Topic: Responsibility for double spend (Read 3011 times)

As long as we are talking about real life situation... Yes I ve dropped cash, yeah, even had my cell phone picked (who hasnt?) and didnt expect anyone to come looking for me to return it even though I tried to look where I dropped it, it was my stupidity and carelessness because of which I lost them and I learnt a lesson from it which was to be more careful.

It was a long time ago, back then I was a beefed up high schooler and thought no one would dare to snatch my phone from me, turned out I WAS WRONG.
I wasnt the most smartest or the most strongest or even the most vigilant person when I lost my cash or cellphone, back then I used to commute by public transport (especially trains) and if you've been to Mumbai or Kolkata you would know how congested these things get. I used to foray bravely into congested areas with the power of my muscle thwarting anyone shorter than me and brute forcing anyone bigger than me, I used to tear my way through to my destination and all the while I used to carry my phone in one of my pants' pocket and my loose cash into another, and then one day I simply dropped my cash didnt pay much heed to it but about a year later I had my phone pick-pocketed.
Since then I realized that I must pay for my mistakes and my ignorance and must learn from them, since then I LEARNED to safely secure my cash and cellphone inside my backpack whenever I traveled (not just public transport).

Danny here has very eloquently made a wonderful remark about my character but he might have overlooked the fact that the character of every person is forged from the experiences that they've had. He might want to believe that we live in an honest world where everyone is bound by the principles of honor and dignity but I know and even he knows that our world is nothing like that. If someone still wants to argue the virtues of morality over logical sense then they are simply being pretentious.

All I am simply saying, is that learn from what previous 'big and muscular' exchanges have done to their customer, how they 'tore through their wallets' and have ripped off their customers' off millions of dollars.
So when you are heading and running one of the few functional exchanges of your country, take some responsibility for the fault that was committed in your part, PAY FOR THOSE MISTAKES, LEARN FROM THEM, and make sure that it doesnt happen again.
- but instead you have a contingency plan in place now should it ever happen again based on the pretext that it WILL happen again.

As long as 'big and muscular' corporations would continue to think that they can get away with their mistakes, till then no real progress can be made.

If you just found it on street then yeah you would not go poking your nose asking who lost their money. But what if you know to whom it belonged it.
What if the person who dropped that bill sees you picking it, comes to you and says that 100 $ belong to him and proves it that it belong to him (say by giving you the serial number on that bill). Would you say you found it due to his mistake and you would not return?
Also what if you were the person who dropped that note and some one else picked it up and did the same thing to you?

Hmm.. did not read the whole thread but.. Hmm.. what happened to Bitcoin? I received double payout from a website recently.
Anyway, I would suggest you paying. Pay the extra amount (0.0182) will do.

Then I'm a fool.  I've returned dropped money and searched for the owner of found money on several occasions.


Yes, it does.


TANSTAAFL

Free money, is never earned, its either won or found.

hahaha, Exactly my point!

If I find a $100 bill lying on the street I'll keep it and its a no-brainer, you dont go poking your nose around and asking who lost their money, what you found lying on the street should be yours to keep, anyone not opportunistic enough to do that is a fool and NO it does not make them a thief.

It is only logical that, if you haven't earned money, it is not yours.

It is always a bad idea to share personal information with someone you don't trust.  If you are going to give out your identity, you better know who it is you are giving it to and be certain that you really want to give it to them.


There is nothing senseless about the value of irreversible payments.  It was impossible for unocoin to get that money back from you without your cooperation.


TANSTAAFL.

You got your answer.  Yes, it makes ethical sense.  As far as I'm concerned, it always makes logical sense to do the ethical thing.


You are mistaken. It is clear that Unocoin has a very poorly designed system and that users should consider the associated risks before doing any business with them. That is an expensive price to pay in lost business and damaged reputation.


There is nothing illogical about acting in an ethical manner.

If you watch someone accidentally drop a few $100 bills out of their pocket and neither they nor anyone else notices, should you pick it up and keep it? Or should you return it to them?

Ethically, the right thing to do is return it.

You could stick it in your own pocket and say "it doesnt matter how the 'free money' came into my wallet, I believe in the old saying that 'money belongs to the beholder' it is not the property of any person or institution. No matter what you or anyone else says if I am getting free money, I should get to keep the free money".

Logically you can just keep the money, but you shouldn't.

The true intended purpose of the post was

• To show everyone what a bad idea it is to share your personal information with any exchange related to bitcoins and how the senseless meaning of irreversible payment falls out of the picture entirely when we do provide our contact information.
• To ask people if it makes logical or ethical sense to pay for what is supposedly either a network error or a coding error of the website itself which resulted in me gaining a few satoshi.
• To show people how easily exchanges can get away without paying for their mistakes and miscarriages.

I already got my answer to the second point as I can see where general consensus lies in this matter which is - again - ethically biased and not logically.

Ask a question about ethics and morals, get an ethically and morally based answer:

The right thing to do is subjective to each person that voted. Half or more of USA's population thought it was the right thing to do to spread a little democracy in the middle east before they themselves had the right to choose their own president.

Then again, I did say that what most of you would say would be morally biased not logically.  

I went from being happy as a chicken who got free money from the god of blockchain to sad as a turtle who had to pay for that said free money.

 
You are mistaken.  This is not a "wallet", this is an "account" you have with a business.  They are in control of the account.  That is how accounts work.


Which as you've already pointed out is a reflection of your character.


Not now that you've given it back you aren't.


Not now that you've given it back you aren't.


But if they do, you will not withdraw the bitcoins from the account.  Instead you will contact them and inform them of the problem so that they can fix it, right?  You've learned that lesson, haven't you?

I think the results of your poll make it pretty clear what the "right thing to do" is.

Danny, to me, it doesnt matter how the 'free money' came into my wallet, I believe in the old saying that 'money belongs to the beholder' it is not the property of any person or institution. No matter what you or anyone else says if I am getting free money, I should get to keep the free money, as a business one should take responsibility for their own code's fault.

Arent the 'calls recorded for quality purposes' ? Why dont you hear yourself what has been said to your customer representative ?

The only things I'd agree to in this instance are A) You got here too late (offcourse you had work and I acknowledge that) B) The issue is solved.

The only concern here is that the immoral, characterless, worthless, dishonorable thieves who also happen to be your 'customers' dont get full autonomy over their wallet addresses which was assigned to them by you. Any money in my pocket is my money not anyone else's I dont care how it got there, if I am not stealing it from someone, if I am not blackmailing it from someone, if I am not extorting it from someone, if I am not killing someone or if I am not committing any kind of social or legal crime, then I should have the CHOICE of what I want to do with the money that is there in my pocket, thats just my logic no one has to agree to it.

I have already sent the money back to you and lets not beat around the bush anymore, it was your code's fault (? ? ?) that the money showed up in my wallet not mine, and going forward should you choose to do business with a perceived immoral, characterless, worthless, dishonorable thief such as myself, then I would expect that these kinds of mistake dont happen any further.

Hi All,
The thread has become very long before I got to it. While I agree this is a technical issue - either with bitcoin or blockchain.info or Unocoin itself, let me try to address how best it can be handled, how we try to handle it and what we have done to avoid this in future.

The issue we are seeing here is not the first time Unocoin is facing it. We faced similar issue from another customer about 2-3 months ago. In that case, as the customer had not withdrawn his bitcoins, we just added a transaction to reverse the effect and we informed it to the customer and done with it.

This time, we saw two such instances one being legendster's transaction.

How it is happening? We use blockchain.info's api to identify the incoming transactions. This time blockchain.info has informed our server twice about these two transactions with different transaction hashes and to the worse of it, the info included the info about 6+ confirmations for all those callbacks and hence we have acknowledged both the transactions twice.
We keep monitoring the incoming transactions and this did come to our notice. But by then legendster had withdrawn his amount twice while the other customer had not - so we just added reverse transaction for other customer and are done with it.

Now the issue is, what we can do with legendster transaction that was also withdrawn. Our customer rep has called him and have asked him to deposit it back or else we will be required to still run the reverse entry that would end up legendster balance in negative. If we just do this, then the problem is temporarily solved and when legenster deposits bitcoins or purchases bitcoins, the balance would come to positive and problem fully solved. We just feel that would not be the nice thing to do. (If such issues happen with your bank account, they would just take the balance negative and leave it there till the next deposit comes to the account.)

The reply that she got (as per what was told to me) is that he will be doing the deposit of those bitcoins back as far as i remember. Then Unocoin also sees he goes ahead and put a BUY order. Now if we just let that as well get through, the number of transactions we will need to reverse to correct the issues only increases and hence she would have said, till the withdraw issue is sorted, we cannot execute the buy order. It is not that we are holding your order hostile. If you had requested us to give you back the INR for that BUY order, we would have just done it. Technically, integrity of our database matters us the most and we always like to have things in order.

After getting to know you are willing to deposit 250 or so INR in an attempt to purchase those extra withdrawn coins, we have put things in order and executed your orders and concluded the issue.
I would fully agree if you had said you would not like to pay your money for someone else's mistake. Here we are not asking you to pay your money. We are just asking you to pay back our money that we paid you by mistake. I hope it makes sense. Thank you for working with us to sort this out.

Now here is why you should have got concerned if we did not do what we did.
Technical issues are unavoidable when dealing with bitcoin and dealing with third parties. If I were you, I would be more afraid to deal with Unocoin if they did not even identify the issue as that would mean there is a threat to all the balances held at Unocoin.
Irrespective of amount of bitcoins, we have tried our best to keep you informed that an issue has occurred and have tried to work out the best possible way.
We have never said that the issue was not from our end.

So what we have done to avoid this in future:
If there are deposits that are made with in 96 hours that have exactly same "from bitcoin address", "to bitcoin address" and amount irrespective of the transaction hash will stop the second and consecutive deposits for approval from admin who would check and make sure they are valid ones before acknowledging them. This will be the temporary solution till we continue to use blockchain.info third party to acknowledge our payments. (This is work in progress and would take a day or two more to complete though).

To answer your question of what would be the right thing to do and who is responsible for it, I would say working with us to sort it out is the right thing which you have done. Unocoin appreciates it and would try to bring you the best of its services in future to valuable clients like you.

That is your fault. If you hadn't taken it in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem.  If you had simply held on to it so that you could repay it, it wouldn't be a problem.  Instead, you spent money that wasn't intended for you.  Now you should repay what you took.


I see that.  I wouldn't have.  I would have made arrangements to pay back the 0.0182 BTC.  However, as long as they are satisfied with receiving INR, and you were willing and able to send the INR, I suppose you can put this whole thing behind you as a lesson well learned.

It did matter and it does matter as I dont have an access to 0.0182 BTC anymore, I have paid them in INR

The missing transaction had multiple confirmations, 12+ to be accurate, as I have an unverified Cryptsy which needs 12 verifications for any btc deposit if it is in an unverified account.

Was it really a network double spend? Its very strange if it is, which implies that there was a reorg that caused 6 consecutive blocks to be orphaned. I didn't hear anything like this. This could also be an internal issue with blockchain.info, but then how could Unocoin accept the deposit with zero confirmations? It doesn't make sense how the original tx could be missing if it had *six+* confirmations on the blockchain (not blockchain.info).

Exactly.

They paid you 0.0182 BTC of currency.  Therefore, as you just stated, you should return 0.0182 BTC.


You shouldn't.  The increase or decrease in purchasing power shouldn't matter at all.  You should pay back exactly what was sent to you, 0.0182 BTC.  I'd say the same if the exchange rate had dropped and 0.0182 BTC was only $0.01