0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 06:15:27 pmit would be great if Bytemaster or toast can develop some ways to prevent same issue happening again. Can we vote out or block suspect's account?I don't think anything can do on the blockchain level . But the GUI level maybe doable .
it would be great if Bytemaster or toast can develop some ways to prevent same issue happening again. Can we vote out or block suspect's account?
We collected all the info we had (all from public sources not magical deanonymization backdoors) and gave it to the victims to do whatever they want with it. That's all developers should be doing.
agreed with you. Btw ,if toast can roll back the block-chain record for victim would be great Quote from: bobmaloney on January 27, 2015, 05:41:26 pmI'd rather see those who were tricked made whole and the userID burned (I really wish there was some way to re-map the userID's) than learning the thief's real world ID.Restitution and avoiding future occurrences are of higher importance, IMO.
I'd rather see those who were tricked made whole and the userID burned (I really wish there was some way to re-map the userID's) than learning the thief's real world ID.Restitution and avoiding future occurrences are of higher importance, IMO.
I read the source code and found we can use (blockchain_get_transaction 'original open account transaction id') to get " Balance id" information that will show which account pay for opening the account. But still not able to get enough evidence to locate a real offline ppl. what if both suspects account were paid by a same faucet account . Is "bter" an inactive account ?? and also how to prove "bter" is a scammed account. bter was created before btercom was created.... just my 2cent