Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

forum.bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 319 posts

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#111

Post by fryguy »

rick888 wrote: post #59

The problems here with Bitcoin come across as the same problems with piracy: Bitcoin are just bits on a computer. Just like piracy, when we copy bits from one place to another, is it really "stealing"? Anyone that says "yes", better double-check their stance on software piracy as well.

The problem with your analogy is that once spent, your bits become worthless. If for instance, I made a song and then you pirated it and then I no longer had it on my hard drive any more, then that is what's happening here.

Similarly, my password to my bank account is "just bits on a computer", but you could steal that from me, and take all of my [real] money. In that sense, it is theft. Piracy is copying, theft is moving.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#112

Post by Tichy »

sunchild wrote: post #81
Tichy wrote: post #40

I don't see the problem with a rollback. Couldn't the legal users just redo all their transactions? It sounds to me, as the first commentator on bitcoin.org says, that someone would like to keep their fat booty.

Every rollback has a detrimental effect on confidence in the exchange.

I'd say the confidence is pretty shaken up because the exchange has been hacked.

I expect from my bank that they give me back my money if it is being stolen from me, why would I not expect it from MtGox (if it is within their power). Banks routinely roll back fraud transactions and nobody complains - except the fraudsters, of course.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#113

Post by illumin8 »

This guy doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Just like when the flash crash happened on the real stock market, transactions are going to be rolled back.

One thing that has become abundantly clear from reading all of the comments on the Bitcoin forums is that the investing knowledge of most BTC traders is much less than your average equities, fixed income, or ForEx trader.

MtGox is a pretty low budget operation, but even a low budget operation isn't just going to let someone steal the equivalent of $10,000,000 USD and not reverse the transactions. It would be like your bank telling you "sorry, someone transferred money out of your account without your authorization, but we're just going to let them keep it because, hey, they won it fair and square by hacking your account."

(As I write this last line I realize there was recently a court case regarding this exact issue, ETF fraud, but it occurred over many days and the company had authorized an agreement that they would check their account balance daily for fraudulent transactions.)

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#114

Post by spitfire »

nupark2 wrote: post #56

If there is real money in bitcoins, then there should be a real engineering staff running a real, secure trading platform.

Sounds like a market opening there. Who wants to start an exchange? A true exchange, so you wouldn't have to front a dime, except for the virtual server. IE: You're only matching orders and taking a cut, not putting any skin in the game.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#115

Post by mahyarm »

ra wrote: post #74
romland wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it could, again, be stupidity by MtGox: This was a "test account" that had no real user attached to it. After all, if the trade is internal on MtGox, it's just a double in a database. If that is the case, then hell yes, I can see why MtGox would want this rollback.

If it was test entries in a database, then how could the OP transfer real BTC to his wallet?

I don't know how Mt.Gox arranges it's accounts, but it's possible it came from the mt.gox BTC pool?

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#116

Post by pbhjpbhj »

swah wrote: post #52
cdcarter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. He's complaining about that decision.

He also mentions that no stolen user has reported, and that its hard to believe a single user held that much money.

It seems possible that Mr (or Mrs) Mt. Gox is playing them all big-time and attempted to do something clever, messed up and got found out. Of course if you can change the rules and roll back the game at will then you can do what you like. /cynical

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#117

Post by BoppreH »

dangero wrote: post #97
romland wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it could, again, be stupidity by MtGox: This was a "test account" that had no real user attached to it. After all, if the trade is internal on MtGox, it's just a double in a database. If that is the case, then hell yes, I can see why MtGox would want this rollback.

That's a really good point. Who says that there really was anyone with that many bitcoins in their account? Maybe someone just hacked the database, put 500,000 btc into an account, and then sold them on the market? We know the user database was dumped, so why shouldn't we think that someone edited the account balances too?

It seems the hacker got access of a copy of the database by compromising the machine of an audit.

If this is really the case, he couldn't possibly edit the main database with only that.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#118

Post by moondistance »

nomurrcy wrote: post #85
sunchild wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? There is a perfectly legitimate argument for letting him keep the funds. They were put up for sale, and he bought them. It was MtGox's systems that executed the trade. If the sell order was invalid, it was MtGox's fault, or the seller account holder's, not the buyer's.

I'm not really sure I agree with this. The right to sell something is predicated on owning the item in question. A buyer of stolen goods is unable to take legal ownership, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know the item is stolen. (i.e. I steal a car, and sell it to you, you don't own the car even though you gave me money and you didn't know the car was stolen) It does matter that the coins were not put up for sale by…

Can you point me to the evidence that the coins were not put up for sale by the owner? I did not realize that was established.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#119

Post by jacques_chester »

Tichy wrote: post #106
jacques_chester wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've misread me. You, the thief, are still on the hook for your crime. The buyer, if they really are a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, is not. Your family would probably not meet the test, as this would be the first time they've heard of the Porsches. (IANAL, TINLA)

Yes, what I mean is that if I was 99, I wouldn't care much about being punished for being a thief. I could therefore make a lot of people happy. If not my family, then maybe I could go Robin Hood, steal from the rich and sell cheaply to the poor. I can't imagine that it works that way. I can believe that as a buyer of stolen good without knowing they were stolen, you won't be punished. But you will still have to retu…

> If not my family, then maybe I could go Robin Hood, steal from the rich and sell cheaply to the poor.

Note "for value". If the price is unrealistically cheap, the courts can point out that the buyer should have been suspicious.

> I can't imagine that it works that way. I can believe that as a buyer of stolen good without knowing they were stolen, you won't be punished. But you will still have to return the stuff.

You don't have to return it, it's yours now. The point is that the bona fide purchaser is not a criminal and acted in good faith. If, however, there is the slightest whiff of a hint of a suspicion, those bona fides collapse and title reverts to the original owner.

It is harder to prove bona fides than you might think. Got a great price? Not for value, test fails. Knew the seller? Not bona fides, test fails. Bought it from someone who has no history of selling those items? Possible notice, test fails. And so on.

Look, here's the thing. Lawyers and judges have been working on this system (the common law) for nearly a thousand years. For day-to-day stuff like property, the loopholes are well and truly closed and have been for hundreds of years.

That I was an inadequate law student and now am an inadequate explainer does not change the fact that the common law is pretty damn adequate at providing sensible legal protection for almost all imaginable transactions.

(IANAL, TINLA)

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#120

Post by anigbrowl »

Tichy wrote: post #108
cantbecool wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster does not seem like a malevolent person at all, but he was clever enough to post the $0.0101 bid order before other buyers in line knew what happened, and the commenters on the Bitcoin forum are clearly jealous. Well played, toasty.

He stole 600+ BTC, though. And now he resents giving back the BitCoins that are supposed to be "rolled back". Not so benevolent in my opinion.

No he didn't. He withdrew them as proof of concept. Right now it's not even clear who he should give them back to. Furthermore, unless he caused the selloff there was nothing wrong with putting in his $0.0101 order. I suspect the bitter people on the bitcoin forum are the ones who had $0.01 orders in and assumed that fractional values would be rounded down the the nearest cent. They were hoping to make some easy money from others' misfortune and are angry because they were outwitted.
Post reply on HN