, and "rental value," mean substantially the same thing. Alexander v. Bishop, 13 N. W. 744, 747, 59 Iowa, 572.
The word "value," It Is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other "value in exchange." State v. Yates, 10 Ohio Dec. 150, 158, 19 Wkly. Law Bui. 150 (citing Smith, Wealth of Nations).
The value of property consists in its use, and he who owns the use forever, though it be on condition subsequent, la the true owner of the property for the time being. Wells v. City of Savannah, 21 Sup. Ct. 697, 702, 181 U. S. 531, 45 L. Ed. 986.
The primary meaning of "value" Is worth; and this worth is made up of the useful or estimable qualities of the thing. Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in the market, and has a market value, there is no difference between Its value and the
market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of value. This Is not however, because "value" and "price" are really convertible terms, but only because they are ordinarily so In a fair market Kountz v. Kirkpatrick, 72 Pa. (22 P. F. Smith) 376. 386, 13 Am. Rep. 687.
As market value.
Bouvier, In his definition of value, says: "This term has two different meanings. It sometimes expresses the utility of an object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other articles with it The first may be called the 'value In use' and the latter the 'value in exchange.' Webster recognizes a difference between extrinsic and exchangeable value." But In condemnation proceedings "value" will be held to mean market value. Little Kock Junction Ky. v. Woodruff, 5 S. W. 792, 795, 49 Ark. 381, 4 Am. St. Rep. 51.
When applied to property, and no qualification is expressed or Implied, "value" moans the price which the property could command In the market. In re McGhee's Estate. 74 N. W. 695, 697. 105 Iowa. 9.
Value consists In the estimate or opinion of those influencing the market attachable to certain intrinsic qualities belonging to the article to be valued. Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 68 Me. 449, 463.
Price synonymous
All the lexicographers, both law and general. In certain instances, give the words "value" and "price" as convertible and synonymous. As used in Code, c. 145, g 14, requiring an indictment for larceny to state the value of a thing stolen, if not synonymous with, it is at least equivalent to, the word "price," as used in an indictment charging the larceny of property of a certain price. State v. Sparks, 3 S. E. 40, 41, SO W. Va. 101.
Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in
the market and has a market value, there is no difference between its value and the market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of the value. "Value" and "price" are, therefore, not synonymous, or the necessary equivalents of each other, though commonly "market value" and "market price" are legal equivalents. Theiss v. Weiss, 31 Atl. 63, 66, 166 Pa. 9, 45 Am. St Rep. 638 (citing Kountz v. Kirkpatrlck, 72 Pa. [22 P. F. Smith] 376, 13 Am. Rep. 687).
The primary meaning of "value" is ■worth. "Price" is not synonymous with "value," but frequently "market value" and "market price" are used synonymously. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Parsons, 32 Pac. 1083, 1084, 51 Kan. 40a
"'Value' is a word more comprehensive than 'price.' By the price of a thing, therefore, we shall henceforth understand Its val
ue in money; by the value or exchange value of a thing its general power of purchase; the command its position gives over purchasable commodities in general." Marriner v. John L. Roper Co., 16 S. E. 906, 907, 112 N. C. 164.
The terms "value of the use" of the premises, and "rental value," mean substantially the same thing. Alexander v. Bishop, 13 N. W. 744, 747, 59 Iowa, 572.
Exactly, I still can't believe anyone here would have a problem with this. It stinks that the exchange made an error in their coding but now they know not to make that same mistake again, that's how the free market works. If we let the government come in and take over bitcoin they will be making laws and regulations about it instantly. What's next? Employees of the exchanges being mandated to join a union?
The free market would work exactly how it is in this thread EXCEPT for all the reference to law and legal precedent. There STILL would be effort to recover the lost/stolen property but instead of resorting to relying on established law governing human species (do laws apply to other animals? If so, I would like to incriminate some pestering bugs that have been overwhelming me lately.), there would be resorting to other activities liek %$%#$&ing and ^*&*&^%#$ing.
(But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind)
No idea what any of that stuff is.
Yeah that's why I suggested you should read more and post less.
Quote
It's not utterly irrelevant, it's completely irrelevant because property must have value. Without any value, BTC's cannot be property as defined by law.
BTC has value at the nearest exchange, just like gold.
(If you believe there is a difference you might want to check your calendar, it's not 1971 any more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system )
Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans.
If this is true, then if a human initiates the sale of the bitcoins owned by the computer, then that is theft and the computer would have been victimized by the criminal human.
The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/scams-and-rip-offs/consumer-rights/11335/what-to-do-when-atms-give-you-the-wrong-money
Quote
“People should realise that, even though an ATM has dispensed cash, they are not entitled to that money and are committing a criminal offence if they keep it.”
Quote
In English law (covering England and Wales), you are entitled to keep money paid to you in error “under mistake of fact”, but only if you honestly believe that the money is yours. Without any proof of mens rea (‘guilty mind’), mistake of fact can be used as a defence against civil and criminal liability, but only for unintentional mistakes.
But I suggest you keep making stuff up. It makes for fun reading.
The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.
You know what this means? Laws have been deprecated! Woo! We are no longer slaves! FREEDOM!
The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.
You know what this means? Laws have been deprecated! Woo! We are no longer slaves! FREEDOM!
Exactly, I still can't believe anyone here would have a problem with this. It stinks that the exchange made an error in their coding but now they know not to make that same mistake again, that's how the free market works. If we let the government come in and take over bitcoin they will be making laws and regulations about it instantly. What's next? Employees of the exchanges being mandated to join a union?
Okay, that's silly, but they will do anything to tear down a revolution like this.
BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate.
Again with the personal ramblings. The above is utterly irrelevant.
(But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind)
No idea what any of that stuff is.
It's not utterly irrelevant, it's completely irrelevant because property must have value. Without any value, BTC's cannot be property as defined by law.
Dude, this really isn't that hard.
BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate.
Again with the personal ramblings. The above is utterly irrelevant.
(But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind)
Jump to: