0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Adding a blacklist
Delegates could really work well for so many things.
Quote from: joele on January 22, 2015, 03:59:43 amAre we expecting this to happen? I'm also wondering how this sort of unfortunate issue will be addressed, now and in the future. Particularly, I'm interested in how the NAP (non-aggression principle) or the Golden Principle might be applied in this situation, and even if people think it an appropriate circumstance to do so? What is the best course of action - or what actions are even available in a decentralized network such as bitshares? Social pressure?Shunning?Blacklising of account? (what would this look like in practice?)Community crowdfunding to restore the missing balance?Or...?
Are we expecting this to happen?
How about only having autofill for accounts you have sent money to before? So you have to verify the first time you send funds to an exchange, but then after that you're safe and can trust the autofill.
So far as I know, this is not the first time that someone mistakenly send fund to "bter". Luckily, we have identified the suspected person that owns "bter".
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).
i would keep autofill but just for accounts which user has apporved and added to favorites!
I think this might have been one of the "benevolent squatters"
... we're phasing out TITAN
Quote from: Shentist on January 21, 2015, 09:24:51 pmi 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.
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.
Quote from: derkorb on January 22, 2015, 12:53:59 amBter 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).
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?
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.
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
Quote from: Rune on January 21, 2015, 08:41:33 pmBut 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.
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.
Ouch. I'm in favor of putting a warning next to "bter" account and/or hiding stuff with negative rep from the autofill.
Maybe we could have a bounty to investigate who owns this name. It's likely to be closely linked to whatever the real account name they used unless they tried hard to preserve anonymity.
It's because a reversible transaction is equivalent to a slow normal transaction. At best, bter could make a thing that says "we see your incoming transaction", but then the user is still responsible for noticing the lack of a signal and triggering the reversal. Meanwhile everyone else suffers slow transactions, or we make it optional and then nobody would choose to support it.
I dont get the automatic kneejerk against reversible transactions.
I think this might have been one of the "benevolent squatters", let me dig up that thread and see... don't get your hopes up