Bitcoin Forum

Roger Ver has access to the Blockchain.info database and is prepared to abuse it in order to take revenge over a customer service dispute in one of his other businesses.

See this thread for more details:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131574.0

reserved to supply more info here.

CharlieContent, This issue has been settled now.
Blockchain.info user funds were safe,  and currently are safe.
At no point was anyone's money in any danger whatsoever.

I no longer have access to any part of Blockchain.info's admin pannel.

I think you should change the thread title to something that is actually true.

Roger Ver

You didn't leak any of it, but you have access to a TON of information about account holders and their accounts, and you were prepared to leverage this information to resolve a customer service dispute in a completely unrelated business. I call that abusing it.

reserved too!

I just wanted to mention that a skilled blockchain.info admin can perfectly steal your funds. He just needs to change the javascript sent to your browser in order to get your password.

Reserved for a gif or something.  Not sure yet.  We all already knew that there were risks in using browser based wallets, right?

This is not true.

See here:  https://blockchain.info/wallet/verifier (https://blockchain.info/wallet/verifier)

It should also be noted that ThomasV runs a competitor to Blockchain.info

what is the percentage of your users that install it?

You're an idiot Charlie.

EDIT: Fixed grammar by request.

The same that take care of the security of their computer.
I don't see this as a real problem.
There is a solution, users are free to use it or not.

*You're

So, if I have this right.  A scammer gives blockchain.info his bitcoins for safe keeping, scams the guy who runs it, and then complains that blockchain.info might maybe want their BTC back even though that can't happen anyway?

GTFO!

I think I'm going to go buy something off bitcoinstore.com just to counteract your stupidity.

Thank you for understanding what happend!!!

You have it completely wrong.

1. This guy wasn't a scammer. Read the thread.

2. Blockchain.info don't want their BTC back. It's a totally separate business.

3. The problem is, as I said, that Roger Ver has access to a lot of information about account holders and their accounts, and he was prepared to leverage this information to resolve a customer service dispute in a completely unrelated business.

It's a bit rich that you would call me stupid, really.

Fuck that guy charlie content didnt he start a thread cassing out how to steal bitcoin.. And now he's having a big cry about someone checking up on transactions and proves that indeed bcs were sent to an adress someone was denying.  And he's crying about it? Something shows theres more to it than this.

Haha, I think it's pretty ridiculous that you would call me an idiot when you are unable to even write your insult correctly. :)

At this point, your asking me to either believe a long standing, trusted member of the community plus my own interpretation of reading the thread...or believe the scammer.

WHICH WILL I CHOOSE?! It is so hard!

Uh, no? I dunno what "cassing" is, but I'm pretty sure that you have the wrong guy.

Why break the habit of a lifetime, right? :)

I think you have the facts wrong though. No one is asking you to believe the "scammer". (In all honesty I don't think he's technically a scammer. Ver paid him back too much money in error and he kept it, not really a scam. More like Ver fucked up. A scam usually involves deception, not taking advantage of someone else's mistake, although of course that is also wrong.)

All you have to do is read what Roger Ver himself wrote in that thread. He said himself that he has access to a lot of information about account holders and their accounts, and we can see for ourselves in the email chain he posted that he was prepared to leverage this information to resolve a customer service dispute in a completely unrelated business.

That is correct, but Electrum is not a commercial operation.
It is a free software project, that involves multiple developers, not just me.

Secret passphrases not being secret .. :(

You have this wrong.
The only information I threatened to leverage was the information from Bitcoinstore,  the business directly involved in the incident.
I never made any of the information from Blockchain public.

You leveraged it in private.

Also

While taking advantage of privileged information is bad this is getting overblown.

Let's stop the masterbatorial frothing.

He told me he didn't own the bitcoin address in question.
I told him in private that he did,  and gave him the proof that I knew he did.
I don't see this as inappropriate.

My idea of a good time btw.

What ^ are you worried Bout guy? why are you crying.

It is inappropriate for someone who has admin access at blockchain.info to use that information for the benefit of some other business.  As a matter of fact it is explicitly against the blockchain.info privacy policy:

This is why blockchain.info has removed your access.  They do not allow it to be used in this way, and you violated their trust.

In this instance bitcoinstore.com is a third party, and you have distributed the personal information of one of their users to that third party without the user's permission and without being required by law to do so.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

+1

Hope this episode serve as a lesson to improve the services of blockchain.info and bitcoinstore.

I can not recommend bitcoinstore.com to anybody.  I understand that they are frustrated with the loss of the bitcoins that they accidentally sent, and I realize that the "right thing to do" for the person who received those bitcoins was to return them.  However, that does not make your abuse of special access to blockchain.info allowed you as an employee any less inappropriate.  As far as I'm concerned the abuse of this access was at least as inappropriate as the failure of the person receiving the extra bitcoin to return them.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

In fact, the same mistakes will be done over and over again. And history will repeat.
Am I too pessimistic?  :)

Again +1

Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? I wake up and read this?

In my mind this is almost as bad as the pirate shit and all the fraud going on with those exchanges. Blockchain is sold as having the utmost security and trust, with its local wallet operations, audited code base, and anonymity features.

That someone, an investor no less, would go in and take actions that are completely at odds with how the Blockchain service is marketed is very disappointing to hear. This is another black eye on the face of Bitcoin. And God knows, we certainly don't need any more of those.

Plus, isn't this MemoryDealers guy the kid who left the country because the IRS tried screw him or something? And now he does this?

To add insult to injury, this guy's responses in the thread show that he is totally irresponsible and cannot be trusted. To think that Blockchain users' personal information is available at the whim of this turncoat makes me shudder.

So, blockchain.info gives out admin access to co-owners ? What would they need this access for ? Wouldn't RV be considered a 'share-holder'. Is it the norm to give 'share-holders' the key to were the business operates?

The main problem here is that now it's also hard to trust Piuk ...

Yes, when a partial owner of a business acts in a manner that damages the reputation of the business, it affects the reputation of all the stakeholders in the business.  This is why it is important to be careful about who you get involved in business with.

Maybe this talks good about Roger. Who, besides making mistakes from time to time, has an extensive history for supporting and developing Bitcoin worldwide. Trolls in this thread all summed up, have done less than 0.001% that Roger made in the benefit of the community.

And blockchain.info service and features are awesome. I support both Roger and blockchain.

What happened
I do not know the sepcifics but there was some disagreement between Roger and a customer of bitcoinstore.com. The customer claimed not to own a particular bitcoin address that a incorrect amount had been refunded to. Roger used his access to the blockchain.info admin panel to lookup the information on a wallet which held that bitcoin address. This email address associated with the wallet and the email address of the customer matched.

Why is even possible?
Wallet are stored fully encrypted, so they appear as random text to us. However when notifications are enabled the client extracts the public keys from a wallet and asks blockchain.info to subscribe to those addresses. The ability too lookup a wallet using this information was added so that when newbies come to us and say "I just created a bitcoin wallet, but forgot to record the wallet identifier how can get I get my money back?" we can ask for their bitcoin address or ip and and are normally able to recover the identifier.

Screenshot of Admin Panel:

https://i.imgur.com/pLOMh.png

Why does Roger have access to the blockchain admin panel
He owns a minority stake in the company and helps with support. His funding has been tremendously helpful in allowing me to work on the Site full time, buy new servers, security hardware and fund free features.

Who else has access to this information?
Me, Roger and a customer support agent.

What has been changed

• Roger and the support agent's access to this information has been revoked.
• Bitcoin addresses stored for notification purposes have been deleted. Addresses are now stored as a SHA 256 hash of the address, which removes the ability to lookup a wallet by bitcoin address.
• The secret phrase is now no longer shown to any admins

What other information could be used to identify a wallet
We store the ip address a wallet was created with and the ip address a wallet was last updated with.

A wallet can be looked up by SMS number or email if that information has been added in [Account Settings].

Can blockchain.info access funds the funds in my blockchain wallet?
No, the information available gives only enough information to prove the user may own a wallet with that address. He could not have accesses the wallet, even if he had wanted to. No other individuals have access to the blockchain.info servers or code apart from me.

I support too, but they need to learn from their mistakes and be honest on their business.

Good show. Quick, reasonable and effective countermeasures.

EDIT: As you are now the sole person that has access to the site's full features, please remember to store admin login credentials with a lawyer in case you get hit by a bus.

Thank you :)

Thanks for the quick response and action, this is good to see.

The difference between how Blockchain and MemoryDealers handled the problem is like night and day.

Blockchain immediately recognized a problem and swiftly corrected it without histrionics or drama.

+1.

Is this the company I'm thinking of or is it someone else?

A+ response piuk - this is the kind of professionalism Bitcoin businesses need to be exhibiting if the Bitcoin community and Bitcoin businesses want to be taken seriously by those outside of the community.

Piuk,

I am trying hard to trust you and your business.  For now I will take you at your word.  Please don't make me regret that action.

If you can assure me that nobody from bitcoinstore.com (including Roger) will have access to look up user's personal information (by bitcoin address, email address, SMS number, IP address, or any other method)

Then this satisfies my request that blockchain.info:

Immediately sever all relationships with other businesses, removing admin access from anyone who would use that access to benefit their other business.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

Edit: My post edited in light of the new info surfacing. Didn't know Roger did support at blockchain.info.

Roger,

I hope you have learned from this situation. You should thank the guy who possibly has been dishonest with you, because it served as an example to improve the services that you have participation.

Piuk, hope you learned too. Thanks

I'm sure this is just a lack of comprehension on my part, but what would prevent someone from calculating the SHA256 of a bitcoin address on their own, and using that to look up the wallet? Does the SHA256 include a secret key as well as the address, to prevent others from calculating the hash?

He was given access to this information because I was getting bogged down in support tickets and Roger kindly offered to help with some of them. Requests to recover lost identifiers are one of the most common queries. At the time it had not occurred to me that there could be a conflict of interest. In the blockchain.info thread I posted that a minority stake in the site had been sold, but did not specifically mention the admin panel.


Addresses are hashed with a secret. With access to the secret it would be possible to hash every bitcoin address with a none zero balance and use that to compare against subscribed hashes to determine addresses in a wallet. The sacrifice of some anonymity when notifications are enabled has always been stated https://blockchain.info/wallet/anonymity. However it is no longer possible for admins to lookup an arbitrary wallet by address.

you cant be serious. I personally wish everyone would always post all information publicly about any and all fraud/dishonesty. It would help to lessen the need for the use of violence in resolving disputes.

I agree, which is why I have posted about the violation of blockchain.info's privacy policy.  This does fall under a reasonable definition of dishonesty, right?

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

Solid response. Extremely impressive response time.


Does this still apply when third parties show up at your door with guns and a warrant? (I don't have a blockchain.info wallet yet btw.)  :)

do we got our first watergate bitcoin event ?

 ;D

While everyone's mind is focused on Blockchain, there is one thing that I think would be a +1000: an open-source (or at least source visible) downloadable executable client for all its services.  So, someone who has assured themselves they have downloaded good client code doesn't have to worry that they'll be served some malicious script on a future visit, and it can be put in an independent repository where third parties have signed off on it.

While an executable client would be great, even just a folder full of .html and .js files would be more than satisfactory, and would have the benefit of being cross-platform.  You could also see others willing to fork it and share improvements to it.

In my mind, if blockchain being a "web wallet" is the only hesitation to recommending it, doing this would definitely push it over the threshold.

With such a client, blockchain's purpose would be relegated to calculating account/address balances, broadcasting transactions, and storing encrypted backups?

Makes sense to me.  Only issue might be the lack of revenue that blockchain brings in from a downloadable client, vs they at least bring in some revenue via an ad on most pages right now.

This would be like Electrum plus the storage of encrypted wallet in the cloud to me.

To be clear, I agree with Roger that the dude deserves the scammer tag.  It's not his money...

bulanula got it, so should this dude.

Plus web-based access to it in a pinch, as well as mobile phone access.

You mean like http://brainwallet.org/ (Github (https://github.com/brainwallet/brainwallet.github.com))

Actually Roger needs to prove that was HIS money. He needs to prove that he owns

1FZFQzDkoSFvPgiLouMfoSQSFaqNDfegJz


Would be hard to do since his agent said that they don't. So someone who owns that address should file a scammer report.

Certainly not.

This insistence on covering up is even more concerning than the initial abuse, for that matter.

This address is actually owned by another customer of Bitcoinstore.com

An employee of Bitcoinstore mistakenly asked the customer to send money to this Bitcoin address.

If you want to start a separate thread about me covering something up,  feel free, but every single issue that was brought up in the initial post of this thread has been solved.  Therefore the thread title is not true, and should be changed so as not to cause undue alarm.

Agreed. It's morally and technically wrong after all to keep extra funds without permission.

Seems to be a better all in one solution for bitcoin. Sounds good!

I am still waiting for confirmation from Piuk that ALL your access to the personal information of blockchain.info's users has been removed and not just the "admin panel".  Do you have direct access to the database?  Are that other panels that you have access to that provide any personal information at all?  Do you have access to backups of the database?

If Piuk will publicly confirm that ALL ACCESS to personal information has been removed from you, then I'll agree that the issue expressed in this thread is closed.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

At this point as far as I am concerned, blockchain.info has taken the necessary actions to make sure that your personal information stored with them IS SAFE.

This issue should be considered resolved and the discussion thread locked.  If anyone has issue specifically with Roger/MemoryDealers/bitcoinstore.com, it should be discussed in a separate thread so as not to confuse the issue and soil blockchain.info's good reputation.

I'm sure you would love to make this mistake go away but hopefully the mods recognize that this thread contains invaluable information for those considering placing trust in MemoryDealers and/or Blockchain.info.

Instead of CYA why don't you simply admit to your mistake?

EDIT: I'm specifically referring to MemoryDealers here. Blockchain has done a great job dealing with the public and responding to this horrific turn of events.

As per what piuk said before, I'd think all access is severed:

Note that blockchain.info has gone a long way toward restoring trust in them.  They couldn't know ahead of time that this minority stakeholder would violate their trust when they gave them access to assist in daily operations.  They claim since to have removed this person's access to the admin panel, which is what I would expect a responsible business to do.  If they will confirm that all access to the database has been permanently removed, I will consider them to be a trustworthy business who happened to unknowingly hire an untrustworthy employee and dealt with the situation appropriately.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

Until Bit-Pay proves the above. You have no case. Not your money.

We're not discussing the "change the thread title" part of your statement. We're discussing the "better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it" part of your statement.

It is not this thread that is causing undue alarm. The alarm is very much due, this BS of divulging customer details is widespread to the point of universality. Aurum did it, MtGox did it, the list is pretty much "everyone except MPEx". This has to cease, universally, as it has no place in BTC.

The other thing that has to cease is the unwarranted delusions of self importance. You personally are not great enough to request moderators to delete the signs of your stupidity "so as not to harm bitcoin". Should you want to request it, do it in the adequate terms, which are "I've been really stupid, please delete this before it ruins my reputation".

That aside, you personally are not big enough to harm Bitcoin, for one, and moreover this "too big to fail" mentality and the corresponding expectation of throwing everything to the wind for the sake of propping up random doods with self-awarded VIP status is completely irrational.

Why am I quoting saying something I did not say?

And for that matter, when did you come back from the hole?

What I understand from reading the first thread:

1. MemoryDealers accidentally had Bitcoins sent to nethead's Bitcoin address, rather than his own.
2. MemoryDealers asked for the Bitcoins back. A reasonable request, but he did mess up, and it is his own fault, with all due respect.
3. nethead lied about having the Bitcoins.
4. MemoryDealers accessed his account information on another server (Blockchain.info) for the purpose of verifying that nethead did, indeed, have the Bitcoins. It is worth noting that MemoryDealers did not have access to nethead's Bitcoins. He posted personal information of nethead's and his key to disable two-factor authentication, albeit without noting that's what the phrase could be used for.
5. nethead said the phrase was his secret key.
6. ???
7. Shit storm.

So basically, MemoryDealers was angry and did some things he shouldn't have. He shouldn't have posted nethead's information, and he should probably have just sucked up that about $50 of his was gone.

But nethead also should have paid up. nethead should not have lied above all else.

And everyone's Blockchain.info funds are safe. Those can't be stolen from you by an admin just through database lookup. I will continue to use Blockchain.info for this reason.

When I read the following:


It is unclear if "access to this information" means specifically "access to the admin panel" or "access to all personal information".  It could still be possible for Roger to access personal information without access to the admin panel depending on blockchain.info's network and database security.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

Everything is mostly on spot except 4, where Roger sent the info privately to nethead/bitbitman , where he then posted them himself amidst the confusion at the forums.

I think the discussion about deletion of the first thread is a bit too late. Someone has already removed the thread from the live forums.

Correct. But by realeasing the private information he broke few agreements which probably cost a lot more than $60. Also it isn't his money, these are BitPay's funds.


They can be stolen by modifying the webpage.

Agreed, nobody's funds were ever at risk in this event.  Their personal information on the other hand certainly was. Fortunately, blockchain.info has acted in a responsible manner removing access to personal information from the person who abused that access.

Unfortunately, once a business's (or person's) reputation is damaged, it can be difficult to repair it.  This is why many people value their reputation and go to great lengths to protect it.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

Roger has never had access to the database, backups or any server access. He now has no elevated privileges over normal users.

Roger posted private information about nethead and deleted afterwards. What he sent privately was the JSON response from blockchain.info.

The case is simple:

Roger broken his own privacy agreement by posting the private information about nethead on this forum.
Blockchain.info broken their own agreement by giving the private information about nethead to Roger.
The funds that were sent to nethead were sent from Bitpay's address.

Nethead should return funds back to Bitpay, not Roger.

Weren't some of the bitcoinica hacks caused in part because too many clueless people had admin access?  Will we ever learn?

Come on Roger.  Fifty bucks??!!

The only thing we have in this community, after our bitcoins,  is our trust and integrity.  

Unfortunately this action speaks volumes.

I was referring to John Maguire's 4th statement where he stated that the information from blockchain.info was published in this forum.

Bit pay sent out the extra payment after Rogers's employee mistakenly instructed them to do so - hence, the losses acquired would be counted as Rogers's losses in this case.

I would like to clarify that the funds did not come from Bitpay.  (I was mistaken in an earlier post)
They actually came from another Bitcoinstore.com customer.
This customer was mistakenly told to send the funds to the wrong address.

I understand the confusion and anger that was caused by my using information from Blockchain.info for Bitcoinstore purposes.
I apologize for my lack of judgment in regards to this, but I think it should be noted that I simply disclosed a users own information to himself in order to prove that he was lying to me.

I never disclosed his blockchan.info information to an unrelated third party.

Thank you.  This is satisfactory and I will remove all my posts and signature related to this.  I hope my trust in you is not misplaced. I respect you, your business, your contributions to bitcoin, and your quick and responsible response to this event.

Now to answer your private message.

Why should I believe a criminal.
Why should I believe a person who posted false information on a public forum.

Finally you acknowledge your mistake in this.  This goes a long way towards restoring my trust.  Mistakes and lack of judgement can occur in a heated moment.  It is important to recognize when we make such a mistake so we can learn from the event and avoid similar actions that bring our judgement into question in the future.


And then this.  :-[

bitcoinstore.com IS a third party.  You used information that was private between the customer and blockchain.info, and disclosed it for use by bitcoinstore.com.  If you didn't have access to the admin panel and had to call Piuk up on the phone and have him look it up for you, then it would be obvious that it was disclosed to a third party.  It seems that, because you are the same person acting in two completely separate capacities, you can't see how this is disclosure of information from blockchain.info to a third party.

EDIT: blockchain.info has acted in a responsible way and removed from MemoryDealers all future access to personal information.  They could not know in advance that MemoryDealers would abuse the access allowed them as an employee.  As such this post has been edited to make it clear that blockchain.info is not responsible for the actions of this particular ex-employee.

That was a goof up when I edited the reply text. I've corrected it.


The hole? I was never in a hole.

My inner accountant is now trying to stab his own eyes out after what he just read, and I'm not even an accountant.

I have noticed exactly this delusion of self-importance in my private communications with the individual in question. I refrain from quoting the relevant messages because they are private and I haven't gotten permission to do so (Roger, may I?)

Exactly.

Roger Ver has PMed me asking me to lock this thread. His desire is to cover up information that will "damage Bitcoin." Of course the only thing Roger Ver is worried about damaging is Roger Ver. What he did is corruption, pure and simple, and Bitcoin will only be served by exposing him. Allowing snakes to hide in the grass will never be for the greater good.

He may not have done anything truly unforgivable, but what he did was wrong. It was wrong enough that it shouldn't just go away. It can't. He abused his position to serve himself. I don't like that. Unsurprisingly neither did anyone else who took the time to understand it.

I'm very pleased to see Piuk's response. Roger, take notes: that is how a professional acts.

I actually use Blockchain.info myself, although I only ever keep small amounts of coins on there, and for a short amount of time, because this is Bitcoin and I trust no one. After this I was going to stop using it, but Piuk's response was spot on and enough to reassure me that there is a professional involved. I'll be continuing to use Blockchain.info, at least in the very cautious way that I'd use any web-wallet.

Still, I think it's important that Blockchain.info users, and anyone else in the Bitcoin community understands what happened today. For that reason I will not be changing or altering this thread in any way.


The delusions of self importance are strong in this one. Particularly laughable is the "I am the most significant investor in Bitcoin the world has ever seen!"quote from the first thread along with a link where he is mentioned in passing on Forbes.com.

Wowee Roger! Can I have your autograph?

TL;DR version:

1) Blockchain.info investor MemoryDealers uses administrative access to get personal information connected to a particular wallet

2) Owner of MemoryDealers comes to the forum and acts like an asshat.

3) Owner of Blockchain.info sets things right.

4) Bitcoins and private keys from Blockchain.info are safe.

This about right?

I sincerely hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole experience is that all Bitcoin-based businesses will add the following to their TOS in big bold letters:

"NOTE: if you try to scam us, and we find out, your account will be canceled, all your information, public and private, will be shared with all third parties we do business with, who may stop doing business with you as well, and this information may be shared publicly at our discretion."

Since Bitcoin business is done globally, some guy from China calling the police on someone in Greece is really not practical, and the threat of being even mistakenly labeled a scammer would hopefully knock these "Prove that I scammed you, asshole!" guys down a peg.

Also, I am concerned about the deceptive title damaging the reputation of blockchain.info, who, if you actually understand how they work, have absolutely no way of getting your coins even if they wanted to, the owner which was not involved in this, and who handled the issue quickly and professionally.

@Charlie, I agree with keeping the thread, but the title SHOULD be changed.  I think everyone here agrees that blockchain.info is, once again, safe for usage.  The title would likely scare newbies away from using the service (which is the best Bitcoin wallet a person can point a new user to).  Without a good alternative, they may download QT (NOOOOO!) or try one of the other less user-friendly options, and be turned away from using Bitcoin entirely.  Many of the things discussed in this thread may not be understood by newbies, and certainly, they are not likely to read through 5 pages of discussions to find out that the issue has been resolved.

Sweet, I like it!!!

I like blockchain.info service too and will still use it with precaution.
I don't want this thread be deleted. It's important keep this information on forum, to mistakes like the one from Roger never repeat.

Change thread title. I agree

The title should be changed but instead of just saying so, also propose an alternative. Mine:

"Blockchain.info reputation dinged by MemoryDealers.com founder Roger"

Works for me.

Or

"MemoryDealers.com abuses blockchain.info admin access"

+1

Yes. The title, "Blockchain.info is NOT SAFE" is both dishonest and misleading.

"Your personal data is not safe with Blockchain.info" was apparently true up until today. Pretty bad in itself.

The thread should be kept, but the false and misleading title should be changed. If not by OP, then by a mod.

"WARNING - a webwallet is AS SAFE AS ITS ADMINS"

You really should reconsider this.  It would be ok to leave the thread unlocked if you really want to, and I'd definitely say you shouldn't ask for it's deletion.  However, it is important to recognize that Blockchain.info is safe, and is inappropriate for you to hold them responsible for the actions of the owner of bitcoinstore.com.

I'd suggest you change the title to either:

WARNING - Bitcoinstore.com is NOT TRUSTWORTHY

or

[RESOLVED] - Blockchain.info was not safe

Either one makes sure that your point is still made while reducing confusion for new users.

Yep, it sort of implies that the vulnerability of blockchain.info's users to a skilled admin comes as a surprise to anyone :)

Ok, I'll change the title.

If the Bitcoin community wants to be taken seriously, Bitcoin businesses better not make that a policy.  ...and if the community has nothing better to do than publicly circulate lists of supposed scammers then you're just reinforcing the negative image others try to pin on Bitcoin as only being about scams and we deserve every bit of mockery we get from those outside who see Bitcoin as nothing but.

Bitcoin has its benefits and its drawbacks - if you don't see that the benefits are much greater and accept the drawbacks then go back to doing ecommerce with credit cards: you'll be able to correct mistakes in refunds, but you'll also never be able to do business with 95% of the world and will have to increase your prices because of credit card fraud.  You can't have it both ways.

This incident could have sparked a discussion about important issues that face Bitcoin businesses - employee access, delaying/approving payments and refunds, perhaps the need for some sort of more private network for notifying each other of possible threats we face, etc.  I hope it still does, but in the meantime a whole bunch of completely unnecessary FUD was produced surrounding Bitcoin and some of the major Bitcoin businesses.

A relevant story from Mark Cuban:

The negative image others try to pin on Bitcoin is not that it's only being about scams. The negative image is that Bitcoin is full of scams, and that we either don't ever do anything about it, or run to the police contrary to our free-market beliefs. Regardless of whether asking police for help is hypocritical or not, it is simply not effective on a global scale Bitcoin operates on. So the only solutions we have are 1) whine about it and keep getting scammed, 2) go to the police who ignore us, and keep getting scammed, or 3) live up to the "horrible free-market" ideals we get ridiculed for, and actually take care of the scamming ourselves.

We tried 1 and 2

I agree.  I think companies taking a strong stand against scamming would INCREASE outsider confidence, not decrease it.  We need to do everything we can to get scammers out of Bitcoin business, and if that means making the mess more public than it is, so be it.

It is sad to see BlockChain.info - a superb service - dragged, without merit, into such an display of complete and utter incompetence on the part of the owner of Memory Dealers, Roger Ver. This https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131574.0 behavior; publicly displaying the details of a private individual and labeling them a criminal would at best seem morally dubious and at worst defamatory.

Mr Ver probably should probably acquaint himself with laws and statutes governing data protection in the United States and how it applies to businesses such as his. His self styled 'terms & conditions' will likely count for nothing if the individual named chose to take the issue to a court of law.
 

But this isn't a scam, per se.  This is the rough equivalent of getting extra change back on a purchase.  Actually, that's exactly what it is.  Just because you fuck up does not give you the right to plaster the personal info of the benefit of your fuck up on the internet (especially when your TOS say you won't).  A friendly email asking for the bitcoins back is fine but if that doesn't get you anywhere, drop it.

If someone hacks into your system and actively steals from you, that's a different story but there's a hell of a lot of gray area there.

FTFY

I'm afraid I have no idea what this: "trolls and haters which did nothing for the community" means in the context of my statement. I get the distinct impression that neither do you.

I completely agree. I think the best thing for Blockchain.info would be to force Roger Ver out.

Piuk if you wish to do that, and you need capital with which to accomplish it, feel free to PM me in confidence and we will see what we can do.

Would you consider hashing the IP addresses for privacy? With a secret key, you could easily verify previous access as the creating IP address or the most recent address but could shield privacy further. This was a shock to many people that you save this kind of information when previously it was said that no tracking information was kept.

I'm not sure I see it the same way.

Roger at best made an error in judgment, something I or anybody else could do on account of being human.  The activities he engages in to promote Bitcoin paint a much clearer picture of where his interests lie.

For example, everybody knows that the biggest weakness of a "Casascius Coin" is the fact that "Casascius" could know the private key.  The answer isn't "push Casascius out", rather, the answer may very well be in the form of bringing affordable two-factor physical bitcoins so the trust footprint can be reduced.  That's what will benefit Bitcoin in the long run.

The best thing for Blockchain.info would be to recognize where its soft spots are, and actively work to harden them.  Personal information stored on Blockchain a problem?  What's better, push Roger out due to public outcry, or release something that makes it more the default to not store personal information on their servers?  The second is by far a better long term solution, something Roger would almost certainly agree with, as I can't imagine his involvement and investment is just so he can chase down 4 BTC accidentally sent to his customer.

I'm afraid you understand perfectly, so do I. Blockchain is a superb service, second to none. Roger has an extensive, historic, work towards the success of bitcoin. Who are the trolls posting here (including you), and what did they give to the community ?

Not a shock to anyone who took the time to read their privacy statement and anonymity information publicly available on their website:

https://blockchain.info/wallet/anonymity


The only shock was that another business managed to access this information, and that has been addressed appropriately.

Hashing it would not prevent looking it up if programmed that way. But would prevent it from being plaintext in the database. You can't hash the email or the sms because you use those to send notices.

I don't believe I requested hashing of anything.

What was achieved today?

No one was successful in guilting the scammer into returning the money - they still have it.  The scammer had their personal information posted publicly on the internet, so now they have a personal vendetta against Bitcoinstore and Bitcoin in general - they'll probably be back to troll Roger and post all over the place about how Bitcoin businesses post your private information which will scare newbies.  The scammer wasn't even really a scammer - just a coward who decided to not do the right thing, but is now an active agent against Bitcoin.

Bitcoinstore is still out $60.  They'll probably have fewer transactions than they would have from legit customers due to the FUD of what exactly their privacy policy is and whether or not they can be trusted.  They also unfortunately look less professional and petty for breaking their own privacy policy over a $60 mistake.

Blockchain.info and other businesses got roped into the same FUD.

Have we prevented any future scamming from happening from this guy?  Probably not - the original scammer wasn't ever really a scammer, so the chances of them having tried something in the future were unlikely to begin with.  Their personal info is now public (assuming everything was actually theirs) if they did try to scam in the future, but all they need to do is sign up for a free email address and start using their friend's name & street address in the future.

Have we scared other scammers from trying stuff in the future?  Probably not - if anything the publicity just emphasizes some of the issues that Bitcoin businesses are wrestling with and is more likely to attract more scammers trying to exploit these issues.

Does the public see the Bitcoin community "cracking down" on scammers and getting the problem under control?  Nothing was achieved, so I would doubt it.

WOW .... Roger Ver single handily  tarnished his reputation and the reputation of BlockChain.info for some 4.x BTC ... INCREDIBLE!

I wonder how long will Apple take to take down the IOS app for blockchain.info after they learn about their lax security practices and abuses?

Would you trust your personal information to BitInstant after we have seen what Roger is capable of doing with it? I would not.

I completely agree with the both of you.

Roger did indeed abuse his access to blockchain.info's admin side, but it's the sort of not-so-obvious mistake that many of us could make.  He had access to the data he needed, why not use it?  At least, that's the mindset he was in at the time.  And he never released any of the private information to the public until the scammer himself did.

He has been a key player in the move to get more people using Bitcoin.  He can learn from his mistake and continue on, a better businessman because of it.  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And you're an absolutely perfect angel?

No I'm just an angel ... :D and ... WHAT???

At least, blockchain.info has improved their security by removing access from an individual who would otherwise abuse that access when they are frustrated with a customer of their other businesses.

At best, other businesses are hopefully looking into who has access to the information in their databases and making sure that they limit that access appropriately to prevent getting caught up in similar conflict of interest situations in the future.

This is no small thing.  Had there not been this "uproar", Roger would still have inappropriate access to that data and could leverage that access against other customers in the future, and other businesses wouldn't have had this "wake up call" to give them an opportunity to review who has access to their data.

like this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108932.msg1186881#msg1186881

though to be fair you did it publicly and explained yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108932.msg1186888#msg1186888

Just wait for someone to tell Apple blockchain.info is a Bitcoin wallet that can send coins and not simply a "transaction viewer", it'll get pulled in the next ten minutes.

Quite a few things:

1) Blockchain.info identified a possible software security issue and patched it
2) Blockchain.info identified a situation that may cause a conflict of interest, and resolved it.
3) The community as a whole was made aware of the issues that may arise from conflicts of interest, poorly worded TOS, and public sharing of information.
4) People and business owners got to discuss and brainstorm how to deal with these situations, and have made their own conclusions along with differing alterations to their TOS. Specifically regarding how to deal with private information, whether to share info on suspected scammers amongst other businesses, etc.
5) We got rid of at least one dishonest person. Whether he is a scammer or not (I don't think think he was), what he did want right, and Roger got 100% conclusive evidence of that (blockchain.info's anonymizing addresses are NOT one-time use like the guy claimed).
5a) We maybe have sent out a warning to others that you're not as safe as you think you are, and your specific country's laws may not protect you, so it's best to start maintaining a clean reputation record now.

Shut the fuck up. I didn't say you did. I'm asking for IP's to be hashed as well, and they can still be looked up problematically.

So much bullshit over a guy doing private detective work to get his company's money back.

Well, of course you couldn't be pushed out, but if you started acting in a devious, unprofessional and untrustworthy way, then no one should buy your coins.

There's an element of trust in every commercial transaction, not just with Bitcoin. Obviously some involve more trust than others, but no matter what, I never do business with untrustworthy people, no matter how secure the system.

We?  Who the fuck is We? You? lol.

And violating the terms of a privacy statement in the process.

???

You quoted me saying nothing about hashing, and responded to my quote by stating that hashing wouldn't prevent looking up information.

Where is this hostility coming from?

Luckily, one of those things has now been fixed.

piuk, +10 for swiftly dealing with this.

A technical questions:

So what if an address is a SHA 256? How does that remove any lookup ability? To lookup by address, just hash it and look up the hash. It removes the ability to lookup, per given wallet ID, what addresses it owns - not the other way around.

My question was in relation to posting of customer information - most of your points weren't achieved specifically due to customer information being posted or could have been achieved in a variety of other, less damaging ways.  The remaining achievements don't seem - to me at least - to be worth the probable damage done.  ...and this is without even discussing the possible impact on innocent people when posting information that you don't know for sure is the scammer, legal implications of releasing info, etc.

Scamming isn't new - it is just different with Bitcoin.  There are a million ecommerce stores on the internet who get scammed on a regular basis and have the same kinds of problems getting any kind of authority involved - even when the scammer might only be 10 miles away.  They aren't posting customer info publicly everywhere, so why should a Bitcoin business trying to project a positive, professional image of Bitcoin resort to public shaming as the solution to their scamming?

You'll find that Piuk has already answered this question.  The address is hashed with a secret key.  Without the secret key, you can't generate the right hash to look up:

I'm kinda new here, but why on earth does blockchain.info give other individuals access to the admin cp?
Who else has access to this?
That is rather disturbing.
Can I get admin access? :D

This has already been answered and addressed:

Looks like the damage was already done.

In fact i don't think it would be a bad idea if anyone could draw attention to a revolutionary new currency it would be through honesesty and openness..

Waiting on an answer to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128841.msg1409754#msg1409754

Thanks, these were a long couple of threads, didn't follow them both till the end.

IANAL, and I may have missed something, and I don't mean to put myself on the either parties site, but have blockchain.info not violated the UK's Data Protection Act?
blockchain.info is hosted in the UK (according to whois), and private information (phone number) has been disclosed from the blockchain.info database.

tl;dr:  Use a decentralized client, rather than a centralized web service.

What are some other options, besides the downlaodable one?

That's not the correct tl;dr.

Blockchain.info is a vital part of Bitcoin as it stands today - it's such a great boost to introduce new users.

All other clients are nowhere near it on pure usability.
Yes, you compromise some security/anonymity ... but it's a tradeoff users need to make.

You mean downloadable ones, right?

http://bitcoin.org/clients.html

HTTP://WWW.DRAMATALK.ORG/ (http://WWW.DRAMATALK.ORG/)

lol

"We will see what we can do" as in Piuk and I together, idiot.

If Piuk would be interested in looking for more funding for whatever reason, I (and I guess a lot of other people) would be eager to get in on the action as well.

Probably. He's probably fine anyway, I just wanted to give him a way to throw a rat out the door rather than be stuck with Roger Vermin

+1

I was going to refrain from chiming in till I got to the end of this thread (already read the other one--related, and now locked). Before I add further to the above, I'll first state that I find it admirable on Roger's part that at no time did his posts come across in an angry tone, nor did he revert to vulgarity.

Besides Rassah, Roger Ver is the only other person that has access to the funds held by Bitcoin 100, structured that why in the event of the proverbial bus accident. (I don't have access) I trust Roger fully and this episode, albeit sad, does not cause me concern.

Further, Roger Ver has donated considerably to Bitcoin 100, but that did not stop me from once (maybe twice) penning about him being a major distributor of Magic: The Gathering cards just prior to getting involved with Bitcoin. (my apologies for bringing it up again, but using this fact to drive a point home) If I even felt/knew that Roger Ver did something nefarious, I would start or join the choir of sticking it up his ass regardless of his contribution to Bitcoin 100. At this penning, I don't believe such an anal act is warranted.

Roger, regardless of whatever transpires further regarding this episode, or any of the like in the future (hopefully not), please keep up the class act, continue presenting your arguments (for lack of a better term) in a professional tone.

~Bruno K~

EDIT:


In a past life, I was a gray hawk, till I took an arrow...

I don't usually like your posts but these lines made me laugh.

What's Bitcoin100? I must have missed that. Got an explanatory link?

Please see my sig, Charlie. First line is a link.

What about that guy that got overpaid by Mt Gox last year?

You two freaked me out for a second. I clicked the link and the first thing I saw was my name at the top. Then I realized what page I was on.

lmfao classic. 

Source?

[Edit: What you are probably assuming is that the person's info (phone number) posted in another thread came from blockchain.info.  It did not.  Blockchain.info doesn't hold that information regardless.   Oops, forgot, if you have SMS notification then they do have that information.]

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131574.msg1409056#msg1409056
(3rd quote down)

Unsure if it is his phone number, but all that information came from blockchain.info database.

You are mistaken.  This was posted by Nikolaos (NetHead) publicly revealing his own phone number.  It is true that Roger of MemoryDealers.com accessed the information at blockchain.info (he no longer has the ability to do so, blockchain.info removed his admin access as soon as they discovered he was abusing it), but he did not reveal it publicly.  He only revealed it to the user whose account it was.

Was already answered (you must have missed it)
Guy claimed the address was not his. Roger searched for that address in blockchain.info's database, found a wallet it belonged to, and saw that the wallet was registered to the same email address as the guy's customer account. In other words, he found conclusive and irrefutable proof that the guy did indeed receive the money to the account he owns, and lied about it. The link was established with the email. No logging of IP numbers was required.

Any lessons learned are worth the damage, if only just because they wont likely be repeated again. I doubt much damage was done from this. Sure, Roger got hot headed, but I doubt people will care, and he did provide very conclusive proof that the guy accused was the scammer.


Maybe they should? They probably don't, because they have no way of linking a customer to the scam, since it's easy to steal credit cards, but that turned out to be easier in this case. Also, there's a store nearby with  a large section of the wall labeled Wall of Shame. It has photos of people the store caught shoplifting, whom the store banned, up there for everyone to see in public.

I am not sure your effort to protect bitcoin economy is targeting the right direction.

I don't recall much any cases when a scam or other activity from a consumer raised to such a level to cause any adverse effect of bitcoin or the economy as whole. Not even in this case. Yes, the consumer in this case acted quite wrong, but only towards Roger and by only 5BTC. That is nowhere big enough stuff to tarnish bitcoin-economy as whole. All the problems for bitcoin-economy and its reputation suffered were done by Roger in multiple ways.

However it is not difficult to recall two dozen cases where bitcoin-businesses, their owners or major executives have caused the reputation of bitcoin-economy to suffer significantly by doing stuff big enough to raise to the level of being able to harm the whole economy. What is the precentage of the most prominent bitcoin-businesses involved in a scandal in the last year? Double-digit percentage? Extrapolate that 5 years in the future keeping the same probabilities?

So the fix to this problem seems to be misguided.

If we are talking about privacy and publishing it, I would think that one of the rootcauses in many cases of business and their owners harming the bitcoin economy comes from the fact that bitcoin-businesses seem to operate in huge secrecy. In the old fiat economy there are also some businesses that operate secretly, but there are also millions of companies that have no trouble publishing who are their most senior executives, who are their major shareholders, what is the financial health of the company. There are millions of people in the fiat-world that choose to do business only with companies that they have trust in because they can read who are the people running the business and also they can read quite clearly how much profit the company made last year and the risk level whether the company is going to go under in the next year can be independently calculated by all the people involved based on real world data made easily available. In bitcoin-world each consumer is pretty much forced to do business with companies that nothing is known about as there are no other kinds of companies to choose. That leads to many problems and fixing this problem is going to achieve more good for bitcoin than looking at the customers as the source of the problem. They seem not the place where the significant problem lives.

Another issue directly related privacy and personal details is the trend where some company suddenly decides they need to get huge amount of detailed personal information about their clients while keeping the customer funds ransom. This pattern of activity is I would say the most significant problem tarnishing the reputation of bitcoin economy related to the privacy and personal details. How many think the companies that have done eg. this are the companies you would be happy to trust with the power to publish all of the info in just at their discretion?

Shoplifter? Scammer? I hope next time I'm at walmart and they accidently give me too much change they don't put my picture up on the wall of shame.

And if you were asked for it back and you didn't give it?

Well, if they gave me the CORRECT change and I left the store and Mr. Walmart comes running to me later to say that they gave that guy in blue shirt by accident instructions to give you $50 later, so you better dig $50 from your pocket right now to Mr. Walmart. I would definately need to think a while at what is going on. After that Mr. Walmart comes back to say that, okay, we made a mistake when talking you earlier and it was not the guy in the blue shirt, but the lady in the red dress instead, but whatever, you better give me $50 right now.

When I have not yet met the guy or the lady nor seen any $50 yet I am pretty sure I would not rush to give anything to Mr, Walmart, but wait first what might happen with the guy in the blue shirt or the lady with red dress. Maybe they all are coming at me for me to either send me or demand that I give them all $50. Or perhaps the granny in the wheelchair also joins in who knows. I might be out of $200 if I don't hold to my own in this confusing situation and act only after everything is clear. Maybe.

This is pretty accurate analogy to this situation what happened with Roger and the client. Roger did not give the 'scammer' any extra money. Roger just maybe gave instructions to some other company to send money, or maybe they did not hear the erroneous instructions or send any. Who knows.

If I get my picture to wall of shame for this, then I would say Walmart sucks big time and never go there ever again.

ab8989, the issue was that Bitcoinstore tried to resolve this problem in private, and were willing to cooperate, while nethead was not. If nethead wasn't sitting up on his high horse, and continued to discuss this with Roger, as opposed to ignoring and hanging up on him, the whole thing would have likely been resolved in private. If he still refused after their private discussions had conclusively shown that nethead stole the money, then Roger would have been in his right to ask that nethead be labeled a scammer. I am not advocating that stores immediately publicly humiliate anyone they think may have scammed them, but that they advertise the threat of being exposed to convince customers to actually discuss and negotiate,, instead of brushing it off with "What are you going  to do about it?" knowing the answer is likely nothing. It is also rather unfair that a business is typically public with a public reputation, and when it comes out that it does anything bad, it is immediately known about and acted on appropriately, while people who have any interactions with the business are expected to always have privacy, even if they are actively scamming that business. It's just way too one-sided.
I'm also a supporter of a reputation-based system. In a global environment that's the only way to do any business, and the only way to enforce punishment. If someone is untrustworthy, that should be known, and they should be denied any further business until the issue they had is settled. Lack of access to necessities works a hell of a lot better than cops and laws.

I agree, the way Nethead responded was not correct and made things worse.

However Roger was already wrong from the beginning by jumping the gun and demanding that Nethead send send Roger money, while Roger could not prove Nethead had actually got any extra money yet. He could prove quite a lot of other things but not that Nethead got any extra money. I am not sure whether it was proven later, but at the time when Roger posted Netheads private information public, the situation was still very much unclear and Nethead could quite reasonably have had the position that well wait and see if there ever is extra money to be seen and who it actually belongs to and who comes to actually claiming it with a reasonable demand that it is their money.

Retaliating by publishing the name and address of Nethead was way out of line and I am not sure whether many people would respond reasonably after such an major assault has already happened and the damage was already done. It was game over already at that point when the game should have only be at warming up.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s9ma6/

http://i.qkme.me/3s9ma6.jpg

The secret salt used in the hash should prevent brute force of all addresses.

My comment didn't make sense anyway, I got the process reversed. If the secret is unknown to admins it should work.

That I agree with. If the coins had in fact been sent to nethead's anonymous address, they could have gotten stuck in the mixer for a day or so, without nethead even being aware of them. So, I guess patience is also important.

Man that Wall of Shame thing is harsh. If someone is stealing food from a shop I feel sorry for them and I hope they get back on their feet. Thankfully something like that would be illegal here. So, of course, is shoplifting, so there's really no need for public shaming.

As many others have said, keeping the change isn't scamming. It's dishonesty. It's morally wrong. It's taking advantage of another person's honest mistake, but it's not a SCAM. A scam is a deliberate attempt to gain money from someone by deception. That is not what happened here.

All this "This guy is a THIEF and a SCAMMER and he should be vilified and Roger Ver is a poor innocent victim and should be deified" stuff is totally off the mark and at complete odds with how things actually went down.

Roger Ver made a mistake. Sometimes you need to pay for your mistakes. Sadly you can't always count on people being honest enough to help you correct your mistakes when the mistake benefits them directly. That's life. Ver has all the tools he needs to ensure it never happens again. He doesn't have to worry about being scammed or robbed again, because no one scammed or robbed him. All he has to do is make sure he (or his employee) doesn't give people the wrong amount of Bitcoins when he makes a transaction.

Roger Ver should have just asked this guy for the money back. If the guy didn't feel like being honest, too bad. Write off the loss, move on. Take it as a $50 reminder to be more careful in future. That's what any sane human being would do.

9_9

Well, you sure showed me! I can't compete with you on the Japanese style emoticon front. I had to look up what that one means. Damn, outsmarted again.

That is true.  If you are running the Javascript verifier, it will alert you to this happening though:
 - https://blockchain.info/wallet/verifier

But few people run that -- a password-stealing change like you describe would probably go undetected if it were attempted (against a single targeted individual).

This is a good thought exercise here though.

What if this were a hosted Bitcoin EWallet, lets say, and something like this happened?  The hosted EWallet provider could simply adjust your balance to recover the 5 bitcoins that were accidentally sent to you.  They would have the technical ability to confiscate funds.  Now I don't know if this has ever happened but technically it is possible.

And if this were a bank where something like this happened (e.g., someone else's deposit went into your account) I guarantee you they'ld reverse the transaction immediately instead of just politely and firmly asking for a voluntary return of the funds.  A bank might even send its ex-military security officer to ensure the safe return of the funds after they've screwed up:
 - http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/93a47a62-daf0-11e1-8074-00144feab49a.html

That this incident occurred in the first palce reminds me of Stanislav's admonition:

- http://www.loper-os.org/?p=939

https://i.imgur.com/63P8r.jpg

ab8989 says it best.. but I do agree that due to the nature of bitcoin, it is relatively easy to prove a user received extra funds.  however, it was a day later that the extra 4.5119 BTC was sent to him.  see the blockchain:  http://blockchain.info/address/1H4UR5M72Ybpo4zrqWe8JKKYSeN1gxqBcU

if walmart calls me up on a phone number I didn't give to them with the intention of them ever calling me and says that at the time of the sale I did receive the correct change, but the next day someone else gave me money randomly and it "should be" in my wallet and it pertained to the previous transaction...  yeah, I would probably hang up too.


Did nethead give Roger his phone number or something?  Or did Roger get it from his blockchain.info account via the sketchy admin console?  He could have put his phone number on the invoice for the video card, totally a reality as well. 

I think if regulations changed and the way things are done at blockchain.info are now different (user info encryption) then that is one benefit of this fiasco. 


My thoughts EXACTLY.

From the dictionary:

^. Roger got his phone number, name and address from the order details at bitcoinstore.

Ah.  Yeah I figured that was a reality halfway though writing that so I included it as a theory.  Makes sense.  But even cross-referencing that info with the wallet info as verification seems non-ToS'y to me.

Yes. Everything was perfectly fine until Roger accessed the blockchain.info database. However, it's still a grey area as Roger didn't publish or share the details from blockchain.info with a third party though.

Yes, he did.  BitcoinStore.com IS a third party in this action.

People seem to keep getting confused because Roger at blockchain.info and Roger at BitcoinStore.com are the same person, but those are two different companies, and it was imperative on Roger to keep his duties at those two companies separate.  The trick to realizing what was "Wrong" about what Roger did, is to substitute some other person in for his blockchain.info duties and see if the same "communication" would be considered wrong.

Lets say I run a business called BitcoinStore.com.  Lets say I suspect one of my customers of wrongdoing, but don't have enough information to prove it for certain.  If I call up Piuk at blockchain.info and ask him to confirm for me the bitcoin addreses of one of his customers so I can determine if I'm being defrauded, and blockchain.info has a privacy policy that states explicitly that they do not share any personal information with third parties except as required by law, what should Piuk's response to me be?  Has he acted in a fraudulent manner if he shares the customer information with me?  Is it a grey area?

Took a look at http://blockchain.info/privacy , and I stand corrected. The crux of the issue here is the usage of Blockchain.info database to prove nethead/bitbitman's control over the address, and this is wrong as per the TOS. Oh well, Roger should have had pursued this matter via information from BitcoinStore and not used blockchain.info's info. Dishonest people taking advantage of a honest mistake of others is still bad no matter what.

Agreed, in no way does Roger's violation of blockchain.info's privacy policy make NetHead's decision to keep BTC that were accidentally sent to him any less wrong.  NetHead asked for BitcoinStore to falsify customs information, then he kept money that was accidentally sent to him, and then he lied about having received the money.  In all of those instances he was certainly wrong.

However, the fact that NetHead acted in a fraudulent manner does not have any bearing on whether Roger's actions at blockchain.info were wrong.

Privacy policies matter, otherwise why bother having one?  Violation of a privacy policy is a severe action when it comes to determining the trustworthiness of a business.  blockchain.info recognized the seriousness of the issue and addressed it quickly and appropriately, but we can't just excuse Roger's behavior by saying that since BitcoinStore was being defrauded, it is ok for blockchain.info to violate their privacy policy.

Owhh.. For a moment i thought you gonna roll out a posse or somthn. lol.You bein the sherif and all..
lol.

Now listen here ya'll we just cant have this vero guy exposing all these scammers i say we run 'm out of town WHOS WITH ME! lol.

This thread is full of spineless morons who would just sit tight while some greek dude rips them off instead of leveraging all the means they can to fuck with the scammer.
Almost gives me a desire to scam you all, just to see your reaction.

Well, I do agree that we need more exacting standards to weed out scum like what BCB does in his scam investigation. If BitcoinStore were an individual, and that individual doxed everything out from the scammer, no one would have had anything to say.
Life's full of paradoxes. If we all applied such principles while doing business, scammers would be extinct by now. It's doing nothing that causes the proliferation of dishonest activities.

And a few people who feel that privacy policies matter.

I've got no problem with BitcoinStore using all the resources that are legitimately available to them to track down and leverage the customer who asked for fraudulent legal documentation and then kept money that wasn't his.

I have a big problem with an "employee" of blockchain.info violating their privacy policy to release their own customer's personal information to a third party when that customer has not in any way defrauded blockchain.info and their privacy policy explicitly states that personal information will not be released to third parties except as required by law.

And if blockchain.info's privacy policy stated that they release personal information to third parties to assist in investigation of claims of fraud, then no one would have had anything to say either.

The issue isn't that companies shouldn't be allowed to share personal information to assist in fraud investigations.  The issue is that companies need to decide how they will use personal information, and then state that use in a privacy statement so potential customers can make educated decisions about the companies they want to do business with.  Violation of that privacy statement is then a serious breach of trust.

This is the Internet, there is no 3rd-party provided privacy and whoever thinks there is sure is mistaken and living in a dreamworld
In the Internet, privacy is a DIY thing, almost like in real life, you know...
If you don't want your neighbours to see your johnson you don't go around the house naked with the windows open, do you?

I wonder how many whiners wouldn't have done the exact same thing if it happened to themselves.. this thread would be fkn dead. Its alright to bitch and whine about it, then it happens to them and suddenly the shoe is on the other foot! Right charlie? EH? ..El 0hl..

I agree.  You use the privacy policies of a business to determine your risk, and if a company violates that policy, you make sure you hold then accountable.  Businesses that value their reputation will honor their privacy policies.  Those that don't will lose customers and eventually go out of business.  This is how customers of internet-based businesses can DIY.  If a company doesn't want to respect the privacy of their customers, they can either not have a privacy policy, or explicitly state in their privacy policy that they will use customer information in any way they see fit.

But a company that lies in their privacy policy should be held to the same standard as an individual who lies in a business transaction.  In either case being outed as a "scammer" or at least as engaging in fraudulent actions is appropriate.

I agree. blockchain.info should never have given Roger admin access to their database. There was a clear conflict of interest and as you so elegantly point out the temptation to violate the terms of service is to high.  Fortunately they have rectified the situation.

I dont know i think the openess and transparency is totally needed to disolve the problem of scammers. And i think in this situation roger v had every right  to get that information any body in the same situation has in my oponion protecting criminal likenened people is a project that wil collapse on itself. How can bitcoin succeed when scammers and criminals are protected by anonimity.

And this is why guys like charlie C start crying like big fat babies when the anonimity of scammers  become exposed its not so much as a breach of contract more but more on the likes they didnt agee with a scammer being caught and exposed thats when they start to yell, and we cant have a continuety of the same thing happening,  when theres a threat like that they start crying like babies "wwhhhhaaaaaaa whhHHWAAAaa"

Who's allowed to acces block chain then any way.

*

I was just about to make a fairly large purcahse from MD, glad this happened first. I'd never do any business with this guy now... he clearly violated his own privacy policy, and that of Blockchain.info. I am seriously going to reconsider my regular use of blockchain.info wallets as well.

Very disappointing to see such a supposedly reputable Bitcoin business acting so unprofessionally, and likely illegally (depending on privacy laws in applicable counties). Every business that Roger Ver is involved with is now tainted, in that he may have privileged access to private information, and is clearly prepared to share it with third parties in violation of privacy policies. As others have pointed out, what if this happened and the customer was out of town, hung up the phone because they don't speak English, etc... would he do the same thing with that customer's information? Terrible reflection on his professionalism and understanding of privacy laws and corporate liabilities.

Of course the guy who didn't pay back the 4btc is a jerk, but that is not surprising, he is just some random jackass trying to avoid paying taxes. Roger is a major investor in BTC businesses and he has destroyed his reputation with his handling of this situation.

I'm glad that he e-mailed the scammer a list of businesses that he has an ownership stake in. Anyone who trusts a business in which the owner has already openly violated his binding privacy policy is taking a risk and doing a disservice to the overall trustworthiness and professionalism of the Bitcoin economy. I hope the reputable companies among them will lock him out of having any access to private information, and inform the community of this action. It would suck if a minority shareholder tainted the reputation of otherwise upstanding, professional Bitcoin services.

Well, there's a good bit of truth to this statement. It's true that the blockchain.info's TOS was violated in this case, but protecting dishonest people from prosecution is bad for the health of the community too. I'm kind of disheartened here as the dishonest guy gets away scot free while the original victim is blamed. I doubt that many will not go Roger's way if presented with the exact circumstances.

I'm all for going after the guy, that's why I posted his alternate account in that thread even though I disagree with Roger's actions. Also note the information I shared, I found out using publicly available information, if I had any information which wasn't publicly available I would not have shared it unless his guilt had been proven (which would also require trusting a third party which I'm not very inclined to do). Everything just got drowned out by the backlash against Roger unfortunately.

I don't buy Rob E's argument though, sounds like the age old argument of "Only criminals need privacy".

Rob, honestly, if this happened to me I would not give a shit. It's simply not worth my time to worry about fifty measly bucks if it was my mistake in the first place. I'd just chalk it up to experience, exactly like I said.

For Roger to make such a big deal over $50, he must be in financial trouble. Either that or he's completely insane. I think the latter is more likely, but who knows.

Rob, your first language isn't English, is it? Please tell me it isn't.


The whole Blockchain.info thing aside, don't you think it's completely unprofessional for Roger to publish the guy's address on a forum? I'm not saying it's morally wrong, I'm saying it's inappropriate. After all, this guy didn't scam Roger. He just kept the wrong change. To me it amounts to a customer service dispute, really.

What kind of company solves a customer service dispute by posting the customer's address on a forum for the sake of fifty bucks? One run by completely immature amateurs, in my opinion.

It's worth pointing out that most Bitcoin businesses are private companies and their exact ownership structure isn't always public - some have investors whose identities aren't public knowledge who may also be involved in other Bitcoin enterprises so it's not just about whether you trust the public faces of a company.

He gone offline after i sent him a pm. Although here is his 4.51 on the address he gave on the other thread.

https://blockchain.info/address/18yDbzddGVEr1Vyp4NXrP6mqAmUTesAg9a

I admit that i wasnt going to give it back for the following reasons:

1. He proved to be an asshole, before any thread here.
2. I didnt scam, BUT i have been scammed. Yes im bitbitman, which the bear found after another mistake i did. See "his" thread for more. SO that is another additional reason i found those bitcoins as a gift.
3. It was his fault

After reading those, i want EVERYONE here to reply to:

If someone did a mistake and added to your real bank account even 1$, i say it again BY MISTAKE, would you give it back? Tell the truth here.


I havent scammed anyone, and i understand that my reaction wasn't honest, what in this world is honest after all.

I want him also to post itt to confirm he got that.


All my privacy gone online to all the strange guys of the internet because of that, i ask you, anyone who quoted or posted any of my information (phones, address, names, ips, whatever) to remove them or replace them with "[netheads info]" or something.


Now, all the other people here who said im a scammer, answer me this: How the hell did i scam, if they accidentally added my bitcoin address in their payment recieving system, because that is what happened.

Subnote: For the first time in my life got scared for my life, to be more accurate I have shit my pants for only thinking "My info would be saved in some weird guys pc"

Probably not appropriate for a business to post that about a customer on a forum. I would've dealt with it privately without bringing the forum into it, and probably would've eventually dropped it and considered the money lost as the price of learning from my mistakes.    

IMO it is unethical and dishonest to keep the money in that situation, assuming it all went down as Roger said (I don't know if it did).

Why nobody replies?

Im not saying that but what i am saying is that recourse should't be shut down to gain evidence in a situation like this.

Of course I would give the money back. Keeping something that's not yours if the person is asking for it back is pretty disgusting. Shows who you truly are if you keep it, a scumbag.

Yes. Even $10 or $100 or $100,000.

I assume you send the money back with this transaction?

https://blockchain.info/tx/fb22cccba2443fbbe6fd3f78dcc7acecbd7a6b8adbff4972e9fb4a149b08a426

Good job.

Thanks for confirming that, it was pretty shitty of you to lie about that after I helped you out by whitelisting you so you could defend yourself.

And yes, I would have given it back, mistake or not it's not yours. You shouldn't stop respecting other people's property just because you don't have to.  Stealing from assholes is still stealing. And in the end it isn't about the person you're stealing from, it's about you and who you are as a person, and what you can live with. Good for you for giving it back though, everybody makes mistakes, only way to learn.

Appropriate or not, it is effective  ;).

That would happen even if you havent seen the bitbit post, because of how the thing gone.
Now, you as a moderator, can you revise all the posts regarding me and deliting ANY (personal) info?
That would make you 1 btc instantly, my word on that. Post your address here if im offline
Take it as part of my giveout as promised on the other thread. (I told i will go out of the btc game, and i will, this playground doesnt like me)


I guess, sometimes.. Like now.. Gladly i do not live there but its a friends property and wouldnt like something happening o him.



All you who say you would return back the money i simply cant believe you. Replace that "somene" with "someone you dont know", and answer to me again.

Everybody likes a success story, and your past is no worse than anyone else's.

How does someone in Greece have an Isle of Man phone number? Greece's code is +30

Lol... This is a mobile dude... And its UK, Everyone who goes holidays can buy a number...

Thats is the info i want to get deleted, so please do :)

Also note that he was asking more bitpennies than "he" actually sent. I cannot find the blockchain link with the recieving address
but i found the first request on my mail:


He also got those more bitpennies  :P

So you are going to tell me that you succeed in btc, by getting scammed? Come on..

So did you send him back the BTC then? Where did you get scammed, and by who?

Yes. I explain that on my other posts, there is a topic under "scammers" by bitbitman

see:

Of course I would, and I think most people would. Unless someone was very short of money, in which case I think a lot of people would be tempted to keep it.


Hahaha. I love this. I want to see some more people come out and say this.

Pirate: "Yes, it was a ponzi scheme....but what in this world is honest, after all?"

Bruce Wagner: "Yes I did run MyBitcoin....but who in this world didn't think I was a sleazy scumbag from the beginning, after all?"

Zhou Tong: "There was no Chinese relic dealer...but who in this world is genuinely a relic dealer, after all?"

AugustoCroppo: "Yes, I don't have a wife....but who in this world would marry me, after all?"

I do not believe that im in the same position as them but a truth have been told there

Yes you would 've, stop lying.

the only imature amateur on here i see on here.. so far .. is you. :-[

Absolutely I would, in a heartbeat.  Same thing if I see someone drop a $20 bill on the street - I'd pick it up, run after them, and give it back.

I hope you don't ever run a business, because you'll run it into the ground with an attitude like that.

Honestly, I wanted to feel sorry for you for having your info plastered all over the internet, but after these statements you have made, trying to justify your theft, you're only showing yourself to be a lowlife scumbag.  You're part of the reason the world isn't a better place.  It is not your money, yet you've decided to keep it anyway.  If someone robbed a bank, then shoved a portion of the loot into your arms on the way out, would you keep it?  It is not your money, yet you keep it anyway, and try to justify your conscience with your queries of "be honest, would you return the money?"

Scumbag.

Haha how would you possibly know? You don't know me, you've never met me, and you have no idea about the state of my bank account.

What is your first language Rob?

I just want to say that SgtSpike is probably my favorite person on this forum now.

And holy crap, nethead, you are a terrible human being and I'm glad to see that you have practically admitted to being a thief.  Thanks for proving us all right.

Anyways, for anyone wondering: Yesterday afternoon I started an order at bitcoinstore.com (my first from there) and the item I purchased was significantly cheaper than newegg.com even AFTER shipping costs. The turn around on the order was so fast that I'll be getting my item before Christmas even though I wasn't even planning on it.

I want to thank Charlie"axe to grind"Content for trying to spread FUD because otherwise I probably wouldn't have ordered from bitcoinstore.com

Well said.

Yes. I have, in fact, returned from my car to the store to return a few bucks that they gave me in change by accident on a few occasions. First, it's not money that I am taking from some nebulous "business," it's someone's salary, bonus, or retirement income (if their retirement is in stocks). It's taking money from real, actual people (and not the rich CEOs, since they would just write off the loss and pass it on to soqmeone else, it not affecting their own salary). And second,  I see no reason to ruin relationships with places I plan to use and shop from again.  I doubt BitcoinStore will do business with nethead again, and now that it's public, some other places may deny him service as well (though doubtful). I have way more to lose from lack of access to goods and services than the store has from losing one customer.

That said, lessons were quite thoroughly learned by everyone involved, issues were fixed, and the initial dispute settled, so.... Yay?

Haha "FUD". Hey, I'm glad you got a good deal man.

If they asked nicely, and had reasonable evidence that the money came from them in the first place and was transferred by mistake, then I would probably return it. However, the odds go down significantly if they lack evidence, and become negligible if they start making demands. So far as I'm concerned, the money was given to me freely, and accepted in good faith; I did not request the money or do anything to cause the transfer. In the absence of a formal contract, it's up to me whether I choose to give it back. The analogy of finding cash on the sidewalk fails because it was only dropped, not given to you. This is more like someone walking up to you and handing you $50 with no explanation, and then later demanding it back, claiming a case of mistaken identity.

Note that this is consistent with postal rules, at least in the U.S.; if someone sends you a package, unsolicited, it's yours, and they have no right to demand that you return it or pay for it after the fact.

This goes doubly true for Bitcoin, where ownership is defined exclusively by possession of the controlling private key. It's up to the sender to make sure they're transferring their money to the right account. Returning money mistakenly sent to one of your accounts is nice, and maybe even the "right" thing to do, but I see no obligation here. They sent it to you, ergo it's yours. Intent is irrelevant. Don't sign or broadcast transactions you don't want processed.

My recommended mitigation for this would be to require your customers to agree to return excess funds on request as part of setting up an account. Then there would be an obligation, though you would obviously need to prove that the address belongs to someone who has an account with you and agreed to those terms. If you mistakenly send funds to some random third party, that's your problem, not theirs.

oh but it is okay to make an accusation of someone YOU HAVE  never met. What an Idiot you are .. ... .. wauw.

This guy is really dumb.. ..

I think the analogy of someone handing you $50 is off - that is a deliberate and purposeful action, whereas dropping some money on the ground or sending it to the wrong (with nothing identifying) account number is not.  Seeing a person face-to-face, you can be much more certain right from the get-go that it is going to the right place.  Sending money to a Bitcoin address or other account number without any other identification attached is a much easier mistake to make.  Therefore, I would revise your analogy to accidentally sending money to the wrong bank account (maybe dyslexia caused two numbers to be transposed).  If you knew who it was that you accidentally send the money to, would you not request the money back?  Would it not be their moral responsibility to send it back?  Or, similarly, if the bank accidentally deposited $100,000 in your bank account, would they take it back?  (Most certainly, they would, once the mistake was realized, as it was their money, not yours).

I think we're beyond laws here - I don't think anyone is arguing that any laws would apply here.  It's more of an argument of ethics and morality.

You didn't do too well at school did you? Maybe formal education just isn't for you. Have you considered picking up a book to help you out? I think this one could help you express yourself in a more coherent way, and also help you understand others. I really think it would make your life a little easier, and then you wouldn't have to get frustrated and angry like this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r3OHxzEqJRM/T-3bKg_BnOI/AAAAAAAAARo/zSI9IPNyNP4/s400/English+Grammar+Workbook+For+Dummies.jpg

All the best Rob! Good luck! :)

Charlie

The certainty you associate with face-to-face delivery only exists if the two people know each other by sight, and is subject to exceptions--identical twins, for example, or simply people who look very much alike. If you sent someone out with money to be delivered, and gave them the wrong address or showed them a picture of the wrong person to deliver to, the situation would be very much the same.


Certainly I would request it back. However, that would be an appeal to their good nature, not the assertion of a right.


Moral responsibility is a personal issue, and for them to decide. Ethically, I would say that there is no justification for taking any of their property in compensation; that would be an escalation of force. If they ever erroneously send their property to you, however, you can feel free to hold on to it. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

Bitcoins are a bit of a special case, not being property to begin with. Keeping their actual nature in mind, they have no physical location and are not in anyone's possession; neither are they some sort of contractual claim, like a bank account balance. A balance in a Bitcoin account is nothing more or less than an informal agreement among most Bitcoin users that the holder of a certain private key has a certain number of bitcoins--an entirely virtual unit of account. Claiming that the bitcoins still belong to you after broadcasting a valid, signed transaction transferring them to another user's private key runs contrary to the nature of the system, and undermines its design.


There are some differences here. One is that you're talking about whether the bank would take the money back, not whether they should, or whether they have the right to do so. Certainly they have the power to reverse the change, as the manager of your account. Bitcoin transfers are somewhat more permanent by design, and the block chain and private keys are supposed to be an authoritative record of ownership.

The second difference is that your relationship with the bank is governed by a contract, and such contracts typically include a clause nullifying transfers or changes resulting from human error. In other words, when you set up the account you agreed to return the money if they could show that it was given to you in error. A similar clause could be inserted into the standard account agreement for Bitcoin merchants, but it would naturally only apply to their customers, not anyone who happens to receive bitcoins from them. There are no central organizations governing Bitcoin accounts to enforce such terms among all Bitcoin users.


Agreed.

I actually believe laws do apply, and to the extent they can't be applied, it's only because a) the person keeping the bitcoins is not in the US, b) it's not practical to pursue a claim of that nature for $50, and c) the legal system has a scarce understanding of bitcoins.

In United States v. HELMS No. 96-1167 Crim. App. No. 31250 the appeals court issued this opinion:

"The mistaken delivery of property to an individual who realizes the mistake and simultaneously forms the intent to steal the property at the moment of receipt constitutes larceny at common law. W. LaFave & A. Scott, 2 Substantive Criminal Law § 8.2(g) at 342-43 (1986). Furthermore, where the individual does not realize the mistake at the time of receipt but realizes it later and then forms the requisite intent, there is a larceny as well." http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/1996Term/96-1167.htm

This of course assumes Bitcoins are recognized as property and that submission of a transaction to the block chain to be recognized as equivalent to "sending" them, concepts which I am sure will eventually be argued over and then found to be as I've defined them.

 Like i said when you accuse somebody of something it is okay but when somebody accuses you of the same things you accuse somebody else of its " how do you know.  you never met me" This asinine kind of reasoning is just too silly to even go into No doubt many people can see it except CHarlie content himself. . But you know this double standard he shows asserts my earlier statement: He would have done the EXACT same thing if he'd  been in that position. . The guy is SUpEr Hypocritical .. And no doubt very immature and amateuristic  ARntja charley XD

And now he tries to win the argument by throwing it over my english mishaps.. lol.

Here's one for you charlie. >http://banleam.pbro.moph.go.th/doc/Baby%20cry.gif#crying%20baby%20gif%20200x179
cause i could do this for daa  y s ..   lo l..

Actualy come to think of it when an opponent has nothing of substance to think  or say in a " argument" he ALWAYS attacts the spelling or english. or what ever language. . it's just weak. 
 guess that makes me the winner  yYyee e a aa h h .

I have a hard time following Rob's posts most of the time, but I really enjoyed this one. 

 yYyee e a aa h h !

The reason that I drew attention to your (lack of) communication skills is because you are incoherent. I couldn't even understand your point, and to be honest I still can't. There's not much point in a debate when the other person writes so poorly that you don't even know what they are trying to say.

But, if you need to be the winner Rob, congratulations, you're the winner! :)

The sweet taste of victory, huh? I'm glad I could help you out with that, and I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas.

Oooh, interesting.  I would say that the law does indeed apply here then!

why would YOU want to encrypt files so they became totally undetectable Charlie? What kind of person would go to Such great Lengths? G I wonder.

You're both dumb.

Does it? This was a dispute between somebody living in Japan(?) and somebody living in Greece.

There are also the problems that (a) no property was involved; (b) as bitcoins cannot be possessed, nothing was stolen; and (c) we only have one individual's word (revised multiple times) that the transaction was mistaken in the first place. Nothing has been proven.

My recommendation? Return the 4.xxx BTC, less a 4.xxx BTC storage and handling fee. The trouble they've put you through by erroneously sending you those couple of bitcoins, and the unwarranted damage to your reputation, must be worth at least that much.

I believe that it cannot be applied (it was me the Greece one), he got me by his own way thou

Read thread, he has already got his btc

Meh, you did what was right in the end, even though you didn't actually have to (no one could force you rather), so that's a plus.

How hypocritical...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122364.0

Haha, I love this guy.

Hey Croppo, maybe you should spend less time chasing me around these forums and more time with your wife....oh, that's right. She's a fictional character you made up. Sorry, never mind. Carry on.

(a) and (b) I completely disagree with.  Maybe from a technical standpoint, bitcoins cannot be possessed and are not considered property, but they would be valueless if that was the truth in reality.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It's truly bizarre.

I'm probably one of the few people here who has never used any encryption software.

That's nothing to be proud of.

cool read mjummy..  

ok so i guess the gloves can come off a bit then..

Personally i'd vote to have someone baned of the forum with a record like that.. I think thats absolutely the right thing to do.. Id be cool for similar  people with this viewpoint to come to congregation to get this achieved..I think this guy is a slimey cancer that needs to be cut out of the bitcoin community.

Lol funny how someone who flaunts and brags his mouth about being  Morally corrupt calls people who bring thieves to justice insane L oL. YOU cant make this uupp!! LlOoLl. Do you get it?? LoL..

He got his money back after all this happened, after admiting it was his fault, and after i had no serious reason to give them back to him. NOW he sends me a pm telling me that:


My reply:


And his final reply here:



Is this real world? What the fuck did i did to deserve this fucking thing, even after paying him back, which i did because i wanted to (ok, also wanted my info to be removed)
NOW he threatens to put it back? REALLY?

If one has to apologize for anything, is a thing that he will do alone, noone has to tell him to do so (to promote others bussiness)
After all you have to recover my reputation, not me yours.

all the drama..

Perhaps not, but it renders the bizarre allegations against me patently ridiculous.

Hahahaha. I'm putting this in my sig.

You should! lol!!

I don't know why I bother to even show/hide any of his posts.

Is there such a thing on this forum as a ban for being useless?

I just wish that the forum would "hide" quotes from ignored users so I don't have to see/read their crap every time someone else responds to something they said.

Good point!

requoting for some specific retards who still pm me asking to return money...

Seriously?  No one has any comment on bitcoins "most prolific investor" continuing to extort a former customer?

Yawn.  This is getting to be old news that has been repeated so many times as to lose its impact.

That is sad because it lets the real perpetrator go away

Unfortunately neither the original perpetrator nor the follow up perpetrator are going away.  They both continue to drag this out with nothing new, and no resolution.

Pawned by the Grammar Furry! (sorry, Rassah, but I couldn't resist)  ;D


Gulp! I retract what I was going to pen. ---> I haven't even explored any encryption option.

Roger did a silly move, I'm sure he understands it by now. I also think he's done a lot for bitcoin, something we all should be grateful about.

It's a bit telling that you can do 99.9% good, and then do 0.01% bad (even though you didn't intend for it to be bad), and because of that 0.01% you get dismissed and/or attacked.

Try to see the big picture.

If he understood that, I don't think he'd be threatening to do it again.

What? Another old timer gone sour? Color me shocked. All of this over a few btc. Geez. Isnt that cost of doing biz and to top it off the initial mistake was his.

+1
Nice to see a voice of reason.

BUMP
because i do not want to let it go
(for more info read my latest posts in thread)

Shut the fuck up already. Enough with the multiple posts and thinking that anyone gives a flying fuck about your broke ass 4.5 BTC.

He's a supa Freak...  Supa Freak!