Quote from: toast on January 27, 2015, 08:46:13 PM

QuoteObviously, most of us would feel obliged to return the funds but this isn't paypal. I'm not sure the idea of reversible payments; or chains that can action rollbacks; or devs that can behave unilaterally, are in the wider interests.

None of these were suggested, let's fight back against these kinds of ideas

There had been talk of all those recently.. which is why I noted them. The limits of what is possible need to be clear to everyone.. especially new users; and what can be done to make the software foolproof and capable of avoiding simple errors, need to be considered.

QuoteObviously, most of us would feel obliged to return the funds but this isn't paypal. I'm not sure the idea of reversible payments; or chains that can action rollbacks; or devs that can behave unilaterally, are in the wider interests.

None of these were suggested, let's fight back against these kinds of ideas

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 27, 2015, 06:56:45 PM

Quote from: davidpbrown on January 27, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
Whoever owns that bter account should not be expected to return funds; if they do, it's charity. Welcome to the world of Blockchains!

Are you of the opinion that the owner of account "bter" did not register that account and permutations of it solely in order to deceptively take advantage of others' carelessness?

If YOU found a wallet at a restaurant table left by the previous occupant, would you not feel a moral obligation to return the contents?

There is a scam where a card reader is overlaid on an ATM to harvest the account info of the next ATM's users. Is the action of the "bter" account registrant not the moral equivalent?

You need to get off your high horse.

You need not to fall at the first hurdle!.. It's a simple test of what is acceptable. If the reality of what blockchains are is a problem, then what?

Obviously, most of us would feel obliged to return the funds but this isn't paypal. I'm not sure the idea of reversible payments; or chains that can action rollbacks; or devs that can behave unilaterally, are in the wider interests.

I'm not suggesting it's not a big deal for that user, what I'm suggesting is that it's a good test of what is acceptable.. we need to be careful what we wish for.  8)

not a chance to do this now .. it requires a hardfork .. the transaction type is not available yet .. not sure if it will be available pre 1.0 .. but we had plenty discussions and I am sure it will be available eventually

how can I revoke them? I am getting nervous now. I can't even find the wallet for my bitpay like accounts .

can i revoke them from other account ?

Quote from: xeroc on January 27, 2015, 07:27:58 PM

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 07:25:44 PM
Dev team need to find a way to allow user to remove obsolete account. I remember i registered accounts close to bitpay and ebay like but not able to find them since my hard drive failed last month

you will be able to "revoke" them .. not remove them

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 07:25:44 PM
wow......

i have about 100 accounts. most of them are in my old laptop and some of them may not be able to find wallet files. I may be in trouble if my friend or someone try to set me up by sending some bts  to my inactive account.

Dev team need to find a way to allow user to remove obsolete account. I remember i registered accounts close to bitpay and ebay like but not able to find them since my hard drive failed last month

It can't be an inactive account since I saw the photo the Chinese provided , the guy just bragged about it online with the specific amount hours before the victim posted his thread . It's certainly a recent one . 

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 07:25:44 PM
Dev team need to find a way to allow user to remove obsolete account. I remember i registered accounts close to bitpay and ebay like but not able to find them since my hard drive failed last month

you will be able to "revoke" them .. not remove them

wow......

i have about 100 accounts. most of them are in my old laptop and some of them may not be able to find wallet files. I may be in trouble if my friend or someone try to set me up by sending some bts  to my inactive account.

Dev team need to find a way to allow user to remove obsolete account. I remember i registered accounts close to bitpay and ebay like but not able to find them since my hard drive failed last month

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 27, 2015, 06:56:45 PM

Quote from: davidpbrown on January 27, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
Consistency is fundamental. Talk of rollback and burning accounts is ridiculous; such an action would make any devs look irresponsible; such a request is either naive or trolling.

With power comes responsibility.. it's the user's responsibility to send their money to the right account; auto-matching or not it was an error by the user. Ideally the matching would be only be relative accounts already in the users whitelist history - those they've used before and confirmed as being ones they want to send to - with an option to remove them too. On first pass, on first use of a new sendto account, it should be difficult; not easy, to make an error but still the error in this case was the user's. Whoever owns that bter account should not be expected to return funds; if they do, it's charity. Welcome to the world of Blockchains!

Are you of the opinion that the owner of account "bter" did not register that account and permutations of it solely in order to deceptively take advantage of others' carelessness?

If YOU found a wallet at a restaurant table left by the previous occupant, would you not feel a moral obligation to return the contents?

There is a scam where a card reader is overlaid on an ATM to harvest the account info of the next ATM's users. Is the action of the "bter" account registrant not the moral equivalent?

You need to get off your high horse.

My brother-in-law's 635,703 BTS is a matter of theft by definition.

Theft Act 1968 s.1
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it.

Quote from: davidpbrown on January 27, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
Consistency is fundamental. Talk of rollback and burning accounts is ridiculous; such an action would make any devs look irresponsible; such a request is either naive or trolling.

With power comes responsibility.. it's the user's responsibility to send their money to the right account; auto-matching or not it was an error by the user. Ideally the matching would be only be relative accounts already in the users whitelist history - those they've used before and confirmed as being ones they want to send to - with an option to remove them too. On first pass, on first use of a new sendto account, it should be difficult; not easy, to make an error but still the error in this case was the user's. Whoever owns that bter account should not be expected to return funds; if they do, it's charity. Welcome to the world of Blockchains!

Are you of the opinion that the owner of account "bter" did not register that account and permutations of it solely in order to deceptively take advantage of others' carelessness?

If YOU found a wallet at a restaurant table left by the previous occupant, would you not feel a moral obligation to return the contents?

There is a scam where a card reader is overlaid on an ATM to harvest the account info of the next ATM's users. Is the action of the "bter" account registrant not the moral equivalent?

You need to get off your high horse.

Quote from: iamabtsgirl on January 27, 2015, 06:43:27 PM
including the privacy data?  it is scare :P 8)

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 27, 2015, 06:19:33 PM

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.

I asked the guy who provide me with this info days ago , and he proved to me that it's all public information . 

including the privacy data?  it is in china :P 8)

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 27, 2015, 06:19:33 PM

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: davidpbrown on January 27, 2015, 06:23:27 PM
Consistency is fundamental. Talk of rollback and burning accounts is ridiculous; such an action would make any devs look irresponsible; such a request is either naive or trolling.

With power comes responsibility.. it's the user's responsibility to send their money to the right account; auto-matching or not it was an error by the user. Ideally the matching would be only be relative accounts already in the users whitelist history - those they've used before and confirmed as being ones they want to send to - with an option to remove them too. On first pass, on first use of a new sendto account, it should be difficult; not easy, to make an error but still the error in this case was the user's. Whoever owns that bter account should not be expected to return funds; if they do, it's charity. Welcome to the world of Blockchains!

If I understand correctly , 60K BTS in the US is a pretty big deal , and if someone did that to me , no matter the law can or can not do to him , I would want to destroy his life with anything legal or illegal .

So I hope that person can come to his sense an just return it , until it's too late .

Consistency is fundamental. Talk of rollback and burning accounts is ridiculous; such an action would make any devs look irresponsible; such a request is either naive or trolling.

With power comes responsibility.. it's the user's responsibility to send their money to the right account; auto-matching or not it was an error by the user. Ideally the matching would be only be relative accounts already in the users whitelist history - those they've used before and confirmed as being ones they want to send to - with an option to remove them too. On first pass, on first use of a new sendto account, it should be difficult; not easy, to make an error but still the error in this case was the user's. Whoever owns that bter account should not be expected to return funds; if they do, it's charity. Welcome to the world of Blockchains!

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 27, 2015, 06:19:33 PM

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.

Oh , you're the former victim previous to this one . The guy who knows his info is not online at the moment , I'll ask him tomorrow .