Topic: Making it public: I have moved the disputed 643.2771 BTC into an escrow account - page 2. (Read 17042 times)

it's a pity the bitcoin community hasn't yet sprouted arbitration and insurance services.

heh. merely a prediction.

I love the lurkers who silently observe everything that's going on, and occasionally come out of the darkness to report news before others.

MtGox will revert his 250k purchase, Kevin will keep the 600 withdrawn, and MtGox will take Kevin's $3000 from rollback as collateral.  Kevin makes out with 600 BTC at market price - $3000.  $5/BTC to break-even.

Who is he supposed to return them to?  A currently completely owned MtGox system?  The original "hacked account owner" who has not been identified?  Someone else?  I know if I held them and wanted to give them back I'd have no clue who the rightful owner is at this time.

That seems pretty key to me

should have filled my penny dish, instead of using escrow to hold them.

14KF98JRK9tEMM22eQU4URBPZykQgaNmHP
http://blockexplorer.com/a/2NuwvUdxKi

I'm sure people will only take .01 btc at a time, when theres no limits

Just let me know before you start the transfer ;

Also, Kevin should just return the bitcoins, if it can be proven that MtGox was hacked. Why have we not heard from the owner of the account that was hacked? Has MtGox mentioned anything about contacting that person? If not that seems super fishy.

But assuming that MtGox were telling the truth, the right thing for Kevin to do would be to return the Bitcoins. He bought something that was stolen from someone else, and sold at a price much lower than its market value. Anyone who thinks he has a right to own those is not thinking.

But the problem is that one cannot simply assume Gox is telling the truth. And if they were in the right they would be pursuing him for the withdrawn bitcoins. The only reason they would not pursue him for it is because they have something to cover up. Whatever they are covering up may or may not be related to the hack&crash. They might have other (unrelated) reasons for not wanting law enforcement's eyes on their operations.

I haven't read any statement by kevin saying why he doesn't return them (he may have written that, I just haven't seen it if he has). If he is not returning them because he wants proof that there was a hack, then I support his decision. Any other reason for not returning them doesn't make sense to me.

10 BTC getting stolen due to a hack is not the same as someone hacking in and crashing the entire market. I support the reversal of the broken trades. The whole thing was a situation created by a criminal. All the trades that took place after the hack were based on the unnatural prices created by a criminal crashing the market.

Keep the coins plain and simple.  MTGox knew they should have updated their system well before hand and did nothing.  They should bite the bullet on this one. 

And if on the small chance this dude had some inside knowledge on the thing and reaped the reward?  Well, Karma is a bitch anyway and what goes around comes around.

What's done is done move on.

Good advice.

Jesus Christ, people. We still don't know enough information to take sides on this matter. I don't know enough facts to say that Kevin did or did not do anything wrong.

Sure, I know enough about Mt. Gox's behavior of either actively lying about or being ignorant of the security breach. I also blame them for not having a circuit breaker, which would be like 2 lines of code. I also blame them for a multitude of issues that have come up, such as accounts that don't even have email addresses associated, the lack of trading logs, no password strength enforcement, no address locks, no stop losses, and generally crappy communication for a place that can pull down $13k a day in fees.

But this is a separate matter. Right or wrong, I don't know. I'm saying that I don't think anyone is thinking straight if they're taking definitive sides on what happened with Kevin, specifically, and what should be done about it. We've seen scant evidence in favor of either claim.

However, Kevin, in realizing how his own actions could be perceived, has done a smart thing here by putting coins in escrow. It doesn't really do anything in terms of providing evidence, but it does indicate that he really is willing to let the other parties investigate to clear his name.

That's a class act. In fact, because so many people feel like this issue will impact their trading and trust of Mt. Gox, an investigation does need to be done by an impartial party with a neutral arbitrator. I do know this: Mt. Gox coming to their own conclusions and then announcing and attempting to enforce them is only sufficient if their conclusion is in clearing Kevin's name. I'll restate that: Mt. Gox can only possibly relieve Kevin of guilt, not reliably prove it. If they do investigate and believe that Kevin is guilty of something or should return the coins, then they need to then involve a third party.
You can't be both the plaintiff and the judge. You can, at best, only act to withdraw your accusation.

Mt. Gox should know that they are not perceived as being impartial, let alone trustable right now. It's akin to paypal's famous habit of pretending to arbitrate disputes, but usually just settling their own favor (freezing funds) or going with whichever account-holder brings them the most business.

Now, because we all know Kevin's name and what should have been private details, it really is up to Mt. Gox to see this through publicly. My guess is that, in one month, Kevin will have his coins and Mt. Gox will neither have accused Kevin of anything nor absolved him. They'll just have hoped that this quietly will have gone away.

That is not acceptable. If he gets to keep the coins, it needs to be confirmed by Mt. Gox that they will not pursue him in the future.

That does not answer my question. Who do you have the right against? To have a service right, you must have two parties. Who are you fulfilling the service for?

If there is no such contract, you have no right, simple as that. Using your "dollars for ditch" analogy, you have someone paying you to dig a ditch, hence the service contract (you know, offer, acceptance, consideration).


It's not gibberish, you are the one who claims that BTCs are a service right.

As to the rights under a licence, which licence would that be? (don't tell me the MIT Licence or I'll laugh). The only licence involved in any Bitcoin transaction is the program installation licence. No rights to a service arising from the MIT last time I read it.

I'd be even more surprised if you could claim a the existence of a trust from a software licence. Trusts can only exist from clear sources, such as a written trust, an oral agreement, a court order, or a will. Even implied trusts require the existence of a structured relationship between the parties. Good luck getting Bitcoin recognised as a trust in a court of law.

Because this forum is full of home alone teens.

If you want something to say Kevin, you can email me and I'll post it on my site.
http://buttcoin.org , the contact link is on the site.

I am confused, are the 600 BTCs in the Escrow the same ones that were withdrawn? My understanding is that the transaction is way bigger than that, and that not all of the BTCs were transferred before the shut down, if that is not the case, then I completely withdraw my above argument.  

However, the heart of the argument remains. It seems like there are about 6 different theories as to what Bitcoin is in the eyes of the law. I've seen it refereed to as currency (therefore, it would be an illegal currency as only governments can issue currency in most jurisdictions). I've seen it referred to as a commodity (but it is not, it does not meet the legal requirement for one). It is not a security, and it is not a service. Each one of those would carry different legal consequences.

At the moment, the best legal security for BTC is not property law, but hacking laws.

Bitcoins are created by confirming a block. That is performing a service for compensation. You solve a block, the network will solve blocks you create for a "network value" of up to 50 bitcoins + fees earned in return for your work.


I see right through the contract gibberish. I don't fall for distractions. These are rights under a license.  A grant of authority. That would make it more like a trust.

There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?
Is it amateur hour at the Apollo in here?

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

It's no different than "digging a ditch" dollars.

I can't even believe we are having a tangibility argument in a world of nonredeemable fiat paper .

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.