5 ms·

I see what you're doing, you're being purposefully condescending. You aren't dumb enough to actually believe that something people trade for real dollars has ab

I see what you're doing, you're being purposefully condescending. You aren't dumb enough to actually believe that something people trade for real dollars has absolutely no value. Whether you like it or not, people do use Bitcoins and a value can be assigned the same way a super model's legs can be insured for a value. Deal with it.

nhebb 15y ago
Yes, he's egging the crowd on, but his comment did make me wonder what the legal ramifications of someone stealing bitcoins are. If one of the account holders tried to take Linode to court, do you think a US court would even acknowledge the value of a digital currency?
- bradleyland 15y ago
  Bitcoin's status as a currency may not even be relevant. Your car isn't currency, it's property. If I steal it, I will be charged with theft relative to the value of the car. I can't see how Bitcoins would be treated any differently. They're property, and they can be readily traded at an established value, so I don't see why someone couldn't be charged for stealing them.
  - evgen 15y ago
    They did not "steal" them, they merely made a copy. The original owner still has their sequence of numbers. Snarky perhaps, but every possible argument one can make about why torrenting a video is not theft applies equally to the "theft" of bitcoins.
    - Tossrock 15y ago
      Wrong, actually. Read up on how bitcoin (or cryptocurrency in general) works.
    - bradleyland 15y ago
      I'd love to see that tried in court. I have a feeling that argument won't work very well. I have some limited experience in this area, as I worked for a bankruptcy trustee for a number of years. Debtors tried all manner of convoluted arguments to escape the spirit of the law. Judges have very little patience for that sort of thing. The judge will make a limited effort to understand Bitcoins, but the core question will remain, "what harm was done and who was it done to?" The "owner" of the Bitcoins was, unquestionably, deprived of value. So see it however you wish: Bitcoins as tangible property that was taken, or Bitcoins as tangible property that was irreparably damaged. Either way, the judge will ask the same question. Who was harmed and how? Escaping the conclusion that the attacker's actions are responsible for the loss of value is impossible. You can bet that the State will consider these arguments very carefully if they catch the perp and bring charges against them. From there, it's up to the defense to find a jury so dumb that they'll buy the "Bitcoins aren't property" argument. Regarding the arguments relative to video torrents, I believe this to be an error in logic. If I copy a video from a friend, that friend can continue to derive the original value from the video. That is, the friend can continue to watch the video and enjoy it. The act is different in that the original holder of the Bitcoins can no longer use them once they have been "copied" (to use your terms).
    - rmc 15y ago
      In this case the original numbers are totally worthless since they were transfered to someone else. The original owner has been completly deprived of the property.
- IamfP 15y ago
  I hope they take Linode to court, because it'd be funny to watch them lose actual money as they tried to sue over something where Linode has no responsibility at all. They were incredibly stupid to leave their money sitting on Linode, and they got what they deserved. Sorry, idiotic bitcoin speculators, you got pwnt. And there's nothing that anybody is ever going to do to help you.
- DanBC 15y ago
  China doesn't acknowledge virtual theft, which caused some problems here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm) But a later case said that virtual property should be protected by law: (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_11427265.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_1142726...) Dutch authorities arrested someone for virtual theft: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm) Here's another Dutch case, involving real world violence, which went to their supreme court: (http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides-virtual-theft-case/ http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides...) That last one mentions US case about domain names. I'd be really interested to hear from previous US court cases, or from lawyers, about this.
  - rmc 15y ago
    A lot of companies that deal in 'virtual goods', e.g. World of Warcraft, don't like the idea that the bits are property, because then it's hard for them to take the bits away from people (say for cheating), or if they want to shut down the servers etc.
- gizzlon 15y ago
  A guy once hacked the SecondLife auction system and they closed his account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab I don't recall the details, but I think there was another case (in a Starwars MMO?) where the hacker "got a way with it" and build a house for the money. His buzzer plays the games theme-music :)
Steko 15y ago
"I see what you're doing, you're being purposefully condescending." I'm pointing out the obvious. X bitcoins could be "worth" 5 cents or 500,000 in a matter of hours. Bitcoins were stolen not dollars therefore an accurate headline would say how many bitcoins were stolen and possibly the USD (or whatever) value parenthetically. "You aren't dumb enough" Stay classy. "to actually believe that something people trade for real dollars has absolutely no value." I never said it had no value. Baseball cards have value, no one pretends they are a currency and if anyone did people would rightly point out the many disadvantages like your baseball cards don't get the advantages of a real bank.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  It is common editorial practice to express facts in a way that readers can easily understand. Imagine a US paper runs a story about a Japanese theft where 1,000,000 YEN are stolen. Let's assume I don't follow world currency markets, so I have no idea what the YEN:USD rate is. I might assume some level of equivalency and walk away with the impression that somewhere around a million USD were stolen. That would be inaccurate. The responsible editorial decision is to provide the reader some accessible basis for understanding the facts. The reason you're being called out for condescension/trolling is because the point you're making is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Is Bitcoin a real/valid currency? It doesn't matter in the context of this theft. What's relevant is the value of those Bitcoins at the time they were stolen. That's how matters of theft are assessed. Criminal charges are levied based on the value of the items stolen. Another thing to consider is the thoughtlessness of discussing the relative merits of Bitcoin as a currency when someone just lost a couple hundred thousand dollars. Someone's life is sucking really hard right now, and pedantry is a great way to put people off. This just seems like a really inappropriate time and place to have that discussion.
- white_devil 15y ago
  > I'm pointing out the obvious. X bitcoins could be "worth" 5 cents or 500,000 in a matter of hours. So could your US Dollars. A fiat currency only has value as long as other people are willing to accept it as payment for various goods and services. That willingness is based on the belief that they, in turn, will be able to exchange the currency for other goods and services at a later time. The same principle applies to bitcoins. But a cryptographic currency like bitcoin has advantages that USDs don't. For example that massive amounts of bitcoins can't just be whipped up "out of thin air" like paper money can.

nhebb 15y ago

Yes, he's egging the crowd on, but his comment did make me wonder what the legal ramifications of someone stealing bitcoins are. If one of the account holders tried to take Linode to court, do you think a US court would even acknowledge the value of a digital currency?

bradleyland 15y ago
Bitcoin's status as a currency may not even be relevant. Your car isn't currency, it's property. If I steal it, I will be charged with theft relative to the value of the car. I can't see how Bitcoins would be treated any differently. They're property, and they can be readily traded at an established value, so I don't see why someone couldn't be charged for stealing them.
- evgen 15y ago
  They did not "steal" them, they merely made a copy. The original owner still has their sequence of numbers. Snarky perhaps, but every possible argument one can make about why torrenting a video is not theft applies equally to the "theft" of bitcoins.
  - Tossrock 15y ago
    Wrong, actually. Read up on how bitcoin (or cryptocurrency in general) works.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    I'd love to see that tried in court. I have a feeling that argument won't work very well. I have some limited experience in this area, as I worked for a bankruptcy trustee for a number of years. Debtors tried all manner of convoluted arguments to escape the spirit of the law. Judges have very little patience for that sort of thing. The judge will make a limited effort to understand Bitcoins, but the core question will remain, "what harm was done and who was it done to?" The "owner" of the Bitcoins was, unquestionably, deprived of value. So see it however you wish: Bitcoins as tangible property that was taken, or Bitcoins as tangible property that was irreparably damaged. Either way, the judge will ask the same question. Who was harmed and how? Escaping the conclusion that the attacker's actions are responsible for the loss of value is impossible. You can bet that the State will consider these arguments very carefully if they catch the perp and bring charges against them. From there, it's up to the defense to find a jury so dumb that they'll buy the "Bitcoins aren't property" argument. Regarding the arguments relative to video torrents, I believe this to be an error in logic. If I copy a video from a friend, that friend can continue to derive the original value from the video. That is, the friend can continue to watch the video and enjoy it. The act is different in that the original holder of the Bitcoins can no longer use them once they have been "copied" (to use your terms).
  - rmc 15y ago
    In this case the original numbers are totally worthless since they were transfered to someone else. The original owner has been completly deprived of the property.
IamfP 15y ago
I hope they take Linode to court, because it'd be funny to watch them lose actual money as they tried to sue over something where Linode has no responsibility at all. They were incredibly stupid to leave their money sitting on Linode, and they got what they deserved. Sorry, idiotic bitcoin speculators, you got pwnt. And there's nothing that anybody is ever going to do to help you.
DanBC 15y ago
China doesn't acknowledge virtual theft, which caused some problems here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4072704.stm) But a later case said that virtual property should be protected by law: (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_11427265.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/24/content_1142726...) Dutch authorities arrested someone for virtual theft: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7094764.stm) Here's another Dutch case, involving real world violence, which went to their supreme court: (http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides-virtual-theft-case/ http://madisonian.net/2012/02/01/dutch-supreme-court-decides...) That last one mentions US case about domain names. I'd be really interested to hear from previous US court cases, or from lawyers, about this.
- rmc 15y ago
  A lot of companies that deal in 'virtual goods', e.g. World of Warcraft, don't like the idea that the bits are property, because then it's hard for them to take the bits away from people (say for cheating), or if they want to shut down the servers etc.
gizzlon 15y ago
A guy once hacked the SecondLife auction system and they closed his account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab I don't recall the details, but I think there was another case (in a Starwars MMO?) where the hacker "got a way with it" and build a house for the money. His buzzer plays the games theme-music :)

Steko 15y ago

"I see what you're doing, you're being purposefully condescending." I'm pointing out the obvious. X bitcoins could be "worth" 5 cents or 500,000 in a matter of hours. Bitcoins were stolen not dollars therefore an accurate headline would say how many bitcoins were stolen and possibly the USD (or whatever) value parenthetically. "You aren't dumb enough" Stay classy. "to actually believe that something people trade for real dollars has absolutely no value." I never said it had no value. Baseball cards have value, no one pretends they are a currency and if anyone did people would rightly point out the many disadvantages like your baseball cards don't get the advantages of a real bank.

bradleyland 15y ago
It is common editorial practice to express facts in a way that readers can easily understand. Imagine a US paper runs a story about a Japanese theft where 1,000,000 YEN are stolen. Let's assume I don't follow world currency markets, so I have no idea what the YEN:USD rate is. I might assume some level of equivalency and walk away with the impression that somewhere around a million USD were stolen. That would be inaccurate. The responsible editorial decision is to provide the reader some accessible basis for understanding the facts. The reason you're being called out for condescension/trolling is because the point you're making is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Is Bitcoin a real/valid currency? It doesn't matter in the context of this theft. What's relevant is the value of those Bitcoins at the time they were stolen. That's how matters of theft are assessed. Criminal charges are levied based on the value of the items stolen. Another thing to consider is the thoughtlessness of discussing the relative merits of Bitcoin as a currency when someone just lost a couple hundred thousand dollars. Someone's life is sucking really hard right now, and pedantry is a great way to put people off. This just seems like a really inappropriate time and place to have that discussion.
white_devil 15y ago
> I'm pointing out the obvious. X bitcoins could be "worth" 5 cents or 500,000 in a matter of hours. So could your US Dollars. A fiat currency only has value as long as other people are willing to accept it as payment for various goods and services. That willingness is based on the belief that they, in turn, will be able to exchange the currency for other goods and services at a later time. The same principle applies to bitcoins. But a cryptographic currency like bitcoin has advantages that USDs don't. For example that massive amounts of bitcoins can't just be whipped up "out of thin air" like paper money can.