3 ms·

The law clearly is on the side of rolling back the transactions. Just like Amazon.com can refuse to fulfill an order for an 50 inch LCD TV that was accidentally

The law clearly is on the side of rolling back the transactions. Just like Amazon.com can refuse to fulfill an order for an 50 inch LCD TV that was accidentally priced for $1[1], and a bank can withdraw money from your account that was accidentally deposited there[2], and just like the NYSE can nullify mispriced orders[3], its clear Mt Gox can legally do the same. Transactions can be rolled back and are in the real world all the time. It has to be that way, to maintain fairness in the system. Do you think this guy deserves $5 million worth of bitcoins because of the work of a hacker? Uh no. His rationalizations for his behavior are astonishing. Assuming he is not the hacker, he got caught up in the excitement of buying cheap bitcoins (as we all would have), realized after the fact he probably did something wrong, and through contacting Mt Gox and coming out to the community he was hoping to get away with at least some profits. He shouldn't be able to keep any of it. Sorry Kevin. [1] http://www.amazonsellercommunity.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=124006 http://www.amazonsellercommunity.com/forums/thread.jspa?thre... [2] http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/BetterBanking/BankErrorInYourFavorYourProblem.aspx http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/BetterBanking/B... [3] http://www.thestar.com/business/markets/article/806459--regulators-reverse-trades-after-market-meltdown http://www.thestar.com/business/markets/article/806459--regu...

danssig 15y ago
>The law clearly is on the side of rolling back the transactions No it isn't, there's no precedent for this because it hasn't existed before. The nearest thing I can think of is when that fake letter was sent out about some company causing the stock to tank. Did all the people who bought the stock when it was low have their transactions rolled back? Because that's what happened here, someone used highly technical means to cause an artificial price dive and one guy was able to take advantage of it. It's not at all clear to me that he should give any of it back.

danssig 15y ago

>The law clearly is on the side of rolling back the transactions No it isn't, there's no precedent for this because it hasn't existed before. The nearest thing I can think of is when that fake letter was sent out about some company causing the stock to tank. Did all the people who bought the stock when it was low have their transactions rolled back? Because that's what happened here, someone used highly technical means to cause an artificial price dive and one guy was able to take advantage of it. It's not at all clear to me that he should give any of it back.