Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error - page 12. (Read 35512 times)

The important thing is, why there was a bug that allowed so many bitcoins to be sent to the WRONG person?

The important thing is, why there was a bug that allowed so many bitcoins to be sent to the WRONG person?

I agree with geebus' point

It's an odd situation.

Clearly, an honest person would do the decent thing and return the coins. In response to that, a genuine business would then pay a proportion of those coins back again, in compensation for the time and hassle.

But if it's too easy for businesses to get back coins that they accidentally send, they're going to keep accidentally sending them. If they don't get the coins back, you can be sure they'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

But if it's too easy for businesses to get back coins that they accidentally send, they're going to keep accidentally sending them.

I'm  not wagering on the outcome of a case. Way to add various terms and conditions.
Like I said, I will wager on whether or not he has a legally enforceable right to recover what was lost or it's monetary equivalent in the state of Oregon.  To win on my part, all the claim has to do is to survive a demurrer, if he loses a demurrer, I lose.

A demurrer is challenge about the law and does not touch the facts. It's a suckers bet because I fairly certain his lawyer won't demurrer in the first place because it's a sure loser.

Updated https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.500238

Please add the following, obtained through public information aggregation site:
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/42020322
Twitter: http://myspace.com/benjohnson503

Employer: SAVANT CCA
111 SW 5TH AVE, STE 4090
PORTLAND,  OR  97204-3648
(503) 914-5584

Section 76. Delivered By Mistake.
Where the owner of money or property delivers it to another by mistake and that person, knowing the mistake at the time he receives it, conceals the mistake intending at the time to appropriate it to his own use, he is guilty of larceny. Thus for example, when a bank by mistake handed the accused five hundred dollars more than his check called for, and the accused at the time he received the money
"Johnson vs. People, 113 111., 103. Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 402.
Section 77. Finding Goods And Appropriating.
So if one finds the goods of the owner in the highway or elsewhere, containing marks which identify the owner, and the one finding them converts the same to his own use with criminal intent, he is guilty of larceny; but otherwise if there be no marks to identify the owner.29
Section 80. Value Of The Property Taken.
The article or thing taken must be of some value to make it the subject of larceny and the value must be alleged and proven. It is especially necessary to prove the value of the property stolen for the purpose of determining whether the offense is grand or petit larceny; for grand larceny is a felony and petit larceny a misdemeanor.
But the value of several articles stolen at different times by distinct acts, although from the same person, cannot be added together to make the offense grand larceny.34
The value of an article or thing is its market value, and not what it may be worth to the owner.

A treatise on the law of crimes, Volume 2 By William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshall[/i]
In several cases, for example, it has been held that, when money or property is delivered to a person by mistake, the taking is not complete, and he does not acquire possession, until he discovers the mistake, and that he is guilty of larceny if he then forms and carries out an intent to appropriate the property or money to his own use. Reg. v. Ashwell, 16 Cox, C. C. 1, Beale's Cas. 566; State v. Ducker, S Or. 394.  

The wrongful appropriation of property mistakenly delivered appears to have been considered larceny at common 565*565 law only if, upon receipt, the recipient knew that it was mistakenly delivered and at that time formed the intent to keep it.[5] However, State v. Olds, 39 Wn.2d 258, 235 P.2d 165 (1951) and State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d 579, 269 P.2d 577 (1954), construing Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4) (the statutory forerunner of RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c)), distinguished this statutory offense from common law larceny.[6] In State v. Olds, supra, the court expressly held that, in order to sustain a conviction under Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4), no evidence of original felonious intent was necessary. One noted authority interpreted State v. Olds, supra, as holding that Washington's statutory offense of wrongfully appropriating misdelivered property is distinguishable from common law larceny:

The wrongful withholding of property delivered by mistake, with knowledge of the mistake acquired subsequent to the receipt, may be punishable by statute under the name of larceny, but it is an offense distinct from common law larceny.
(Italics ours.) R. Perkins, Criminal Law 254 n. 76 (2d ed. 1969).

[2] Thus, the common law of larceny required proof that the defendant's intent to steal concurred with his mistaken receipt of the property,[7] whereas, under RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c) 566*566 the "intent to deprive" must exist at the time of the appropriation. In the case at bench, Woll was charged with having committed the crime on or about April 18, 1979. Thus, under the charge and under the trial court's instruction, the prosecution had to prove defendant's intent on the date he transferred the funds — not the date or dates on which he subsequently spent the money. Under Washington law, "[t]he gravamen of the offense is the appropriation of the property after having received it". (Italics ours.) State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d at 588.

BenDavis's debt should be no more than 98% of the value at time of transfer, with any transaction/conversion fees in BenDavis's favor.

Good lord. You're calling other people stupid but you come across as borderline illiterate.

I appreciate the spirit, but still...

If that wager can be defined as:

---
I will pay you 100 BTC,
 if and when any Oregon court issues a judgment stipulating that
  BenDavis (whoever that is, legally in Oregon) is ordered to return the amount of Bitcoins received (call it 511 +/- 5%), or
  BenDavis is ordered pay plaintiff the market value (+/- 5%) at any given point in time of the Bitcoins received, or
  BenDavis is ordered to restore or otherwise facilitate the recovery of the "right of access" you mention here;
 provided such judgment is posted or referenced here, and
 the period of leave to file an appeal against the judgment has expired; BUT

On the other side, you will pay me 100 BTC,
 if and when there is a final disposition of an Oregon cause of legal action brought against BenDavis in this matter, and
 if that disposition does not include any of the three substantive orders specified above; BUT

That a transfer of this case to a US Federal court or other court outside of Oregon shall null the wager, AND
That the only monetary or performance sums considered for purposes of determining the winner of the wager shall be the Bitcoins in question or their equivalent in other currency and not any sums related to service of process, court fees, fines, trial costs, legal fees, etc.
---

Then I'll take that wager.

I suggest everyone stop arguing with the idiots on here that are justifying the illegal acts. I have heard some much absolute ignorant BS come out , it' numbing my brain. They are literally puling shit out of their ass.

Ownership is a conclusion of law . The wiki has no authority to make any conclusion as to ownership that is binding. It was written in a general sense.

Bitcoin was released under license. Taking an not returning someones coins is depriving them of access to the network that they otherwise would have. The benefit of a license is a property right . Get it through your thick skulls. All the mental and verbal gymnastics in the world are not going to change that.

I bet 100 BTC this guy has a legally enforceable right in Oregon to recover his right of access or it's worth in money.

I've never seen a forum which had some of the dumbest and smartest people I've ever seen  simultaneously.

Please, go read a legal book before speaking. This isn't even a difficult case to adjudicate.