Account 'bter' please return funds

[lzr1900]

---

toast edit:  please don't reveal until we can make proper case

[JuJiShou]

---

toast edit:  please don't reveal until we can make proper case

[Webber]

i would suggest to make the account with 2 or more names, like a 2 factor authification process. To get 1 wrong is likely, but to get 2 or 3 wrong is nearly impossible.

Good idea!
Exchange can register two-fator account on blockchain,two-fator have unique check code.when we tranfer to two-fator account,we must need check code .and when we transfer to non-two-fator account with checkcode ,transfer should fail.

[robrigo]

Bter just should add a fat warning on their deposit site making you aware of the situation.
Also I'm surprised that it was possible to link that account so fast, did you find it with network analysis? Shouldn't titan make this much harder?

The guy wasn't exactly careful to cover his tracks, also we're phasing out TITAN specifically because of the false sense of security it gives at this point (well also because it makes the thin client much simpler).

My guess: contacted major exchanges, asked about who was receiving funds from "bter" account, associated them with their forum identity based on their exchange account name or email.

[toast]

Bter just should add a fat warning on their deposit site making you aware of the situation.
Also I'm surprised that it was possible to link that account so fast, did you find it with network analysis? Shouldn't titan make this much harder?

The guy wasn't exactly careful to cover his tracks, also we're phasing out TITAN specifically because of the false sense of security it gives at this point (well also because it makes the thin client much simpler).

[drekrob]

Bter just should add a fat warning on their deposit site making you aware of the situation.
Also I'm surprised that it was possible to link that account so fast, did you find it with network analysis? Shouldn't titan make this much harder?

[sudo]

I'm gonna get shot down for this... but this is yet another case where bitshares could benefit from having reversible transactions.

You could set a block target for when the transaction was spendable (like an uncleared balance in a bank), and up to that block the transaction could be reversed by the sender.

+5%

[gyhy]

titian is a bad

[vlight]

bter.com should just stop using 'btercom' for deposits and only provide account key.  They were too late to register 'bter' and now they got to stop confusing their customers or this will soon turn into real chaos :(

well damn, GUI does not support this  ::)

[vlight]

bter.com should just stop using 'btercom' for deposits and only provide account key.  They were too late to register 'bter' and now they got to stop confusing their customers or this will soon turn into real chaos :(

[Rune]

But why would you ever want to do this as a sender? BTER wouldn't give you access to the funds in your account until the transaction became irreversible, so it would be akin to filling out the sending information and then waiting 30 mins before clicking send.

If I were sending $6k to anywhere, I would chose that option by default just for the safety factor.

I see the point of "locking in" the transaction. That's actually quite neat. It wouldn't have to be done through delayed transactions though, you can just have a system that sends a mail to the name of exchange using bitshares mail, and if the exchange receives the mail they can confirm to you that you have the correct name. Ultimately I do think the robohash kind of serves this purpose well enough already though. If you want to confirm that you've typed the correct name, you can look at the robohash that shows up and then go back to the exchange website to check if it indeed is the correct one.

[fuzzy]

Ouch. I'm in favor of putting a warning next to "bter" account and/or hiding stuff with negative rep from the autofill.

I think adding reputation is a good idea, but we should not consider blacklisting. 

We COULD come up with rules along the way and force people to change account names OR have their account closed without access to the funds.  But simply blacklisting something is a dangerous precedent to set.

[Shentist]

i would suggest to make the account with 2 or more names, like a 2 factor authification process. To get 1 wrong is likely, but to get 2 or 3 wrong is nearly impossible.

[monsterer]

But why would you ever want to do this as a sender? BTER wouldn't give you access to the funds in your account until the transaction became irreversible, so it would be akin to filling out the sending information and then waiting 30 mins before clicking send.

If I were sending $6k to anywhere, I would chose that option by default just for the safety factor.

[Ander]

You already found him!?  Wow that was fast, well done.