Quote from: bitlane on September 03, 2011, 12:33:14 AM

Quote from: RandyFolds on September 03, 2011, 12:07:55 AM

Quote from: bitlane on September 02, 2011, 11:27:52 PM

Quote from: davout on September 02, 2011, 02:23:02 PM

What goes around, comes around...

Isn't there enough proof to boot this Scammer's Ass out of here for good ?

Does this community really need people who screw over those who strive to make BTC better by atleast offering services ?

Other than scamming 511 BTC, what has Ben Davis done for Bitcoin ?

How many developers will situations like THIS attract to the Bitcoin world ?

Whoa now, there is far from enough information for me to take a side here, but how exactly did he 'scam' the exchange out of these coins? You drop the S-bomb twice without merit. Semantics matter, even if your mtv and justin-bieber fried brain doesn't think so.

Admission of possesion, Awareness of mistake, taunting the Sender and refusal to return them back is not enough proof ?

GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE and perhaps READ THE WHOLE THREAD and familiarize yourself with the entire situation like the rest of us who are commenting here, have taken the time to do - THEN COMMENT ON MY MTV FRIED BRAIN.

I get it....Don't tell me: American Law perhaps ? Judge Judy or The People's Court ? Innocent through submission of guilt Roll Eyes

This whole thing is being hashed out in the newbie section. There is no real information in it. It could very well be an hilarious troll. No one has proved possession or ownership of anything.

I read the thread, and wish I could take it back. A bunch of fucking internet lawyers talking bullshit. I am not participating in that, I am just pointing out that waking up to more money in your bank account is not a scam. This all gets back to the semantics that you don't seem to grasp.

noun 1.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

Quote from: kjj on September 03, 2011, 12:37:15 AM

Quote from: RandyFolds on September 03, 2011, 12:15:59 AM

Also, anyone who thinks that a court will set precedent with this is retarded...in would open the doors for a veritable onslaught of e-currencies that the court system is completely unprepared to tackle. 'I'm gonna sue you for stealing my WoW gold and never delivering my +69 dragoncock sword". It's not gonna happen. One quick google of this clusterfuck and any judge will slap it off his desk as fast as they can.

All the court has to do is continue to recognize the existence of an ownership interest in an intangible property, something they've been doing for literally thousands of years. The only way this could set a precedent is if they decided that the entire history of jurisprudence from the dawn of history until now was wrong.

This case has the potential to silence a bunch of fools on the internet, but is otherwise totally mundane and ordinary.

Give me some precedent for which a value was ascribed to intangible digital goods...don't just claim more bullshit like everyone else on this thread. How is this not akin to a kid suing some other kid for stealing his wow gold? Both have an obscure place on the internet at which they can be exchanged for USD, so they both have this 'value' everyone keeps jerking themselves off over.