Author Topic: Account 'bter' please return funds  (Read 10627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
I check the deposit instruction in bter.com as the follow picture show. maybe you made a mistake when you transfer bts to bter.com



« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 07:31:18 am by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Adding a blacklist
very dangerous...

maybe a reputation system is better...

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D


Offline mira

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Delegates could really work well for so many things. 

I agree that delegates could work well for many things.  But as soon as we begin talking about something like "insurance delegates" many other questions arise.  Who becomes the arbiter of decisions?  The delegate?  The community?  The largest stakeholders?  How do our answers to that question square with our values around justice, and liberty?

And if our answer has anything to do with resolving it on a forum that resides on a centralized server, then what?  How robust is our solution to the inevitable problems that will arise and grow in number with a growing user base?  How much can be written into code?

What about when someone like educatedwarrior has his account hacked?  Some linux enthusiasts might say that if you're using windows it's fair game.  Who decides? 

And what of the OP?  Is it the responsibility of the one sending to an address to first ensure the accuracy of the address, or is the responsibility with recipient, whether they be a con artist or not?  Or is it the responsibility of the community?

I, at a human/empathic level, would like to see the funds restored to the original sender.  Also, at a human/community level, I think this situation brings up many questions that we should be considering and discussing on a broader scale.

Offline fuzzy

Are we expecting this to happen?  :D

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...?

Delegates could really work well for so many things.  "Insurance" delegates could be used to pool funds to help people who get screwed by any number of issues.  Someone donates, say 10bitUSD to the insurance fund and they get that matched by the delegate up to a certain amount.  Then have a thread on the forums where people can talk about how they got robbed or how they got scammed and any other number of things that lost them money and if the community can prove it is true, they can unlock a portion of the funds for said person. 

I think disabling TITAN is a bad idea.  But I am pretty sure it won't matter what I think on this issue.  TITAN is wonderful and one of the great innovations that BitShares brings to the table.  Why phase something out because it makes something more difficult when we can just learn to have patience and get the tools we are going to have built....and have them built right? 

WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline mira

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Are we expecting this to happen?  :D

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...?



Offline klosure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
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.
^ this.
It's not only a practical necessity but also a question of legal liability: if Al-Qaeda or ISIS creates Bitshares accounts, Bitshares could get into quite some trouble if it keeps suggesting people to send them donations each time they type "al" or "is" in the address box.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
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".

Are we expecting this to happen?  :D


Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
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).

It's user's and the GUI autocomplete fault not the titan.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
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".
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
i would keep autofill but just for accounts which user has apporved and added to favorites!
Yes, +5%

Offline bubble789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
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).

so what is the plan? we will come back to the long-bitcoin address-like address ? : ))

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
I think this might have been one of the "benevolent squatters"

Agreed. I remember way back when people were registering names thinking they could sell them (guilty) someone spoke up after registering bter and said they were or did give money back to someone on the forum. It was someone that was prevalent on the forum (back then), from what I remember.


... we're phasing out TITAN

??? No more "anonymity"?

Offline role

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
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.

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.

Better yet, they could make an account for each user and use that as a 2-factor account along with btercom. So for me to deposit, I would have to send funds to 'btercom' and 'fluxer555'.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
for add a contact account, you must input  both account name and account ID
and you can only transfer money to contact account.
protect at client, both CLI and qt wallet, not at api.