Quote from: btswildpig on January 27, 2015, 06:16:20 PM

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 06:15:27 PM
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?

I don't think anything can do on the blockchain level . But the GUI level maybe doable .

Recommended blacklist each end user dicide to if use

Quote from: toast on January 27, 2015, 06:14:43 PM
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.

I didn't get this information.

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 06:15:27 PM
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?

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.

Rolling back the blockchain wtf? I can't do that

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 05:59:24 PM
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 PM
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.

That's a bad idea since blockchain is not suppose to be modified .

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 PM
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.

Quote from: bobmaloney on January 27, 2015, 05:41:26 PM
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.

+5%

All other solutions other than this ultimately do nothing for the victims.. which is why financial crimes are so attractive.. no matter what the outcome it never seems to be about giving the money back unfortunately.

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 05:37:47 PM
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

Some Chinese reported to me that some guy posted a picture containing the exact amount of number the victim transferred . And the photo they provided has timestamp around the time when the victim sent out the transaction . After he received the fund , he made several transaction out , so there is no dispute that this guy know exactly that money came from bter account .

(he even intentionally block the field on the photo where the sender's and receiver's name should be displayed . And he told the Chinese guys that he just bought it days ago . ) .

By burning his userID, do you mean change the source code to disable sending coins to him?

Out him

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

I agree with Newmine, what you gonna do when you made a "case" anyway?