How has it been debunked? It's a fact.
A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta. After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep the forked funds. There is evidence you did this. It happened. Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent.
Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals[1]; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing.
[1] Unless of course you're trying to state that I'm not allowed to change my policies for the future deals that I might accept  |
|
|
|
This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.
Neither the team nor the 4th independent escrow has made a single complaint about me. Peculiar indeed. I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. Care to stop with the intentional spread of lies? This is the 4th time this is being debunked. e bch fork which occurred on 2017-08-01 12:20 p.m. UTC. On Aug 7/17, 1497.22 bch were sent from …p1Z to 1AWiFCKWxWHHvvLdvjGHXG3ViiDs8RE5x7 and then on to 1GkXv39S13k9yyDLtyXR8MsaYWKzRB1JLe, an exchange address that held 43K bch on that day. This sale would have netted about 112 btc. Then, if you look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf you will see that later the same day, 93.999 btc arrived on the btc escrow address. This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.The fork went to the escrow address with a part of it being released under the first milestone. I didn't even need to provide any proof, someone else did it for me^. |
|
|
|
The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).
It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners. You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money. Sorry. Nothing is hidden; you're confusing confidentiality with cryptographic authentication. Those that are actually relevant to the project and/or care to spend 5 minutes of their time know where the funds are. |
|
|
|
He even posted evidence...
What he posted is of no relevance to this thread. The policy change has nothing to do with NVO. If you jump to conclusions when you have: a) No evidence. b) No facts. c) No knowledge of anything that's been going on in the NVO ecosystem for the past 12 months, then you clearly are biased in one way or another. Thus, he intentionally made slanderous statements. Semantics really is the weakest argument.
It isn't semantics, it is cryptography. There is no multisig signing standard. what is the new excuse for why you can't do it? Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made?
You haven't read anything in the thread, again.
The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week). |
|
|
|
Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?
He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1]. Maybe it was due to you pointing out his refusal to sign an address he used for the multisig escrow, which led to the fact that Lauda doesn't understand that signers on a multisig address can still sign messages using the key they used in the multisig address, putting a huge hole in his argument of why he couldn't prove the funds he claimed to hold?
Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.
[1] Ironically, some of the evidence to debunk the made up stories was posted by someone that I neg. rated. |
|
|
|
Quoted and added to the sheets.
Still waiting for a few translators. |
|
|
|
Do you have a sense of the current turnout - how many voted? I could probably find that out on the blockchain but maybe you have the number already. If it's on track to achieve 50%+ in 2 weeks then maybe that's not an issue.
You can track that here: https://nvo.party/.
Official announcement about BCH/BCC:Yanni Bragui/Marto in slack
"Hi guys, I wanted to clear the state of the BCH from the crowdsale.
The BCH/BCC (result of chain split) belongs to the project. The team won't benefit from these funds, they are not considered as an exceptional "extra".
These coins will be converted to Bitcoin as soon as it is possible, the escrows will handle the process and add the funds to the escrow address.
These coins are considered as exceptional extra funds for the project."
That isn't the official announcement of anything. That's the version of nemgun/yanni, i.e. whoever was posting from that account at the time (it's somewhat safe to assume the CEO also had no say in this statement..). I always considered them as part of release milestones, and they were calculated as such pre-any requests. That can't be right as it seems way too high[1]. Fees were paid by NVO, and 18 BTC is not what anyone "pocketed". The only way to know with absolute certainty is to look up the history of the account where it was liquidated, but that is deliberately being blocked by nemgun. Not bad for 30 minutes of work.
Based on the messages that I quickly skimmed over, it took me ~2 days to successfully manage this. Which seems to be correct as BTC moved on 2017-08-05.
[1] Update: It isn't right; I just went through thousands of messages. Quoting nemgun: "guys, i would like to ask if we can send 25.623 BTC to Yani"; which was the equivalent of 284.7 BCH or so at the time. |
|
|
|
It is definitely possible, and I've done derivation on Copay a number of times before although I wouldn't risk this (while the funds are on it) just for the sake of confirming something because some zero-proof allegations were made. This can be done with said wallet after funds are moved to Electrum multisig for the refund (1-to-n capability is lacking in Copay). The option of sending a trivial amount somewhere seems much safer and easier to do. It wouldn't necessarily be trivial to sign a message, but definitely doable with a low difficulty.
Importing the priv. key elsewhere would make it trivial indeed; assuming that every escrow has another wallet on said machine. |
|
|
|
Quoted for reference and added to the sheet. |
|
|
|
Well since you won’t give any information about what is preventing this I guess the only reasonable next step is to blindly trust that nothing shady is going on.  I literally just gave out this information. What is the setup being used that prevents the escrows from accessing their individual keys? (not that this would prove anything without the RedeemScript. I'm just curious)
Right now, Copay multisig.
~Out for a while. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
Precisely. But with NVO it was a slow painful diarrhea. I'm not sure we will ever learn the truth about some inside stories, just waiting on the refund.
Issues are not uncommon; read into the MobileGO link that I've posted here. Lauda, what are the criteria for you to proceed with the vote results? It seemed that the weighted vote is more or less decided, but I guess there is some official time to follow. Feels like any day now, but no new information on the horizon coming.
Criteria is mostly time. The vote was planned for a duration of two weeks; 1 week to go. |
|
|
|
What is the setup being used that prevents the escrows from accessing their individual keys? (not that this would prove anything without the RedeemScript. I'm just curious)
Right now, Copay multisig. Plenty of wallets don't allow trivial access to individual keys, which includes hardware wallets. You'd have to derive them using some tool, which IMHO compromises the seed. Also, is it a possibility to send a trivial amount from the escrow address(es) to a specific BTC address to prove ownership?
This is indeed possible. There is only one BTC escrow address. |
|
|
|
You can trivially sign messages from each private key that are associated with the public keys that were combined to create the multisig address...
We can not. You have no idea about the setup that is being used, thus you should avoid making unsubstantiated claims. OK.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that BCH and other major forks will be distributed to NVO bagholders? Simply stating that plus some blockchain proof of the escrow holding those amounts would be much better than this endless back-and-forth.
-snip- I ask you kindly to stop spreading false (out of context) and outdated information about the forks. Well, they were already calculated within the releases[3]. Forks were redeemed and released to nemgun as part of his share of the milestones (he barely touched any other coins until one - two months before this disaster) under the claim that they would be used for development purposes. I have the chain data for all of those, including the parts that remain unspent under his control (or yanni's, depending on which side of the story you believe..).
I also have a list of forks that are still within our possession (provided by Anduck); but I'm uncertain of their total value at this time as most of the time available is spent responding and debunking nonsense here and elsewhere.
This is how a lot of these false rumors came to be; someone stated something somewhere a while ago and it keeps being dragged around despite newer information being available. |
|
|
|
I don't think anybody here expects personal/sensitive info about investors.
In contrast to Bitcoin, alts had unique addresses (which had its own set of pros and cons during the sale). I can welcome a third party to look into the movement of these[1]. Anything that's on the blockchain is fair game though and you could quash most of the allegations in the OP by showing how those coins moved and where it all resides now.
You can see this yourself by simply following the original Bitcoin address (it requires only a few jumps). And no, it isn't possible to sign a message from a multisig address especially not from a setup that doesn't display individual keys (it would require compromising all three seeds). TG (or any chat contraption) is not a good way to communicate with investors.
Bitcointalk was never the way for communicating with NVO; it was their Slack and now it is their TG channel. How did the bagholders learn about the vote?
Reddit, Medium, TG, Slack and some Discord groups made by individuals. It seems very short (2 weeks) and on short notice.
Well, this seems contradicting. A certain side is complaining that refunds are not happening fast enough ("that we are stalling"). It can always be prolonged by a bit if need be. Did the team or the escrow e-mail registered users?
This is where it gets complicated and out of my hand. Allegedly, nemgun had control of the domain(s?) and email(s) (which includes the investor database) before the dispute between the team members arose due to Yanni's disappearance and other stuff.. Some time after it started, Yanni temporarily appeared and allegedly took back control only to disappear again (temporarily?). There's no real way of knowing what exactly happened down there[2] nor whose story is true (hence the vote). I've sent Ton a message about the email database after I've read your question. Does this mean that BCH and other major forks will be distributed to NVO bagholders? Simply stating that plus some blockchain proof of the escrow holding those amounts would be much better than this endless back-and-forth.
Well, they were already calculated within the releases[3]. Forks were redeemed and released to nemgun as part of his share of the milestones (he barely touched any other coins until one - two months before this disaster) under the claim that they would be used for development purposes. I have the chain data for all of those, including the parts that remain unspent under his control (or yanni's, depending on which side of the story you believe..). I also have a list of forks that are still within our possession (provided by Anduck); but I'm uncertain of their total value at this time as most of the time available is spent responding and debunking nonsense here and elsewhere.
[1] Though I wonder why the attempt at burning me on a stake (by certain individuals), when I only ever held 1 alternative currency. [2] It's similar to this thread; nemgun claims X happened, Yanni claims Y happened. Ton sides with Yanni (his original co-founder). Neither side has provided something that I would consider absolute evidence of certain events happening. Therefore, as a neutral third party I proposed that holders vote on the outcome (which they currently are). [3] Based on the complete audit (which includes the forks), there are 50% more funds available than the minimum requirement by the milestones. This kind-of-dispels the 'team exit scam' claims, but I'm sure that certain individuals would disagree. |
|
|
|
Not really. Here’s your thread from now and your thread from November 2017. You decided to change the rules after you had the funds in hand. https://imgur.com/gallery/pSfxTSlThose are policies that apply to CET; it has nothing to do with deals that were already in progress and it has changed in late 2017 IIRC (not March 2018). Assuming that the last thread update definitely corresponds to a policy change just shows how ridiculous the allegations are. As said, not a single claim in this thread is true. You had funds in escrow. Forks happened. You updated your thread to state that you keep all forked coins. I can almost guarantee that you are one of the only people that thinks this allegation is ridiculous. Again, it had nothing to do with existing escrow deals. Can you stop with the kool-aid and making up your own stories about my services that aren't even remotely based on reality? |
|
|
|
Not really. Here’s your thread from now and your thread from November 2017. You decided to change the rules after you had the funds in hand. https://imgur.com/gallery/pSfxTSlThose are policies that apply to CET; it has nothing to do with deals that were already in progress and it has changed in late 2017 IIRC (not March 2018). Assuming that the last thread update definitely corresponds to a policy change just shows how ridiculous the allegations are. As said, not a single claim in this thread is true. |
|
|
|
Why can't it be posted publicly instead of having to trust yet another person?
The information about investors was never public (aside of the total raised, but that is needed for token allocation), and it certainly won't be made public because there are a few disgruntled individuals that anonymously wrote some bad words. If I was one of the NVO bagholders I'd be furious. I think they're entitled to proper communication.
And they have been receiving that, via the NVO TG channel. Plus, there is nothing really to convey from my end: Vote is in progress; decision is made by current holders based on the vote (which is currently in favor of a refund using the existing balance). It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
You changed your escrow rules in March, to include that you keep forked coins for yourself, months after you already had these funds in your possession.
What about that? Already handled. You changed your escrow rules in March, to include that you keep forked coins for yourself, months after you already had these funds in your possession.
Wrong. |
|
|
|
Any evidence can be supplied to a trustworthy third party in private, on demand, without compromising several thousand people (as mentioned already). If necessary, I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.
The BTC refunds will be made public on the blockchain, presumably to the same address they made payments from and/or from the same address they should have received their tokens to. To argue that the address you are holding BTC on behalf of "thousands" of people must be kept secret, despite your promise to keep it at a specific address, for "privacy" is hogwash. I wasn't talking about the Bitcoin address. That one is public, as it always has been. Just follow the trail via blockchain. Further, there are allegations you stated you would refuse to corporate with any kind of audit.
Random individuals were making demands for information that they are not entitled to. I ran and finished an audit myself (which is the 2nd audit in the last 3 months) just a few days ago. By those calculations (forks included), there are ~50% more funds that will be refunded than what the escrow milestones demand. Jumping to conclusions based on allegations made by sock puppets, allegations which were not supported by a single piece of evidence, and calling me a scammer based on said allegations isn't helping anyone.
The sad part about this is that we saved them from losing all the invested money.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
