The owner of the account "bter" is a canadians

[davidpbrown]

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.

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.

[toast]

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.

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

[davidpbrown]

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. 

[xeroc]

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

[iamabtsgirl]

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 ?
 

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

[btswildpig]

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 . 

[xeroc]

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

[iamabtsgirl]

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

[mint chocolate chip]

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.

[onceuponatime]

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.

[btswildpig]

including the privacy data?  it is scare

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 . 

[iamabtsgirl]

including the privacy data?  it is in china

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.

[btswildpig]

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 .

[davidpbrown]

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!

[btswildpig]

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 . 

[BTSdac]

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

[onceuponatime]

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.

[btswildpig]

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 .

[iamabtsgirl]

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?

[toast]

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.

[toast]

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

[btswildpig]

agreed with you.

Btw ,if toast can roll back the block-chain record for victim  would be great 

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 .

[iamabtsgirl]

agreed with you.

Btw ,if toast can roll back the block-chain record for victim  would be great 

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.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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.

 

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.

[btswildpig]

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 . ) .

[speedy]

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

[eagleeye]

Out him

[bobmaloney]

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.

[iamabtsgirl]

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

[speedy]

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

[NewMine]

---

toast edit:    Thank you, we know who it is. Please stop posting details until we can make a case.

This is dumb. Fucking out him or leave it be. Social justice will do more than whatever "case" you are building. Which is fucking retarded. You and everyone else have zero legal authority over this. He technically didn't steal shit, since it was willfully sent to him. It would be very easy for him to say he sent a money order or another alt coin for the BTS and the supposed harmed party just wants his altcoin and the BTS back. Making him burn his forum ID's is about all you can do. So just out him if you are sure you know who it is. If he hasn't returned it yet, it's not gonna happen. He is a long time follower and knows you are on to him as all your posts and edits clearly state. He is obviously a member of this forum.

[Empirical1.1]

My concern is this will ultimately be spun badly. We've easily tied an identity to an account that wished to remain private and our devs have assisted in the process because they made a personal judgement that it was justified & because others could have done the same easily.

A win for perceived justice but a defeat for personal privacy is rarely a net gain from a crypto perspective.

To the laymen it's hard to ever promote TITAN as being a bit more private than Bitcoin when detractors can pull this example out of the bag.

From what I've heard from the other Chinese .
1、Victim posted the amount .
2、Chinese remembered the guy bragged about how he bought a lot of BTS these days , and posted a screen grab with it . They go look at it , it's the exact same amount right down to the points .
3、Chinese already know who that guy was before this incident .

Ok good. That sounds like it's fine then.

[btswildpig]

My concern is this will ultimately be spun badly. We've easily tied an identity to an account that wished to remain private and our devs have assisted in the process because they made a personal judgement that it was justified & because others could have done the same easily.

A win for perceived justice but a defeat for personal privacy is rarely a net gain from a crypto perspective.

To the laymen it's hard to ever promote TITAN as being a bit more private than Bitcoin when detractors can pull this example out of the bag.

From what I've heard from the other Chinese .
1、Victim posted the amount .
2、Chinese remembered the guy bragged about how he bought a lot of BTS these days , and posted a screen grab with it . They go look at it , it's the exact same amount right down to the points .
3、Chinese already know who that guy was before this incident .

[Empirical1.1]

My concern is this will ultimately be spun badly. We've easily tied an identity to an account that wished to remain private and our devs have assisted in the process because they made a personal judgement that it was justified & because others could have done the same easily.

A win for perceived justice but a defeat for personal privacy is rarely a net gain from a crypto perspective.

To the laymen it's hard to ever promote TITAN as being a bit more private than Bitcoin when detractors can pull this example out of the bag.

[ticklebiscuit]

It is always the canadians...

[joele]

the picture of two accounts are different totally

I know right,

"btercom" is a stunningly beautiful robohash, while "bter" is an ugly dog-faced tin can.  You'd have to be blind to confuse the two.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/11/Introducing-SafeBot/

or if you are a roboblind 

[BTSdac]

the picture of two accounts are different totally

[toast]

Sooo, if I don't like you and you are not covering carefully, dev can get lots of personal information? I'm not saying anything wrong here? But what's next? Seize his account? Or public his ID?

What? We're just doing the same investigation any user can. Devs don't have extra power.

[BTSdac]

Sooo, if I don't like you and you are not covering carefully, dev can get lots of personal information? I'm not saying anything wrong here? But what's next? Seize his account? Or public his ID?

developer cannot get any personal information ,  the track of him is exposed by himself while chatting with us .

[mitao]

I hate scam, but.... This whole process just make me feel you are trying to play a central bank's role. Should this role even exist in a decentralized system?

not a central bank,
just he (scam) expose his track by chating with us

Got it, thx for explanation.

[mitao]

Sooo, if I don't like you and you are not covering carefully, dev can get lots of personal information? I'm not saying anything wrong here? But what's next? Seize his account? Or public his ID?

[BTSdac]

I hate scam, but.... This whole process just make me feel you are trying to play a central bank's role. Should this role even exist in a decentralized system?

not a central bank,
just he (scam) expose his track by chating with us

[fluxer555]

He's just taking the necessary actions to increase the probability of getting the money back. I see nothing wrong here.

[mitao]

I hate scam, but.... This whole process just make me feel you are trying to play a central bank's role. Should this role even exist in a decentralized system?

[toast]

It's not about collecting evidence, it's about not letting person know what evidence we have.
Should no problem within 12 hours, just give us a bit of time.

[BTSdac]

I think we already have enough evidence.

[JuJiShou]

---

toast edit:    Thank you, we know who it is. Please stop posting details until we can make a case.