Quote from: Spoetnik on July 12, 2014, 02:32:01 AM

Quote from: ebliever on July 11, 2014, 01:32:42 PM

Law enforcement should be involved, but I don't see a need to freeze the account. This isn't like some crime scene where you have to lock down the physical environment while evidence is collected. Bter has a complete record of any transactions and any other details related to the account, so they can return the NXT to the rightful owner without losing any evidence at all. No need to tie it down in judicial bureaucracy for God knows how long.

uhh no..

the thief deserves to keep his coins.. it's a Free Market ..you can't call the police sorry

and how secure is NXT then ?

edit:
The guy running the NXT community funds probably wanted to cash some out... but
the exchange seen it and stopped him and created a forum account to give the coins back lol

The thief lost the right to the coins when he transferred them to someone else's account (BTER). At that point there was a consensual, voluntary relationship between BTER and the thief, one which was entered into by false pretenses (the thief was not known as a thief). It is not a matter of legality but of simple ethics. The only concern might be that an account was "framed" for some reason -- but that's simple, too. Say the account holder notifies BTER with the claim that they are not the thief. Maybe, maybe not. But we know for sure whose coins they are, so send the funds back to Klee, and any preexisting funds should be left to the "maybe-thief".

As long as any preexisting funds in the account aren't withheld, there is no ethical dilemma. BTER is not stealing, they are removing consent from being party to abet an existing theft of property, now that they have proof of the theft.

This is the line in the sand I draw with blacklisting, and anything else, really. Voluntary interaction only. I can have a personal "blacklist" which I call a greylist, since using colors for lists is a thing. It's very short.

But most people in Bitcoin when discussing this train of thought, whether it's called redlisting or blacklisting or whatever, are referring to some sort of mandatory process that becomes an enforced part of Bitcoin or something, which removes the ability to consent from the mix. That , therefore, I cannot support.

Greylisting, my term for personal, voluntary lists -- tbh, I just named it now for this post, I can't lie -- is something everyone already has, anyway. You and you alone choose who you trade and interact with (and they as well), for myriad reasons. Maybe you just don't like their faces. You may be judged for public interactions and trades (or also for not interacting or trading), and treated accordingly. Thus people may greylist you for bad behavior, or prefer you over another otherwise equivalent trade partner for prior behavior they liked. Each individual may then also be judged and greylisted for their public greylists, and so on. Bottom line, it's all voluntary, including the private/public part.

This, as far as I know, is the only ethically- and logically-consistent manner to do such things.