Quote from: Jaime Frontero on July 01, 2011, 06:16:46 PM

Quote from: YoYa on July 01, 2011, 06:09:50 PM

Quote from: adaman on July 01, 2011, 05:47:33 PM

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline.

Nice hack job.

you're right - nice hack job.

but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually). nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned. it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured. there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc.

nobody's been libeled. nobody's been hurt.

we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned. they can say whatever they like.

Actually, you are completely wrong.

This could very well be slander. Changing a database to say someone has 2million bitcoins versus "creating 2 million via block chain" are COMPLETELY different. If the author did not do his research that is his fault.

Anyone has legal standing to sue. One simply has to prove 1) They were injured 2) Causation. I definitely think it has merit.

It doesn't really matter if BTC is a currency or not. It's property, it has value. If the slander(purposeful or not) lowers the value of our property, that's an injury.

As a recap, they can say whatever they want as long as no one challenges them.

minerX

Posts

Merits