Quote from: defxor on September 04, 2011, 12:51:59 AM

Irrelevant.

That was my point, the ATM analogy is irrelevant because they're vastly different in their implementation and uses.

Quote from: defxor on September 04, 2011, 12:51:59 AM

That's why you have to show that there was intent (and consent).

Explain to me then how we're supposed to have automatic transactions then? Do you expect someone running an exchange to click an "I consent" button every trade? No. THAT'S WHAT THE SIGNATURE IS FOR, IT IS YOUR CONSENT

Quote from: defxor on September 04, 2011, 12:51:59 AM

The thief has admitted.

Ok so he admitted it, the point I was getting at is due to the nature of these transactions you cant be 100% sure. Do we KNOW the person who admitting is the person who actually received the 511 BTC?

Quote from: defxor on September 04, 2011, 12:51:59 AM

Technical ability for reversals is of no relevance to the law. "But your honor, is technically impossible for me to return the stolen car!"

Alright fine, let's look at the issue of "intent" in another way, in regards to intersango specifically. I maintain that intersango intended to send 511btc because they set up software to do that very thing and sign the transactions for them.