Topic: Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error - page 8. (Read 35511 times)

You're missing one major aspect of your "Replying"

When you reply by hitting 'post' or just put crappy words together in a row in the live environment you are agreeing to be mocked if you can't back up your assertions with any citations.  Your 'reply' is self enforcing and thus you aren't getting any of your credibility back nor do you deserve to.  It really doesn't matter that you didn't read the whole thread and the last thing Critical Thinking needs is a pile of pretend-lawyers making fools of themselves to "correct" others.

No. As to why you think your personal fantasies are of interest to anyone but yourself we can only speculate.

I'm going to just pile on. The fact that Bitcoin is not "legal tender" or "authorized currency" does not matter.

A treatise on the law of conversion By Renzo Dee Bowers


Just so you know Moffat's issue was private coinage.

I'm in envy of you, since you apparently live in a country of your own with your own separate laws. The rest of us, no matter how much we might like or dislike the technical workings of Bitcoin, must still abide by national laws and international agreements.

According to those, not only does Intersango "deserve" their bitcoins back, they're entitled to by law.

If you think that the person who unfortunately sent his BitCoins deserves them back or that somehow contract law applies or that a BitCourt should be in force, you don't understand the purpose of BitCoin. To remedy this situation, I recommend you read paragraph #1 Satoshi's whitepaper.

Worse yet, your ideas invalidate the very mechanism that makes BitCoin what it is. Once you have a 3rd party to enforce "Trust" BitCoin is no longer BitCoin. If you want a "Trust" system then go to a Bank of America or PayPal or code one on top of BitCoin. I hear there are a few programmers out there. 

From Parapraph #1 of the whitePaper. Please note RED.

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must
be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable.

Saving people money, time, and effort on dumb ideas isnt constructive?  At least I'm being helpful, all you are doing is telling other people they aren't being constructive.  Who isn't being constructive here?

Try posting something constructive instead of an ad-hominem attack. Besides, I'm only four years old.

I'm not even referring to scamming, just to incompetence. If a business can make money when they do the right thing, and not lose money when they do the wrong thing, there's no incentive for them to stop doing the wrong thing. But if the business loses money when they do the wrong thing, they'll very promptly stop doing the wrong thing.


I was going to use Witcoin as an example of a business that doesn't seem to be evil, but then it occurred to me that you might be assuming that business == corporation. As I use the words, a business provides goods or services in a voluntary way that benefits itself and its customers. A corporation depends on the power of the state to protect its profits whilst socializing any losses (i.e. distributing them to others). In theory, and sometimes in practice, a corporation can also be a legitimate business.

You mentioned Sony, which illustrates my earlier point. If Sony doesn't lose money by installing rootkits, they will keep installing rootkits. If Sony makes a financial loss by installing rootkits, they will very quickly stop installing rootkits.

This sounds like something a five year old would come up with, that has no experience with other people or the world in general. 

Ostracism only works in a community where the individual members are not anonymous.

... until this 'service' became even slightly corrupt or makes a mistake, and now you have torches and pitchforks chasing some dude who is innocent.

Notice how lop-sided that article is.

The article explains (correctly in my opinion) that if an ATM gives you too much money, the bank is entitled to get that money back from you. But if the ATM pays out less than you asked for, "getting this money back could prove tricky".

I would really like to see a Bitcoin Adjudication service set up that, after considering the evidence presented before it, issues judgements not about statist law but about honour, ethic and reputation.

It would then be up to the perpetrator to decide whether to restore their honour. If they didn't, it would be up to the community to ostracise them. In a well-defined community, ostracism is a very powerful mechanism.

Nor gold, heirlooms, sheep or socks. That's completely irrelevant as to how something gets valued.

You're not even a good troll.

"Oh, judge, wait, sorry to interrupt, value is as of now 179 thousand... uh, wait 183 thousand threehundre, argh, fuckit, it's about 1/5th of million give or take a couple of tens of thousands"

+1. And I like your shark!

Ok.  Hopefully this happens.

Intersango have already stated they will cover all lost customer funds, so no, I don't see this theory being plausible.

Out of curiosity, do we know for absolute certain that the Intersango guy didn't simply create multiple user names on chat, an account on Intersango, and send the coins to himself and then "argue" with himself and try to convince us all that he was really the victim and not the profiteer?

$4,000+ is a fair sum of cash, and with all the scams going on nowadays...

Just making sure and wondering if anyone considered it.