Author Topic: BlockPay in Serious Trouble  (Read 46790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@karnal/bitshares-at-the-crossroads

edit: wow, one single downvote from https://steemd.com/@tombstone and the whole post gets relegated to obscurity .. fantastic.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 07:58:12 pm by karnal »

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
@Chris4210, looking forward to your feedback concerning the latest posts in this thread.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
@pc in the forum actually said it's not good to make this public.

I think what I said is that *for the parties involved* saying things publicly may be dangerous, because it can harm their position in court.

I also think that taking sides without knowing the whole truth is unwise.

Any idea which judicial system this whole thing is supposed to play out in?

Quote
BitShares Munich IVS
Registered in Kingdom of Denmark
Company registration no.: CVR-NR 37 62 63 76
attn: Vintervej 119, 1.1., Hasle, 8210 Aarhus V. , Denmark

Chris in Ken live in Germany, so I'm not sure where exactly the drama is to be or not to be, that is the question.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline JoeyD

Stealth is hugely important and without it no crypto currency has any hopeof being useable except for big extremely powerful entities, and we'll be right back in the same hellhole we are in now. Without anonymity and privacy I honestly believe that cryptocurrencies will be a giant catastrophe. Who goes around the street flashing how much cash he has on his person, or worse who goes around flashing his entire live savings? Doing that on just about any place on the planet will all but insure a very exciting life, albeit a very short one. Worse yet, we might just end up empowering the same powers that are turning things to shit right now.

The IP thing though is very important. I've seen a couple of opensource and openlicensed projects die or suffer massive delays because of software needing to be rewritten from scratch, because of a disgruntled dev claiming their IP.  The software license thing is a cesspool and especially the opensource licenses need extra help, because even after all this time opensource and public domain still does not have the same legal track record as single ownership. The law seems to be mostly focused on individuals and public good and public domain don't immediatly seem to fit into an egocentric mindset.

Btw, convincing an uneducated jury is not a thing in most of Europe, because as far as I know the judicial theater system with popularity poll is more a thing in England and the US. The English always loved their theater. Not that the system can't be played, but they are more bound by the rules of law instead of spur of the moment sentiment. Any idea which judicial system this whole thing is supposed to play out in?

So in short, yes stealth is massively important. Way waaaaay beyond any short term gains. Hell what gains do you think you'll be able to keep without it? Even in the best case scenario and you make it big, then you should also realize that you've just painted a giant target on yourself.

EDIT
Oops, almost forgot. I also do agree that the stealth feature needs to be properly scrutinized by smarter people than me. It has to be useable no strings attached and not in the control of any single entity.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2017, 10:54:39 am by JoeyD »

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Quote from: chris4210
Without these IP transfer documents, the code is still owned by the original developers and cannot be sold by the company.

Sold to whom?
In this term sold means to commercialize. In general, a company itself needs to own the IP so that it can commercialize and market the software it developed. Also in the case of granting any license to the public, one has to own the IP first.

In our case of BitShares Munich, we have different options how we can use the software we developed.
* Sharing the source code of the mobile wallet with an MIT x11 licence for free
* Selling white label versions of the mobile wallet to clients
* Selling a privatized and modified version of the mobile wallet to clients
* Integrate the source code of the mobile wallet into an existing app and add value to their user base
* Plus many more options

All those potential revenue streams are not possible without the company owning the IP.  Hope I explained it good enough in the examples given above.

Thanks for replying chris, here are my views on your statements:

When we all decided to fund STEALTH development, I don't think anyone had in mind that the resulting code would become a product to sell (and I understand you meant "sell" metaphorically as well as literally here, yeah?).

I think I speak for the majority of the community here when I say we chose to fund this work because it is a fundamental feature that is lacking in the platform.

Frankly speaking, I don't think Bitshares Munich should be salivating to capitalize on earning revenue from (literally) selling this feature - this, to me, is losing track of the original goal: improving the Bitshares platform, so that we ALL benefit.

And so that we carve a nice ever-expanding niche for ourselves in the space, and bring more value to the world.


Perhaps you guys don't have the same opinion I've always expressed about the dire necessity of adding some privacy to the chain, because otherwise it follows that you're willfully delaying implementing what will, at least in my mind, without a doubt be the major game changer in Bitshares.

I've asked around and 9 out of 10 old-school crypto users (that would be our target audience that we've managed to ignore for the better part of 2 years now) just are NOT comfortable with stashing their hundreds of thousands of USD in Bitshares, in small part because of the possibility of a black swan event, but mostly because it would be there for all to see and they are not comfortable with that.

It doesn't have to mean they're doing some shady or illegal to think like this, for instance, I'm about to go take a real nice shit (morning coffee, eh?), I'm doing nothing wrong, but also, I'd like my privacy.

We don't take privacy seriously enough around here. And it's costing us. Big time.

Chris, Ken, sort this out .. think of the bigger picture. We'll all benefit.

Offline Thom

Quote
n a mumble several weeks ago chris4210 claimed kencode did not have an agreement with his devs concerning the ownership of the IP their code represents. That was a serious allegation, and one I found difficult to believe as kencode has been a businessman who managed open source software projects in the past. Ken personally assured me he DOES have such agreements in place. The fact that kencode has control of the code repository of that IP which chris has been trying to obtain is strong evidence (not proof) of that.

This is the key issue. He said / she said. Get this on the table in public. I'm not just talking to you chris4210 but also kencode. Ken needs to step forward to show his developer agreement. Even a boiler plate agreement provides IP protection, so your allegation seems quite uncalled for. IMO the actions ken has taken are defensive in nature and triggered by your "bad faith" behaviors. Lawyers speculation that a loophole can be found. A phishing expedition looking for a weakness. Your very allegation might actually stimulate the devs to think, "Hmmm... maybe I could have a case here" when it never would have occurred to them otherwise. And would they have the resources to pursue it anyways.

Perhaps I am being misinformed. Only ken can answer that for certain. I do not believe he is deceiving me. I don't believe he is withholding key evidence. I don't know for certain. What I do know is you are not acting in an honorable way. If it turns out ken's agreements are not in place to protect the IP, that's on him and he will have to answer for that. Aggression is not the way to do so. But like I said, it would be more surprising if that were the case knowing his history of software management. It was a bold claim for you to make that the IP is not safely in the control of BitShares Munich. Well, maybe not so bold for an attorney's viewpoint.

Now it is typical of attorneys to  find loopholes in words. I've been told by several attorneys there is rarely a contract that can't be nullified or escaped with the right approach. We owe that to a corrupt legal system. Court rooms are not about finding truth or justice they're about persuading an ignorant jury or who has the most influence with the judge.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this takeover were orchestrated with this corrupt legal system in mind, as you have a strategic advantage there.

As for the need for thorough testing, of course, I completely agree. All of the technical issues you raise must be addressed. That is also true of the existing graphene codebase. Nobody has done a thorough and qualified security audit on the base system stealth is to be added to. It makes a lot of sense to do that after functional testing of the additions are complete. It needs to be done, clearly. It needed to be done before but no priority has been given to do so.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
Quote from: chris4210
Without these IP transfer documents, the code is still owned by the original developers and cannot be sold by the company.

Sold to whom?
In this term sold means to commercialize. In general, a company itself needs to own the IP so that it can commercialize and market the software it developed. Also in the case of granting any license to the public, one has to own the IP first.

In our case of BitShares Munich, we have different options how we can use the software we developed.
* Sharing the source code of the mobile wallet with an MIT x11 licence for free
* Selling white label versions of the mobile wallet to clients
* Selling a privatized and modified version of the mobile wallet to clients
* Integrate the source code of the mobile wallet into an existing app and add value to their user base
* Plus many more options

All those potential revenue streams are not possible without the company owning the IP.  Hope I explained it good enough in the examples given above.
Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Stealth is a very sensitive technical feature for the BitShares Platform and is also highly debated. One the one side Stealth can be used to protect the privacy of the users, on the other end it can be used for illegal and criminal activities.RED FLAG Both sides have to be considered and evaluated while developing this feature.

I don't think it is highly debated at all.

....

In the crypto space, only the monero team got this right. Privacy in transactions has to exist, and it has to be on by default.

Anything else is not "crypto" at all, and more to the point, continues to facilitate the kind of systems that are eroding so many of our rights away.

More surveillance is not the answer, and transparent blockchains allow for perfect surveillance.
+5% @karnal

Where is it debated?
Among the shareholders of BitShares?
...or among circles of people who aren't stakeholding, vote giving, investment funding bitShareholders?

Who is paying for implementing stealth?

Can the holders of BitShares Munich vote on who is the CEO?
I would highly value the ownership of Munich stake if such a shareholder vote was possible

How much would the Munich share price pump if the general BitShares community wanted to vote to change CEO of BitShares Munich, and thus there was large demand for stake?





I think the solution here is obvious... Time to remove Chris from the equation and redistribute a new blockpay token without Chris.  Ken can do this by creating a new token... Whatever value blockpay had has been destroyed by Chris for what seems no good reason.

I would trust ken, the man who I bought the OPENPOS token from and has shown me real results, over some scammer kid who's Daddy is a lawyer

Are you suggesting to screw over all BLOCKPAY holders? Or are you talking about some kind of sharedrop minus Chris? If that's the case, watch Chris' account for any movement... Can anyone else smell the karmic irony?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 09:17:40 pm by Permie »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
I think private/stealth transactions are heavily discussed, maybe not in this community, but in blockchain in general. When I spoke to merchants, banks, and SME they were very interested in keeping their financial transaction history private. On the other side, all transactions are documented on a blockchain forever and are full publicly visible for everyone because we all love transparency. Especially government and the public sector financial transactions should be more transparent in my point of view.

I agree with you on the government being more transparent, the big difference when compared to private companies and individuals is the tremendous difference in power between the government and these.

Making the government more transparent empowers us the people and lets the government know that obvious corruption will not be tolerated - the power balance gets a bit more balanced.

Forcing private companies and individuals to have total lack of privacy in their financial affairs, on the other hand, further shifts this balance of power in the direction of the government. This, I believe, must be resisted.


Quote from: Chris4210
In my personal opinion, the bitshares stealth feature should be developed in such a way that it gives individuals the protection they seek for a reasonable small price. On the other side the transaction type "stealth" should be too expensive or "unattractive" for criminal activities so that they look for easier alternatives. In this way, we could keep the balance between the two sides.

I'm in complete disagreement - here's my reasoning.

Criminals (and let's use the term here to mean not just someone who is breaking the law, but someone who is being immoral/evil, or in other words, not committing a victim-less crime) become criminals because they are attracted to the high rewards from this high risk (imprisonment, bodily injury) activity. It won't be a few more cents or even a few dollars that will stop them.

Day to day people, on the other hand, would suffer from absurd fees for transferring value privately with such a fee structure: and this would hit the poorest people (think people who don't live in 1st world countries) disproportionately.

Whether it be sending my buddy 2k, or paying for a coffee, I want my transactions to be private.
Any other way, the system is leaking a lot of data, and it can't be said to be private at all. All stealth transactions automatically become targets of much higher attention if most transactions are not private.

This, I believe, is not the right path.

Quote from: Chris4210
I want to avoid that the BitShares Platform and our company BitShares Munich is getting into any legal troubles for providing criminals a platform.

You or Bitshares Munich can't be held responsible for criminals using Bitshares.

Criminals use encryption all day long, no cryptographic researchers or open source developers have to answer for that.

The technology itself is neutral. If we begin tailoring it to only cater to the "good" guys, what ends up happening is that it ends up being no good for bad and good guys alike.

The bad guys, however, will find somewhere else.
The good guys stay, and have their privacy compromised.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 09:01:19 pm by karnal »

Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210
I think private/stealth transactions are heavily discussed, maybe not in this community, but in blockchain in general. When I spoke to merchants, banks, and SME they were very interested in keeping their financial transaction history private. On the other side, all transactions are documented on a blockchain forever and are full publicly visible for everyone because we all love transparency. Especially government and the public sector financial transactions should be more transparent in my point of view.

In my personal opinion, the bitshares stealth feature should be developed in such a way that it gives individuals the protection they seek for a reasonable small price. On the other side the transaction type "stealth" should be too expensive or "unattractive" for criminal activities so that they look for easier alternatives. In this way, we could keep the balance between the two sides. I want to avoid that the BitShares Platform and our company BitShares Munich is getting into any legal troubles for providing criminals a platform.

Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Quote from: chris4210
Without these IP transfer documents, the code is still owned by the original developers and cannot be sold by the company.

Sold to whom?

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Stealth is a very sensitive technical feature for the BitShares Platform and is also highly debated. One the one side Stealth can be used to protect the privacy of the users, on the other end it can be used for illegal and criminal activities. Both sides have to be considered and evaluated while developing this feature.

I don't think it is highly debated at all.

This is akin to saying that encryption can be used for illegal and criminal activities, ditto for language, ditto for the internet, and so on.

These would all be true, however, what is the alternative? A world where certain governments have privileged backdoor access ?

I believe we have enough evidence by now (not that it wasn't clear even 15 years ago, but by now it is irrefutable) to know what some have known all along: you cannot trust anyone with that kind of power.

And even if you could, then we would be left with the question of what happens when the privileged few are hacked, and this privileged access is made more broadly accessible.

Even the CIA and the NSA can and have been hacked, I don't see much room for debate here. Backdoor access to cryptographic systems has always been and will always remain a stupendously bad idea.


Thus it is a good thing that the encryption works, in spite of unsavory characters leveraging this same technology to conduct their unsavory business.

There are other ways to catch fish without massive dragnet surveillance, that is a bad habit that is relatively recent (indeed, the technology that makes it possible is itself recent, which only speaks to the nature of the person who feels the desire to control and subject everyone else -- as soon as the technology became available, such systems began spreading like wildfire)


In the crypto space, only the monero team got this right. Privacy in transactions has to exist, and it has to be on by default.

Anything else is not "crypto" at all, and more to the point, continues to facilitate the kind of systems that are eroding so many of our rights away.

More surveillance is not the answer, and transparent blockchains allow for perfect surveillance.

Offline Chris4210

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Keep Building!
    • View Profile
    • www.payger.com
  • BitShares: chris4210

Why are shareholders being left in the dark? THAT is a VERY important question. I totally agree, they shouldn't be. In a mumble several weeks ago chris4210 claimed kencode did not have an agreement with his devs concerning the ownership of the IP their code represents. That was a serious allegation, and one I found difficult to believe as kencode has been a businessman who managed open source software projects in the past. Ken personally assured me he DOES have such agreements in place. The fact that kencode has control of the code repository of that IP which chris has been trying to obtain is strong evidence (not proof) of that.
Until so far no development agreements and IP transfer agreement have been presented by Ken that documents that BitShares Munich IVS is de facto the legal holder of the Software IP it paid for with investor funds. Without these IP transfer documents, the code is still owned by the original developers and cannot be sold by the company. At the moment Ken´s private Github page is granting a MIT x11 license for code that is still owned by the developers, not by the company. More details on that issue in the upcoming report.

Ken had a broken mic (this is not a new problem for ken. It's just not a priority to spend money or time to fix) but assured everyone present via the mumble chat those devs have NOT been paid. I don't know about you but I put far more credibility in an affirmative answer directly from the dev's manager than a "No comment" from the accounting department (i.e. chris4210). In addition chris4210 has not accounted for the 50% pay that was agreed to by BitShares Munich to supplement the worker proposal. Has he kept that for himself? Why has he not paid that which he agreed to pay? That represents a violation of the worker proposal chris4210 published before it was approved to sweeten the deal to shareholders.

There has been no violation of the worker proposal so far. Alfredo´s worker proposal is still actively running and managed by BitShares Munich. Payments for Alfredo are regularly done and he will get paid what has been announced in the worker proposal to the community. We all learned our lesson with the BitShares worker system. The worker is ending July 24th 2017. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23698.0.html


Lastly I will comment on an aspect of kencode's management style I am not a big fan of, that being disclosure of specifications and design documents. The issue of specs was mentioned in today's mumble as well. This is also an area that xeroc has raised concern over. Ken & I have also had differences over his lack of disclosure concerning the roadmap to completion you may have read here in the forum, however I admit I am not in ken's shoes so I am willing to let him manage the project in his own competent manor. Doesn't mean I'm letting him off the hook, I am just giving him more time.

It's very important to note that I have raised similar concerns with the PeerPlays project about disclosure of witness duties, those related to reporting event results. @Taconator has hit the nail on the head in his steemit article to describe what is involved in that aspect of a peerplays witness responsibilities. I have also spoken with Jonathon about this in addition to bringing it up on the Friday mumble many times. The point I am trying to make is that the reason these people are not being transparent regarding such details, stealth specs / roadmap and peerplays witness event reporting details, is because BOTH ARE OPERATING IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE MARKET and they believe such disclosure would be detrimental to the success of the project. I was persuaded by Jonathon's rather lengthy but thorough explanation of the rationale for those decisions, and defer to his judgment now that I better understand some of the elements that went into it.

As to design docs & specs, I tend to take xeroc's perspective and believe those are extremely important. But when has ANYONE demanded that ByteMaster or Cryptonomex produce such documents, let alone to do so BEFORE their product was released? That is simply not reasonable. A roadmap is a different matter IMO, and is more a matter of PR and accountability than anything.

Stealth is a very sensitive technical feature for the BitShares Platform and is also highly debated. One the one side Stealth can be used to protect the privacy of the users, on the other end it can be used for illegal and criminal activities. Both sides have to be considered and evaluated while developing this feature.

Further, we are talking about a new core feature for the BitShares Blockchain because the old version from BM was just using blinded transaction. The new stealth version "2.0" also includes new technologies like CA that still need to be tested. As BitShares shareholder I would like to know what kind of new features will be added to the core code and how do they work? Who has access to the stealth feature and its mechanic? Can a stealth transaction be rerouted? What parts of the Stealth transaction are hosted on IPFS? Who holds the IPFS management keys? How are these keys protected? What if the keys get stolen?

There are still many open questions and I think it is in our all best interest to know more about the mechanic of this critical feature before we add it to our BitShares Blockchain. As Xeroc and others already mentioned a technical documentation of the feature would be helpful.



RE - "disrupting" mumble. My goal in challenging chris4210 was NOT to disrupt the mumble. In fact, it wasn't until 40 minutes into it this discussion occurred. With such an important issue we shouldn't restrict the discussion, and Friday mumble is the perfect venue to make people aware of what is going on. On that note mission accomplished. If that means some topics aren't discussed this week so be it. 1 hour is obviously not enough time to cover everything. I will admit it might have been better had onceupoonatime posted in the beyondbitcoin steemit article that fuzzy publishes each week to officially get on the bbc agenda, but that was addressed in the opening moments when chris / fuzzy asked the audience if other topics should be added to the agenda. So the discussion of stealth was introduced properly and acknowledged as an agenda item that way.

I did not mean to imply that you were disrupting the mumble session, I meant that if we were to all ask in the mumble about this topic one after another we would only get 'no comment' from Chris. I do agree that it's a serious issue that needs resolved, but he's simply not going to divulge anything productive in public (other than fud - eg rebranding/reissuing tokens).

RE - the lack of community interest. I simply don't see many people even willing to ask questions about this mess. @pc in the forum actually said it's not good to make this public. ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO PROSPER IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING. If this were happening to you wouldn't you want the truth to be known? Those wanting to do evil thrive in the darkness of secrecy and it's important to shine a light of truth on them to expose them. How hard can it be to ask a question?
Perhaps because it's really negative and none of us were expecting this mess when we originally invested in Blockpay? If I was a developer who had his pay cut because of a quarrel between my bosses I'd be livid; it's disgusting to withhold employees salaries, doing so is a serious warning that something is wrong (perhaps even breaching EU work rights?). If I was Chris I'd be asking others to host the hangout to avoid the public spotlight until this is all sorted out...

The reason why I decided to continue hosting the weekly BitShares Mumble is to be approachable by all of you. I am open to community question and continue to answer them as good as I can at that specific moment. Unfortunately, some questions cannot be answered right away due to legal issues, but I hope to come back to them later again to clarify.




Vote Chris4210 for Committee Member http://bit.ly/1WKC03B! | www.Payger.com - Payments + Messenger | www.BitShareshub.io - Community based fanpage for the BitShares Blockchain

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
    • View Profile
RE - "disrupting" mumble. My goal in challenging chris4210 was NOT to disrupt the mumble. In fact, it wasn't until 40 minutes into it this discussion occurred. With such an important issue we shouldn't restrict the discussion, and Friday mumble is the perfect venue to make people aware of what is going on. On that note mission accomplished. If that means some topics aren't discussed this week so be it. 1 hour is obviously not enough time to cover everything. I will admit it might have been better had onceupoonatime posted in the beyondbitcoin steemit article that fuzzy publishes each week to officially get on the bbc agenda, but that was addressed in the opening moments when chris / fuzzy asked the audience if other topics should be added to the agenda. So the discussion of stealth was introduced properly and acknowledged as an agenda item that way.

I did not mean to imply that you were disrupting the mumble session, I meant that if we were to all ask in the mumble about this topic one after another we would only get 'no comment' from Chris. I do agree that it's a serious issue that needs resolved, but he's simply not going to divulge anything productive in public (other than fud - eg rebranding/reissuing tokens).

RE - the lack of community interest. I simply don't see many people even willing to ask questions about this mess. @pc in the forum actually said it's not good to make this public. ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO PROSPER IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING. If this were happening to you wouldn't you want the truth to be known? Those wanting to do evil thrive in the darkness of secrecy and it's important to shine a light of truth on them to expose them. How hard can it be to ask a question?
Perhaps because it's really negative and none of us were expecting this mess when we originally invested in Blockpay? If I was a developer who had his pay cut because of a quarrel between my bosses I'd be livid; it's disgusting to withhold employees salaries, doing so is a serious warning that something is wrong (perhaps even breaching EU work rights?). If I was Chris I'd be asking others to host the hangout to avoid the public spotlight until this is all sorted out...

Offline konelectric

I'm an investor in Blockpay. And I have big plans for it. I wasn't not going to make my plans public just yet, but @Thom got me motivated.

I'm involve in building a large theme restaurant. I want it to be the first business in my area to accept digital cash. We got a reality TV show interested and doing a show at our place. And I'll make sure Blockplay gets notice. But if Blockpay is not a thing in the future, I'll look else were.

Just my 2 bitshares
Tweeter: Konelectric. Steemit: Konelectric. Youtube: Patrick Konshak. Success Council: Yourship. Mumble: Yourship or Konelectric.