Pages:
Author

Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error - page 11. (Read 35512 times)

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
Regarding the intention, did you read my other post?

Yes. Your posts contain no information of interest.

Quote
“The court effectively found that, even though virtual currency isn’t real and is infinite in supply, it still can deserve legal protection in the same way as real world currency,”
(UK - http://www.allfacebook.com/hacker-steals-12-million-in-zynga-poker-chips-2011-02)

BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate.  You don't have to report your BTC holdings to the IRS.  Only when you exchange them for USD do you have to report this.  BTC is absolutely not like gold.

These aren't personal 'ramblings'.  I'm interpreting the language of the law.  You'd make a shitty lawyer.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
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!
hero member
Activity: 530
Merit: 500
Regarding the intention, did you read my other post?

Yes. Your posts contain no information of interest.

Quote
“The court effectively found that, even though virtual currency isn’t real and is infinite in supply, it still can deserve legal protection in the same way as real world currency,”
(UK - http://www.allfacebook.com/hacker-steals-12-million-in-zynga-poker-chips-2011-02)
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513

These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins.
When you send bitcoins, you are no longer the owner of those bitcoins. They are therefore not your property and there is no legal right to them. Does everyone forget that these transactions are digitally signed? Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners. Unlike mistakenly sending a tangible item that at the very simplest form you could simply "go and retrieve", once you are no longer the owner of the bitcoin, that's it and nothing can or will be done.

edit: in fact, since bendavis was the owner of the bitcoin after the transactions, i'd say intersango likely opens themselves up for a counter-suit for attempted extortion.

This (transfer vs possession) is interesting discussion (started a new thread for this) that contains some comments from this thread:

Not true.  The blockchain is a record of who possesses what.  It is not a record of ownership or title.

If you send me 100 BTC for safekeeping, or loan me your car, I possess it, but you still own it.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

I'll quote the relevant section (164.015):
Quote
     (2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065;

Real fast. Bitcoins are network access  and certain network authentication services. The legal term is an incorporeal hereditament. Yes they can be stolen. Yes there is title to them. Possession alone passes no title even for negotiable instruments, which happen to construe possession most strongly.

There is no legal or moral excuse for this behavior. At the very least there is UNJUST ENRICHMENT which is a tort.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool and an idiot. You are so dependent on the nanny state to define your rights you forget them some rights are strictly sui generis.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.

No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance.

I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.

No. You're ignoring both the existing case law that has been posted as well as claiming BTC is somehow "special". The only way I can see why you would do that is if you completely ignore all the information in the thread in preference for your own ramblings.

That's pointless. This is a clear cut case, based in law, with no special provisions needed for it being about bitcoins.


Regarding the intention, did you read my other post?  The 'mistake' of the owner was to be ignorant of the parameters of the code. There was no mistake in the transaction...the code worked as written.  That's why I made the analogy to getting drunk.  If you get drunk and then give someone money that you later want back, the mistake wasn't giving someone money, it was getting drunk.  The sender's mistake was ignorance of the code, not in the transfer of BTC.

And, you're ignoring the description of the law itself.  Property must have 'value,' and there is absolutely nothing that gives mined BTC value to humans.  Just because it's on your computer doesn't mean it's yours or that it has value.  Is Google yours, even though it's running on your browser?  No.  It belongs to someone else because it is the product of their WORK.  Mined BTCs are not the product of human work, and thus have no human value. They are the product of computer work.  Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans.

newbie
Activity: 51
Merit: 0
These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.

No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance.
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.
hero member
Activity: 530
Merit: 500
These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.

No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance.

I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.

No. You're ignoring both the existing case law that has been posted as well as claiming BTC is somehow "special". The only way I can see why you would do that is if you completely ignore all the information in the thread in preference for your own ramblings.

That's pointless. This is a clear cut case, based in law, with no special provisions needed for it being about bitcoins.
newbie
Activity: 51
Merit: 0
here's the Oregon law on the matter: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html
Quote
     (2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065;

Oregon State's definition of "Thief":

Quote
64.005 Definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, unless the context requires otherwise:
      (1) “Appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person” or “appropriate” means to:
      (a) Exercise control over property of another, or to aid a third person to exercise control over property of another, permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances as to acquire the major portion of the economic value or benefit of such property; or
      (b) Dispose of the property of another for the benefit of oneself or a third person.
      (2) “Deprive another of property” or “deprive” means to:
      (a) Withhold property of another or cause property of another to be withheld from that person permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to that person; or
      (b) Dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.
      (3) “Obtain” includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest therein, whether to the obtainer or another.
      (4) “Owner of property taken, obtained or withheld” or “owner” means any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder.
      (5) “Property” means any article, substance or thing of value, including, but not limited to, money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses-in-action, evidence of debt or of contract. [1971 c.743 §121]


These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins.
When you send bitcoins, you are no longer the owner of those bitcoins. They are therefore not your property and there is no legal right to them. Does everyone forget that these transactions are digitally signed? Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners. Unlike mistakenly sending a tangible item that at the very simplest form you could simply "go and retrieve", once you are no longer the owner of the bitcoin, that's it and nothing can or will be done.

edit: in fact, since bendavis was the owner of the bitcoin after the transactions, i'd say intersango likely opens themselves up for a counter-suit for attempted extortion.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
My argument is

... completely irrelevant. Start by reading the existing posts, everything is covered there and personal speculation is completely pointless.


How irrelevant?

I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.

I'm arguing that BTC is not property as defined by law unless it meets certain criteria.  Some guy wants his BTC back.  I'm saying they might not be his, and also describing how he could go about showing if they are his or not.

Edit:  Law is up for interpretation.  This is what lawyers do.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
The small claims court cap in Oregon is $7500 value. Small claims means neither party would get a lawyer. People saying a lawyer would make it prohibitively expensive is a red herring. Even still, if they did have to retain a lawyer the loser pays legal costs, so that's a non-starter as well.

What's going to decide how whether anything happens is whether the victim can get to Oregon or the US District Court in Oregon.

However he can always sell his claim to someone that is local and they can sue and recover. This would be an easy recovery because of his confession of pretty much every, his defense being, "your SoL" Once you get the judgment. Then comes wage garnishment and even seizure of property via the Sheriff's office. Court judgments can show up on credit reports.

Plus there is no doubt this is larceny. The victim doesn't have to be present to report a crime. The courts are strapped for cash and the will drag people in there for anything nowadays just to collect a gazillion fees.

Believe me, the victim can cause more than 500+ BTC worth of hell for this asshole.

hero member
Activity: 530
Merit: 500
My argument is

... completely irrelevant. Start by reading the existing posts, everything is covered there and personal speculation is completely pointless.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
It absolutely does matter if it's a currency, since as you state...

??

Quote
tangible and intangible personal property, ...

My argument is, if BTC are mined only, then it's not property yet.

Only when BTC are purchased with USD or other property does the BTC become property.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
It absolutely does matter if it's a currency, since as you state...

??

There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though.

??

The value is whatever the high bid price is on the exchanges. It most certainly has a value.

Of course they have value or nobody would waste all the time and electricity required to mine for them. Would you spend the money on the hardware to build a massive bitcoin mining operation if they had no value?

Wrong. bitcoins have value whether it benefits me to say they do or not. If they had no value nobody would buy them or mine them. The fact they have value, as shown on the bid sheets at the exchanges makes them treasure trove and up for grabs. Look at the bid sheets the same as you look at gold and silver charts. If gold is treasure, then so are bitcoins.

If it didn't have value before you sold it, nobody would have bought it from you. You might also want to read things like http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2005-12-02/315676/. Whether it's an intangible good or not is also irrelevant. You did not _take_ someone's property, but you did not make a reasonable effort to return it to them, and instead posted on facebook (of which there is documentation) about "free money" and started preaching about how the victim was in the wrong. Definitely not good faith, and it'll look bad when the law gets involved.

I could accidentally send you my collection of used women's panties (hypothetically Grin) and if you kept it, you'd be liable. No, used panties are not legal tender. No, they have no market value. But you still took my stuff, and made no effort to return it to me. Sure, you wouldn't be liable for much, but you would definitely be in the wrong.

Over $4000? You should be worried.

Nonsense from start to finish.  The exchange of data is a token to memorialize the transfer of the ownership interest in the intangible property.  That ownership interest has a very real value, and the markets are very, very liquid, so the value is quite certain.  Do you think your house has no value because it isn't at this moment undergoing a sale?

That is not true.  They have an easily established value.  All of this talk about "a judge won't recognize these as having value" is complete nonsense.  Absolutely certain of it.

Not only that, but with the way you are brazenly shirking this, the person who may very likely be liable for the lawyer fees in the end is the clown who took the 511 BTC he wasn't entitled to and who claims he "OWNS" them.

Patrick, FYI, I have saved this entire thread to a PDF file, just in case mr. DAOG realizes that deleting his own posts is a wise idea.  I am in the US and am able to produce an affidavit in support of your complaint against this guy, assuming you can identify him, in support of the fact that bitcoins have value and such questions that would be asked by the authorities in Oregon.


Pretty sure it'd be hard to back up, seeing as how it's already documented that you've mined for them, proving that you already think they're of some value (time invested, power spent, etc).  And if you have a record that can be traced back to an Exchange (as in, you've already traded them for currency)... hard to claim you think they're 'worthless' and have 'no value'.

The thing is. The judge will ask not you. The judge will ask an expert witness, probably invited by claimant. The expert will pull out mobile phone check current mtgox rate and say "As of this moment this day and this month of year 2012, based on current exchange rate on leading exchange, which is 356.33 $ per 1 BTC, fair market value of 512 BTC can be estimated as USD182440.96".

Gold has tremendous value
Please tell me the current value of 1 oz of gold, and what you did to get to that value.
I see where you are going with this.  Good point.

egold doesn't have any value until you exchange it either but that didn't stop the Justice Dept and the Treasury from going after them.

i have a business selling specialty socks that i, and my family knit ourselves.
i built a website for selling these socks to people who recognize the inherent comfort and value of such socks.

one day, i accidentally mail 500 socks to a registered buyer on the website.
the socks, unlike gold, are not a 'precious metal', and are not considered a 'currency' by any nation on the planet.
yet they do have a value to my family and i, as it took thread to make, and an investment of our time.
.. therefore, i go ahead and verify that the buyer did indeed receive the amount of socks in question,
and cordially request that the buyer help resolve this mistake amicably.
to which, they become hostile, citing 'finders-keepers'.

i'm not a legal expert,
but i've seen stupider cases on judge judy.
i believe i can sue, since, the original buyer acknowledged the mistake, and kept the product regardless.
to think otherwise is stupidly naive.

...
...

also, the argument that bitcoins are worth nothing is by its nature, flawed,
as, like knitting socks,
there are electrical costs, and an investment of time, required to mine a single bitcoin.
it is this inherent value, that you would be potentially suing for.
..
you would essentially be saying 'pay me the amount in electricity that it would cost to mine another 512 bitcoins, and compensate me for my time', or give back the coins.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
It absolutely does matter if it's a currency, since as you state...

5) “Property” means any article, substance or thing of value, including, but not limited to, money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses-in-action, evidence of debt or of contract. [1971 c.743 §121]

While BTC is "intangible," it still must have "value" to be considered property.  There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though.  That's the thing about a digital but legally-unrecognized currency.  Humans didn't make it.  There is no human value tied to it yet.  You'd have a better chance arguing that it has value to computers since it is the product of a computer's work and is recognized as work by other computers.  It isn't like traditional property (whether tangible or intangible) that is tied to the product of a human and therefore can be given a value in relation to humans.

Computers made BTC.  Although the program was the product of a human, BTCs are not.  They are a product of computers and computers alone, for no human can make BTC.  Because of this, it's even hard to establish that BTC constitutes property.  

The only exception to this is if the BTC were purchased with USD or some other form of property.  If they are purely mined, then I'm not sure they are anyone's property.  So, actually, I'd like to revise what I originally said...

If the sender can prove that these exact BTC were purchased by him using USD or some other property, then I think that legally he has a claim (although then there's still the question of whether or not he 'mistakenly sent them' as I described in my other post).  However, if he cannot prove this, or if in fact these BTC were mined and arrived purely on his exchange through deposits, then they are not even his property to begin with and he has no right to reclaim them.

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
Interesting...didn't read the whole thread, but here's my initial thought.

Ethically, I think it'd be nice if the Bitcoins were returned.

However, technically speaking, I'm not sure this is legally required.

The 'mistakenly' sent Bitcoins constitute one transaction.  Bitcoins are not yet a legal currency.  When the BTC was then converted to USD, this seems to constitute a 2nd and separate transaction.  Since there was obviously no mistake in the conversion of BTC to USD, there is nothing wrong with this transaction.  And, since the first transaction, the transfer of BTC, is a distinct and separate transaction not involving a legal form of currency, I'm not really sure if there can be any legal claim.  In other words, the first transaction consisted of a transfer of BTC in which the value of the BTC was NOT tied to USD.  However, in the 2nd transaction, the BTC was sold for and therefore valued in USD.

'Mistakenly' sent is also debatable.  If a bank mistakenly sends someone an extra $500, it means that someone accidentally typed in a wrong input into some computer -- a human error.  The BTC transfer however was described as being due to a 'bug.'  The BTC was then sent according to the parameters of whatever code was currently operating.  The sender, being the exchange owner, should be aware of these parameters.

Here's an analogy (albeit a little confusing) to consider.  Suppose the owner got drunk and there was a 'bug' in his thinking and this led to him 'mistakenly' transferring 511 BTC, then claimed he wanted them back.  Had he not been drunk, the parameters guiding his thinking would not allow for such an occurrence.  But, being drunk, the parameters were different and this accounted for the BTC transfer to occur.  Similarly, it seems as if in the case of described in the OP, the ignorance of the code's parameters is akin to the owner getting drunk.   The code acted according to its current state and carried out the transaction.  This is NOT a matter of the sender accidentally inputting a wrong number, but rather the code carrying out the transaction in its current state.  The owner should have been responsible for knowing how this code would affect the transfer of BTC.  

In the case of a wrong-number input, the code remains the same, but the USER messes up in that he/she mistakenly input a wrong number.  However, in this case, if there is bug claimed to be in the code, then this bug in the code is a separate mistake.  The transaction was NOT a mistake.  That is, the mistake only relates to the code, and NOT the transfer since this transfer was simply a consequence of the original mistake.  Relating back to the analogy, the mistake was to get drunk.  Anything that occurs after this is a consequence of getting drunk.

Edit:  My apologies.  This is probably one of the most poorly-written posts I've ever made lol.  The last paragraph is the gist of what I'm getting at.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
he realises and admits the coins are in error

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.500176

Quote
[04:52] <@BenDavis> But I don't know what you are talking about!
[04:54] <@BenDavis> Patrick Strateman, I have no clue what you are talking about.
[04:54] <@BenDavis> I don't even mine for coins.
[04:55] <@BenDavis> I have no clue what you are talking about!
[04:57] <@BenDavis> Yeah, I do not believe I took anything.
[04:58] <@BenDavis> Can you tell me how I took anything?
hero member
Activity: 767
Merit: 500
Seems pretty black and white to me.  Ben received the coins in error, he realises and admits the coins are in error, the sending party has made contact and Ben refuses to give it back, and any court would agree that the coins have a real value.  To be honest though, I doubt the costs of getting a lawyer to argue this in court is worth the $1000 though....

Will
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
Re: this issue, ED anyone?
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
I agree with geebus' point

There's nothing to agree with, no special rules or regulations that somehow only apply to Bitcoin etc. The law is very clear on this matter, and the fact that so many who post here seem ignorant on the law doesn't change it Smiley

Actually..... I think he's on to something.  For example one could disprove gravity by jumping until they no longer fall each time.  Similarly, one could disprove other laws in similar fashions.
Pages:
Jump to: