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.
Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error - page 13. (Read 35512 times)
I wonder if scumbag davis thinks he should pay the bill for his car repairs when someone else crashes into him, or who he try to collect on their on their insurance. I suepect he would make an insurance claim.
This baffles me, he gets money through an accident and thinks it is a windfall and yet if he lost money through and accident, he would sue.
This baffles me, he gets money through an accident and thinks it is a windfall and yet if he lost money through and accident, he would sue.
Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.
Quote
"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;"
The only two courts in the world that have set any legal precedence in regards to virtual items or currencies holding real-world monetary value are the Dutch, and South Korean courts. Neither of which either of the two individuals involved are subject to the jurisdiction of.
Irrelevant, laws regarding goods are well equalized thanks to global trade agreements. To claim that South Korean, Dutch, Finnish etc judicial systems would be outliers compared to the US the burden of proof would be on you.
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)Quote
Gold holds value in the real-world because it's a precious metal that is the backing of, or used to be the backing for, every currency on the planet that was created for an established economy.
I can only assume you believe this yourself, but it's funny nonetheless. No, gold does not hold value for such a reason, and it's easily proven by me asking you same question but exchanging gold for silver, copper, platinum, music songs, movies etc.
Quote
I urge you to show me where US federal courts (since this is international, and therefore a federal, not state matter) shows that virtual currencies of any form hold real-world value.
"Currency" is irrelevant, you can treat it as any virtual thing of value. Do you claim digital objects hold no value in the US, and if you think about that for a second or two, how easily do you think I can show you numerous examples?
Quote
Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.
Wording in an FAQ entry does not trump law. Without intention to change ownership the ownership did not change hands.
The real question here is why you believe your personal imagination is of interest to us. Do note that you provide absolutely no information of value beyond your own ramblings.
You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system.
Irrelevant.
Quote
holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.
Like gold.
Quote
Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.
Theft of virtual items has been successfully prosecuted all over the world.
See, I tend to care about what's actually true instead of going on a rambling spree. You should try it.
The only two courts in the world that have set any legal precedence in regards to virtual items or currencies holding real-world monetary value are the Dutch, and South Korean courts. Neither of which either of the two individuals involved are subject to the jurisdiction of.
Gold holds value in the real-world because it's a precious metal that is the backing of, or used to be the backing for, every currency on the planet that was created for an established economy. However, gold is not legal currency in the United States either, save for the state of Utah, which only recently passed legislation to identify it as legal tender.
The fact that neither party is participating in a recognized monetary system with binding laws, rules, and regulations is perfectly relevant to this situation. I urge you to show me where US federal courts (since this is international, and therefore a federal, not state matter) shows that virtual currencies of any form hold real-world value.
Likewise, I urge you to show any example that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that once you transfer ownership of an item (tangible or intangible) to another party, it is illegal for them to not give it back once demanded.
The point everyone (with the exception of a few) seems to be missing here is that phantomcircuit no longer owns them. BenDavis is an asshole for not sending them back, I will agree wholeheartedly, but he is not required to do so under any law. He owned the coins the second they were sent to him.
At most, you could try to claim that the Bitcoins he received were a good or service offered by the company (Intersango) and that the company requested a recall on the product. However, under US laws regarding consumer rights of recall and revocation, the consumer has the right to choose not to return a product that has been recalled.
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 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.
You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system.
Irrelevant.
Quote
holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.
Like gold.
Quote
Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.
Theft of virtual items has been successfully prosecuted all over the world.
See, I tend to care about what's actually true instead of going on a rambling spree. You should try it.
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.
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.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.
What about this?
Quote
164.065 Theft of lost, mislaid property. A person who comes into control of property of another that the person knows or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient, commits theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, the person fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. [1971 c.743 §126]
Once again, it assumes the property coming into the possession of the recipient still belongs to the sender and was sent mistakenly.
In the world of Bitcoin, once it leaves your wallet, you don't own it anymore. Mistakenly transferred or not, you transfer ownership.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them.
Apply your reasoning to credit card chargebacks. An FAQ does not trump law, no matter the language used. The only deciding factor is whether the transaction was intended or not.
Incorrect Sir. You are not participating in a federally or internationally regulated credit system. You are participating in Bitcoin. A virtual currency that holds no value in the real world beyond that which is put on it by the members of the community that use it.
Bitcoin is no further subject to federal regulation, law, or consumer protection than something like WoW gold.
From the perspective of the United States Supreme Court, it is a game. Virtual. Not real.
The rules of the game state that transactions go one way and once it's sent, you no longer own it and the recipient now does.
If you don't like the rules, go play a different game.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.
What about this?
Quote
164.065 Theft of lost, mislaid property. A person who comes into control of property of another that the person knows or has good reason to know to have been lost, mislaid or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient, commits theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, the person fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. [1971 c.743 §126]
I suppose someone now shall edit that wiki and replace "owns" by "has in possession" , not that it makes any difference.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them.
Apply your reasoning to credit card chargebacks. An FAQ does not trump law, no matter the language used. The only deciding factor is whether the transaction was intended or not.
Oregon State's definition of "Thief":
Each line describes clearly that the "thief" must have taken an item owned by another individual, or withheld an item owned by another individual.
Here is the question and answer from the "How does Bitcoin work?" section of the Bitcoin FAQ, published on the Wiki linked from Bitcoin.org:
The relevant line here is indicated in red.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.
Yes, what he did was morally wrong. Yes, what he did was ethically wrong. No, what he did was not illegal.
He's a dick. Plain and simple. But he is well within the bounds of legality in both Oregon State, and the United States of America, where he resides.
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]
(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]
Each line describes clearly that the "thief" must have taken an item owned by another individual, or withheld an item owned by another individual.
Here is the question and answer from the "How does Bitcoin work?" section of the Bitcoin FAQ, published on the Wiki linked from Bitcoin.org:
Quote
Q. How does Bitcoin work?
A. Bitcoin utilises public-key cryptography. A coin contains the owner's public key. When a coin is transferred from user A to user B, A adds B’s public key to the coin, and the coin is signed using A's private key. B now owns the coin and can transfer it further. A is prevented from transferring the already spent coin to other users because a public list of all previous transactions is collectively maintained by the network. Before each transaction the coin’s validity will be checked.
A. Bitcoin utilises public-key cryptography. A coin contains the owner's public key. When a coin is transferred from user A to user B, A adds B’s public key to the coin, and the coin is signed using A's private key. B now owns the coin and can transfer it further. A is prevented from transferring the already spent coin to other users because a public list of all previous transactions is collectively maintained by the network. Before each transaction the coin’s validity will be checked.
The relevant line here is indicated in red.
Ben, having been SENT the coins, whether mistakenly or not, now owns them. The network was informed of the transfer of ownership by phantomcircuit and then confirmed the transaction by including it's data in the blockchain.
Yes, what he did was morally wrong. Yes, what he did was ethically wrong. No, what he did was not illegal.
He's a dick. Plain and simple. But he is well within the bounds of legality in both Oregon State, and the United States of America, where he resides.
Mike, there is no thinking on this one. Ben is clearly in the wrong, hook line and sinker.
See this: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html
See this: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html
Hey, Buddy... are you seriously asking me to not think here? And then asking me in the next breath to think about some law code from (where?) Oregon?
Ummm, dude, seriously. So, that's why we ALWAYS go flying off to file suit in defendant's jurisdiction, right?
Doesn't matter, I'm putting you down in my "irredemably dense" file until you can find yourself bothered to examine your request above that I not think.
I didn't request you don't think about it, it was more of a "no-brainer" moment as you will, whereby from reading and examining the information provided on the Oregon State Legislature website it clearly defines Ben's actions as law breaking.
I'm no legal expert and I won't even pretend to know anything about law, but when facts are clearly shown to you that Ben has broken Oregon State law surely there must be repercussions of his actions and justice must be brought forward to compensate intersango?
Mike, there is no thinking on this one. Ben is clearly in the wrong, hook line and sinker.
See this: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html
See this: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html
Hey, Buddy... are you seriously asking me to not think here? And then asking me in the next breath to think about some law code from (where?) Oregon?
Ummm, dude, seriously. So, that's why we ALWAYS go flying off to file suit in defendant's jurisdiction, right?
Doesn't matter, I'm putting you down in my "irredemably dense" file until you can find yourself bothered to examine your request above that I not think.
@bitlane: have you ever heard about tor or vpns?
Of course, but let's not get carried away with a simple suggestion to block idiots from the mining community by overshadowing the task at hand with technical debates......any blacklist will do. Perhaps next time I will generalize to help keep other people's panties from getting into a ruffle.....
Mike, Thank You.
Nemáš za čo.Quote
I do not really have aspiration to be a legal guy, judge or mediator, nor I have any formal legal training. (lots of informal though)
Law is a business like any other. The corruption we face is a society telling us constantly that only old men in fancy costumes with particular pieces of paper to their name can do it. (Little secret: in most English common law jurisdictions, being a lawyer is -not- a requirement for being a judge!)Quote
It is IMO worthwhile idea to have some kind of mediation service to resolve bitcoin disputes, particularly when seeing threads like this. At least over time it could build some kind of moral authority and possibly influence people who are not malicious but simply misguided and ignorant of law or who maybe have temporary deficit of common sense.
Definitely, and you point up a dual value for the service. Dispute resolution on the one hand, public discouragement of bad behavior on the other. This is the kind of thing that can build infrastructure for a real community. And, despite people saying "the bitcoin community" a lot of times lately, we are really not yet a community. I'd like that to change, and I'll bet you and a bunch of others on this thread would like that to change as well.Quote
I could potentially participate in your project somehow, because I think it is interesting and useful for the community and if it is compensated somehow (yes I am that egoistical here). In any case it is better to discuss it in private.
I'll catch you offline. Meanwhile, "justice" is already a for-profit operation all over the world, whether it be in terms of massive judge salaries or in terms of bribes to various court officials. It seems clear to me (despite my ecumenicalism above) that specialists are needed, but that the systems we have today tend more toward self-enrichment than toward really serving their communities.Quote
At the same time, I have to tell you about what happens in UK if you send bank transfer by mistake to a wrong person/account. In such a case the bank will forward your letter asking to return the money to the owner of "bank error in your favour" account (or ask him on your behalf). If money are not returned promptly, a civil lawsuit can be filed against the "finder keeper" and it is almost certain that court will pass a judgement requiring "finder keeper" to pay back the money, legal costs, and potentially interest.
This is common practice. Usually, though people just return the money when asked first time and this rarely goes beyond first chat of the "finder keeper" with his legal council.
Yep. And I've been in that seat before, though not in the UK. People fat-finger stuff on keyboards and issue transfers for #million when they meant #thousand. Or #thousand when they meant #hundred. Or 512 when they meant 1. Whatever. It's definitely not okay to profit massively off the error, and I'm definitely not going to invite people who dash off, cackling, with their ill-gotten loot to my dinner party. This is common practice. Usually, though people just return the money when asked first time and this rarely goes beyond first chat of the "finder keeper" with his legal council.
@bitlane: have you ever heard about tor or vpns?
Of course, but let's not get carried away with a simple suggestion to block idiots from the mining community by overshadowing the task at hand with technical debates......any blacklist will do. Perhaps next time I will generalize to help keep other people's panties from getting into a ruffle..... It's situations like this where the Community as a whole need to get involved and help the situation in a positive fasion any way they can.
1) All Mining Pool Operators should band together and maintain a SCAMMER IP BLACKLIST to keep people like this OUT of the Community and left mining Solo.
1) All Mining Pool Operators should band together and maintain a SCAMMER IP BLACKLIST to keep people like this OUT of the Community and left mining Solo.
It's in situations like this that the IDIOTS appears.
Woah, ip black list, are you idiot or what? Study how ip work before telling us what to do. Do you know like dynamic IP? I start my router i have an ip. I restart it i have another one. I restart it again, i have another one.
I know like dynamic ip. Perhaps you study how dynamic ip lease work when start router have another and you restart it and have another. Unless you change MAC address each time you restart router or have ISP that use 1 minute lease time, you are wrong. If you need lesson, please tell me and I provide.
....wow...I'm glad that is over with, as I can go back to typing near-proper sentances that don't read like I just learned English last week.
LMAO.
How in the hell that is making your "scammer ip blacklist" work? Let me guess, it doesn't.
If i CHANGE my ip, then ta-dah, i am no more in the blacklist. Worse, someone else will end up using the blacklisted IP
And again, you never heard about tor, vpns, proxy?
As for my english, it's good enough to allow people understand what i want to tell.
Jump to: