Quote from: LitcoinCollector on June 27, 2016, 01:34:16 PM

Quote from: illodin on June 27, 2016, 01:25:41 PM

Quote from: LitcoinCollector on June 27, 2016, 01:21:25 PM

Quote from: illodin on June 27, 2016, 01:15:49 PM

Quote from: LitcoinCollector on June 27, 2016, 01:01:28 PM

Quote from: illodin on June 27, 2016, 11:28:19 AM

Quote from: LitcoinCollector on June 27, 2016, 10:32:34 AM

It is not about CH taking the btc, it's about the solution.
I think Davids solution is certainly a way to correct this. But I don't agree.
Why: because it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account.

Without the solution it's 100% sure many people will get scammed. With the solution there's 0.1%* chance someone will get scammed.
__________
* If we estimate the chance CH didn't sell the seed is 99.9%

Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's impossible for you to be 100% sure there are two wrongs unless you are CH or bought his seed.

Your logic is flawed.

Are you implying giving the stolen tokens to those who paid for them but were scammed is wrong?

No, let me break it down in little pieces for you: Two wrongs:

1. it is impossible for a third party to be 100% sure it is CH's account.
2. 0.1% chance someone ELSE will get scammed (which is a random number you made up, but let's keep this in for the sake of argument)

Hence the saying: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Get it?

No I don't get it. Perhaps you could word it differently and I can try again?