Author Topic: Important and urgent appeal to the witnesses and members of the Committee!!!  (Read 803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline seyseich66

I welcome you, dear witnesses and members of the Committee!

I appeal to you on the recommendation of one of your colleagues under the nickname "Xeroc". I need your urgent help in this situation.

17-th october.2018 I agreed with" Bugaga " (this is his username in the telegram) to buy 634.71 bitUSD from him for rubles and mistakenly gave him the wrong address of my account. Instead of "zubcoin66" which I control, I wrote him "seyseich66". And when I realized I'd made a mistake, it was too late. He has already sent 634.71 bitUSD from his "buritto-forrest" bitshares account.

Despite the fact that the account "seyseich66" is  also registered by me about a year ago, I do not have a saved password to access it. How can I prove to you that it is my account? Indirect proof is that the login "seyseich66" is unique on the Internet.

Please look my profiles (they all are older than a year) at social networks:

- https://vk.com/seyseich66
- https://www.facebook.com/seyseich66
- https://twitter.com/seyseich66

My email address is also [email protected]

And I can easily prove that I control all these accounts with a private reply message. But I have no control over seyseich66's account in bitshares network because it was just a first try of the registration (test) and I didn't save the password. And you all may wonder: "Why then did you give the sender this address?". And I say, "Because I'm positioned as "seyseich66" everywhere except bitshares network, so it was a mistake simply due to my inattention, forgetfulness and hurry.

It will not be difficult to verify that this account is "dead", that is, for him throughout the time since his registration there are no transactions, except for one incoming 634.71 bitUSD.

And I kindly want to ask you, who have such a power, to do one of two possible actions:
1) Sending back 634.71 bitUSD to the sender;
2) in any way give me access to the seyseich66 account.

I decided to appeal to you, because for me 634.71 bitUSD is a significant summ of money, and I can not afford to lose it. After all, in any case it is my mistake, and I have to pay the sender the equivalent of this amount in rubles. While he is waiting for the resolution of the situation with your help and he is ready to confirm that he really transferred me the above amount from his account "buritto-forrest" in this forum topic.

Thank you in advance and waiting for an answer.

Offline armin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
In a decentralized exchange you can't get your money back if you lose your private key

Online matle85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
This is bad news and I'm very sorry to hear it - as Armin notes I don't think there is anything that can be done as the network is decentralised and nobody else has access to your account.

Have you definitely not got any access to it? I guess you will have tried all the combinations of different passwords etc you have but remember there could also be an issue of whether is a local wallet or not. Suggest posting the Q on this group in telegram as if it can be solved a way is normally found on there: https://t.me/btsWalletHelp

Offline bench

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
You can sent a memo to seyseich66 by the send button and ask him, if he can return 90% to you.

Offline Customminer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Bitshares FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Gridcoin.US
  • GitHub: grctest
You can sent a memo to seyseich66 by the send button and ask him, if he can return 90% to you.
It's his own account that he no longer controls, the funds are effectively permanently destroyed.
Hertz, Beyond Bitshares, Gridcoin!

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Nugaga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Hello!

it was me who sent 634.71 bitUSD to seyseich66 account. I can prove that I control buritto-forrest account if needed.


Offline sschiessl

Thank you for opening this very interesting question. The BitShares Blockchain would be able to handle that case, but there is no authority in place to decide that IMO.

Let me explain a bit:

Even if the supposed receiver and the sender both confirm what their intention was, there is no proof that the actual receiver is not a 3rd party that is merely inactive and that both of you try to screw over.

This is now of course exaggerated and I am not trying to insinuate anything, but you see my point hopefully. I could see a stronger claim with, let's say couple months wait time.

Like CustomMiner and abit said it is technically possible but has never been done. Your proof does not provide a 100% guarantee, and who takes the liability if anything were to happen? Are you willing to fully identify yourself and reimburse the actual receiver if he ever were to surface? You still have the question who you would identify yourself to, and how a reimbursement like that would be decided. I don't think it's the committee that should do that.

An entity with such an authority could be, or even must be created via a votes worker proposal IMO.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2018, 06:21:09 pm by sschiessl »

Offline seyseich66

In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.

Dear abit!
Could you tell me, please, in what section of the forum it is better to announce the collection of donations? Directly in this thread or better create a new one?

Offline seyseich66

Like CustomMiner and abit said it is technically possible but has never been done. Your proof does not provide a 100% guarantee, and who takes the liability if anything were to happen? Are you willing to fully identify yourself and reimburse the actual receiver if he ever were to surface? You still have the question who you would identify yourself to, and how a reimbursement like that would be decided. I don't think it's the committee that should do that.

An entity with such an authority could be, or even must be created via a votes worker proposal IMO.

I am 1000% sure this is my account and am willing to go through a full identification of my identity if Committee members ask me to do so. Also, I am willing to reimburse 100% of the amount the account owner seyseich66 (because that is who I am). By the way, who knows how, could check from what IP-address was registered this account. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of my IP addresses.

Offline Customminer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Bitshares FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Gridcoin.US
  • GitHub: grctest
Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

This would be setting a bad precedent, seizing bitUSD from accounts isn't good - it's not an UIA. I'd far prefer to see those permissions/flags permanently disabled instead of using them to seize funds from an account with minimal proof of account ownership. The funds in question should be considered burned until OP can remember his account credentials.

OP, I don't think you're going to get donations but you could try in the 'random discussion' sub-forum.
Hertz, Beyond Bitshares, Gridcoin!

Offline armin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
It's very controversial to use committee to force the UIA back - not a good time for this at the moment (it's a bear market)

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.

Dear abit!
Could you tell me, please, in what section of the forum it is better to announce the collection of donations? Directly in this thread or better create a new one?
This forum is almost dead IMHO. Only this board has some activities. You can also try steemit.com . By the way, people have seen too many scams. A fundraiser may or may not work.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline seyseich66

I wrote a request for donations: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27333.0.

Online matle85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.

Should this be turned off?

I noticed a quite a few posts highting that a new stable coin had this feature and was therefore a sign it is not a real cryptocurrency.

I can imagine cases where it might be desirable to transfer bitUSD back but should it really be a technical option? It feels like it goes against the whole idea of the DEX.

Offline seyseich66

And so people have to lose money because of their random mistakes?

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

In this case, if the lost bitUSD is really important for you, I'd recommend that you start a some sort of charity fundraiser asks for donation.

Should this be turned off?

I noticed a quite a few posts highting that a new stable coin had this feature and was therefore a sign it is not a real cryptocurrency.

I can imagine cases where it might be desirable to transfer bitUSD back but should it really be a technical option? It feels like it goes against the whole idea of the DEX.
BitShares as a platform provides such features for asset owners who need it.

BitUSD as a special asset may or may not need it.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12694
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
This turns into a general question: Should the committee ever force-transfer (revert) wrong transfers even if they can be proven without any doubt?

If the question to that answer is "yes", there are a couple things that need to be done *BEFORE* actions can taken:
* 100% prove that the transfer was "wrong" and a reversal is legally and morally o.k.
* a procedure as to WHO does WHAT in case of a refersal (e.g. should the committee become intermediary of funds for a few weeks?)
* Fees need to be paid because it is a manual process - how much? who would get that fee? 50%+1 of committee need to agree still!

If the answer is "no", then we need to
* educate people more about the finality of transfers (i thin we do a good job at that already)
* should committee opt out of the "allow issuer to overwrite transfers"? permission to end this once and for all?
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
This turns into a general question: Should the committee ever force-transfer (revert) wrong transfers even if they can be proven without any doubt?

If the question to that answer is "yes", there are a couple things that need to be done *BEFORE* actions can taken:
* 100% prove that the transfer was "wrong" and a reversal is legally and morally o.k.
* a procedure as to WHO does WHAT in case of a refersal (e.g. should the committee become intermediary of funds for a few weeks?)
* Fees need to be paid because it is a manual process - how much? who would get that fee? 50%+1 of committee need to agree still!

If the answer is "no", then we need to
* educate people more about the finality of transfers (i thin we do a good job at that already)
* should committee opt out of the "allow issuer to overwrite transfers"? permission to end this once and for all?

I'd opt for no.
Saying yes even once opens a big can of worms and means we'd have to evaluate every such request. Committee could be DDoS'd :D

If there is no real reason why "allow issuer to override transfers" has been left on (@abit?) i'd be in favour of disabling it.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3428
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
If there is no real reason why "allow issuer to override transfers" has been left on (@abit?) i'd be in favour of disabling it.
I have no clue why it's there.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Online matle85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
My vote would be for disabling it. I don't think it would be ever used anyway and having the option there undermines it in the same way it does for Circles USD Coin (guess you guys have seen the same posts as me in recent days highlighting this owner feature allowing them to block accounts and transfer the asset back).

Offline Thom

And so people have to lose money because of their random mistakes?

Well, that's how people learn. It's a matter of being responsible for the decisions you make and the actions you take.

Sad they're necessary, but it's best for the safety of those who have already learned the hard lesson you're in the middle of.

I am also in favor of removing the "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" permission on committee controlled bit assets like BitUSD, BitCNY, BitEUR etc. We call these "trustless assets", but it appears whoever set these assets up initially didn't set permissions according to a truly trustless model.

Best of luck to you in the future. Perhaps one day you'll understand the ramifications to others of what you're asking.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
I'd opt for no.
Saying yes even once opens a big can of worms and means we'd have to evaluate every such request. Committee could be DDoS'd :D

If there is no real reason why "allow issuer to override transfers" has been left on (@abit?) i'd be in favour of disabling it.

+1
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de