Topic: Mt.Gox and void trades: Force Majeure - page 5. (Read 20585 times)

hey jerk; go back to where u came from 2d ago!

So what, instead of analyzing his behavior, now you are attacking me with Ad Hominems?
So being registered in a freaking forum for too little time disqualifies my valid criticism?
I am right, you know it. Anyone with a iota of rationality knows it.
Now you are covering him because your personal connection with him, do you think that this favoritism will actually help the community?
I am speechless.

90% of this damage was preventable? YES, IT WAS.

Can you just use your brain instead of becoming a conspiranoid?
I am striking both stupid users and mtgox.
Boths have their faults, but if you read my thread it is more than evident that MtGox is lying in front of our faces.

Something really embarrasing must have happened that they are trying to cover it with childish and unsustainable lies.
There is a very clear trend here: from denying any hacking happening in the site, from claiming that there wasn't any CSRF exploit "logged" (ORLY do they get logged?), and now their lousy attempt of using legal terminologies improperly trying to to exonerate themselves from any kind of liabilities.

You, sir, are responsible for the security and stability of the site.
You can't escape from that reponsability.
You are responsible for the stability of the site.
We trusted you with our money.
You are deepening the insult of your incompetence covering lies with more lies.

You-are-pathetic

Our ToS writes hacking as included in Force Majeure. If you didn't read it that's your own problem.

Our ToS writes hacking as included in Force Majeure. If you didn't read it that's your own problem.

A Force Majeure must be included in a contract to be valid. There is no contract between mtgox and users; hence no case for force majeure.

hey jerk; go back to where u came from 2d ago!

you sir, who just registered to the forum 2d ago, i doubt is a btc lover.  its highly likely u own or believe in btc but instead r just piling on for your own nefarious purposes.

For Force Majeure requires three conditions:

1) Externality: you must not be related to the event.
We don't know. You've been lying to us from the very beginning. You claimed that was only one account holding 500,000 BTC?
Show us the anonymous transaction blocks that prove this account existed. Maybe it is your account and you don't want to admit it?
Anyway, lets assume for the example that genuinely you are not related. You might pass here.

2) Unpredictability: The attacks must have not be foreseen.
If you knew you had a vulnerability and didn't fix it (for whatever reason) you are totally culpable.
You knew your site was vulnerable. You probably were sleeping like a baby every night: waking up every three hours.
You allowed the access of this "auditor" with "read only" privileges, YOU KNOW THE RISKS OF ALLOWING A THIRD PARTY TO YOUR BACKEND, DON'T YOU?
YOU KNOW THE RISKS OF HASHING WITH MD5, DON'T YOU?
YOU KNOW THE RISKS OF NOT FILTERING OUT WEAK PASSWORDS, ISN'T THAT STANDARD PROCEDURE?
You were receiving floods of emails about several exploits and vulnerabilities in your site.
Don't fuck with us, your lies are unsustainable. You fail miserably in this condition.

3) Irresistibility: basically proving that it wasn't preventable.
Any 18 years old experienced with programming would know how to prevent half of the vulnerabilities of your site.
I would have started by not using MD5 to hash the passwords and having a very simple Javascript filtering weak passwords.
Lets not talk about the potential casualties from the explotation of CSRF vulnerabilities.
The site had more holes than Swiss cheese.
90% of this damage was preventable? YES, IT WAS.

Not haters. We are lovers who became disappointed.
"Acts of God" are unpredictable, unforseeable, uncontrollable events that escapes our power to counter it, foresee it and/or prevent it.
The best example are when there is a blizzard and a plane can't take off: THAT'S FORCE MAJEURE, AKA. ACTS OF GOD there isn't anything in the power of the airline to prevent or stop a blizzard.
In those cases you can't do anything, and you aren't entitled to any compensation from the airline (no hotel, upgrades, no shit)
(But if it was forecasted blizzard but the airline forgot changing the schedule, it isn't Force Majeure anymore, it become negligence)

If the plane blows a tire and there is no spare left, even if in the maintenance log clearly stated that needed one.
THAT IS NOT FORCE MAJEURE. (Analogy: YOU KNEW YOU HAD BUGS, YOUR EMAIL WAS BEING FLOODED WITH MAILS REGARDING TO THE EXPLOITS)
In those cases you usually get a hotel night free, amenities, and even upgrades to first class.

If the airport didn't take enough measures to prevent a terror attack and failed in implementing basic security protocols, THAT IS NOT FORCE MAJEURE: THAT'S NEGLIGENCE.
In these cases you usually get millionaire compensations from the airlines.

Stop trying to save your neck, because your head is way into your ass.
YOU ARE WORSE THAN DISAPPOINTING: WITH THIS STUPID AND LOUSY ATTEMPT YOU BECAME PATHETIC.

PS: By the way, if you cited Force Majeure because it was suggested by your lawyer, I suggest firing him. Now thinking of it, better keep him, so we can butt rape you in court.

Our ToS writes hacking as included in Force Majeure. If you didn't read it that's your own problem.

"Force Majeure" is anything independ of us, not the same thing as "Act of God".

Please read what I say.

Our ToS writes hacking as included in Force Majeure. If you didn't read it that's your own problem.

scumbags. Your only interesting in saving your own skin.

force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces

As I said, if his lawyer suggested Force Majeure, he must be drunk.
I really hope to see Mark in court, and don't forget to bring your real life version of Lionel Hutz.

How would you like to be on the end of a civil lawsuit for libel for claiming that Mt. Gox leaked personal data, implying that they were complicit or involved with the theft? Surely you have no evidence to support this claim.

Yeah, that's a shitty thing to say, and I'm not defending Mt. Gox's lousy security practices, but I'm just pointing out how crappy your argument is by making a similarly crappy argument against it. Why? Because civil lawsuits like this are about money losses. Your libel almost surely more provably costs them more money than the monetary damages you faced by Mt. Gox, at worst, having insufficient security measures that allowed this data to be stolen easily. Even that is an uphill battle for you to prove, because they'll be compared against best industry practices rather than an impenetrable wall.

In the case that leaked hashes lead to your account being hijacked, sure, you are probably due your account balance. But if attempting to get money beyond that, any judge in the land is going to ask you first, "Why are you suing Mt. Gox for insufficient security when your own password was easily guessable?"

You can't blame your landlord alone for crappy locks if you leave the windows open. The blame is shared, as your expectation of security is diminished by your own lack of it. As for the argument that they should have had two-factor authentication, account address locks and such, well that's just like alcoholics who blame their families for not fighting the bottle from their hands. "God, why are you not stopping me from hurting myself?"

Your argument is as silly as my libel one, but have fun in the murky swamps of international law in suing for your hundred dollars. Even if you miraculously win more money than your provable monetary losses, so will everyone else as we all practically would have the same case, if it was valid. In other words, if you win, it'll be noncollectable.

Anyway, on with more armchair lawyering! Oh man I practically have a law degree, as I have this dictionary RIGHT HERE on this bookshelf behind me and it says this and this and this about force majeure that I'm going to cherry pick to support my anger. At least MagicalTux probably consulted a lawyer before making his assertion or writing his TOS.

Damn, as a level 10 armchair lawyer with action court battle pads, I have to say that practically any legal stance can be supported if you research hard enough and are allowed to choose from random crap on the internet rather than applicable laws, cases and precedents. Dude, with those crappy standards, I could churn out 10 pages easily on any outrageously wrong assertion, such as that child porn is not actually illegal, rape is a permissible act where only the woman is to blame, and black people are not due the rights of other humans. I've actually done crap like that, only not so disgusting, in opposition research papers that surely will prevent me from ever holding public office.