NEMStake unrightfully claimed - Full disclosure

[gimre]

there is one more good reason to keep it public.

I think someone in community will sooner or later start investingating, who might be the scammer.

Also in case of NXT, it is not impossible, to actually nail down to IP, who the scammer is.

He's keeping almost all tokens here:
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=15654939027836101302&switch=5

[evergrow]

there is one more good reason to keep it public.

I think someone in community will sooner or later start investingating, who might be the scammer.

Also in case of NXT, it is not impossible, to actually nail down to IP, who the scammer is.

He's keeping almost all tokens here:
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=15654939027836101302&switch=5

gimre how can you find the IP address and how will that help?

as far as I understand patmast3r made the mistake so unfortunately there's not really a crime?!
fuck the scammer.  that's like 140000 NXT he scammed if converted

[ARGpentem]

This should be closed because the title is misleading. Make a note in the token issuance book if needed but "do not buy" thread does not do anything except to confuse people.

Pat take this stuff down. This stuff happens all the time. I feel bad it happened to you. You are a great asset to the NEM community, but there is no point to this and nothing should be halted.

You want to make sure nothing like this happens again?

Well, I would imagine it won't.

What other scams are out there? Countless!!

But we can't let the scammers stop the show. That is much more costly than 6 stakes!!!

I think you can't delete threads here but even if I could I wouldn't.
If we have learned anything from UPs mistake it's that we have to be transparent about stuff like this. That's exactly what I'm doing.
We could have kept this a secret. Noone would have known, Noone could have known.
The fact that we were open about this should actually build up trust instead of hurting it.
This won't stop anything. Don't be absurd It's a few stakes out of 3000 - worse things have happend.

And just ignore CfA. He's some moron desperate for attention. He's the worst kind of a btt user and the entire forum knows it.

It is incorrect. As long as the list is open, the discrepancy will come out. Matching the toke issuance list with the final list is not a rocket science. I keep a copy of the whole stake list and I am probably not the only one doing so. From a stakeholder POV, each account = 1 stake and the total number are written down so in the end things have to add up.  

What would have stoped me from changing the names so there was no discrepancy ?
It would have been easy to cover up.

I keep a copy * and probably many others. It is a distributed blockchain concept so that we can all agree on a shared ledger. If there is a discrepancy and doubt, we can go back to the funding threads and look for the account's post to confirm the account's validity. In fact, I would recommend NEM team doing a full stakeholder list validation given all the changes and mistakes have been made. It could take sometimes but the method is clear and non refutable.

* My copy is about 2 weeks old when I was first active here but someone could have even an older copy.
 

that 2 week old copy would have been worthless as the token issuance list was updated daily.

We did audit all tokens that we're issued.
The entire list was audited once already. During that process about 300 people were removed.

The token list has to match the full list so the full list is important not the token list. Not worthless at all since the full list is not supposed to be changed. The full list could be validated at the sources as I said but if there are enough copies of the list around that are identical, that could be good enough. I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

[gimre]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

[ARGpentem]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

What about accounts not requesting tokens ? Are you sure that UF did not add 100 accounts into the list before he resigned ?

[gimre]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

What about accounts not requesting tokens ? Are you sure that UF did not add 100 accounts into the list before he resigned ?

You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

...including analysis of threads and transactions... ARGpentem ... how long are you with us, it's been pretty loud back when it was done?

[patmast3r]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

What about accounts not requesting tokens ? Are you sure that UF did not add 100 accounts into the list before he resigned ?

Are you sure the NSA didn't add 800 accounts ?
Let's try not to make up complete crap shall we ?

[ARGpentem]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

What about accounts not requesting tokens ? Are you sure that UF did not add 100 accounts into the list before he resigned ?

Are you sure the NSA didn't add 800 accounts ?
Let's try not to make up complete crap shall we ?

I am not sure. That's why full account validation is good and should be done. Public record should have a source which can be used as a reference. It is just standard way of record keeping.

[josephliton]

Some ass has manged to scam assets out of me.
NO STAKES ARE LOST !

Everyone on the list will get they're stakes and everyone who has bought a stake on the AE will (apart from the scammer obviously)

Following accounts have scammed assets:

NXT-XR2N-5SS3-X9BZ-H8BN8
NXT-8SCQ-9S3Q-JP2T-DM6Q5
NXT-8YZK-DV4T-4R3K-5BU5L
NXT-ZHUA-3R7B-G74V-AG5VV
NXT-29UX-LJCV-YAGJ-FZWV9
NXT-W7SY-5SMN-L7QE-E7CLA

So a total of 6 assets have been scammed out of me.
Since almost 600 were issued I think we can safely say worse things have happend.

Very unfortunate news.

[ARGpentem]

I suggest doing a full account validation if there aren't enough independent copies around (3 is a minimum). The auditing was for taint analysis as I read, account validation is for a different purpose: making sure all accounts in the list are qualified.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

edit ok, I've misread, whatever account is eligible or not is actually checked before issuing token (i.e. if it's on the list (obviously), if it hasn't been banned)

What about accounts not requesting tokens ? Are you sure that UF did not add 100 accounts into the list before he resigned ?

You are aware, that there was already taint analysis done, before final stakeholders list was published, right?

...including analysis of threads and transactions... ARGpentem ... how long are you with us, it's been pretty loud back when it was done?

How many independent copies of the list do you have ? Let's say the taint analysis was good and perfect at that point. Then you had a list. But that list could be changed, couldn't it? Do you keep a copy of the list yourself ?

[inkadnb]

So... are we not to buy stakes from NEMstake? I missed the boat being a stakeholder.

If so, are we supposed to cross-reference from the list?

[crackerhead]

So... are we not to buy stakes from NEMstake? I missed the boat being a stakeholder.

If so, are we supposed to cross-reference from the list?

You can still but NEMstakes, what happened with the stolen stakes will not affect NEMstake holders.

Edit: Sorry I am not sure what you meant by the second part. Once you buy a NEMstake you just redeem it after NEMs official launch, you won't need to be on the stakeholder list if you bought off of AE.

[inkadnb]

So... are we not to buy stakes from NEMstake? I missed the boat being a stakeholder.

If so, are we supposed to cross-reference from the list?

You can still but NEMstakes, what happened with the stolen stakes will not affect NEMstake holders.

Edit: Sorry I am not sure what you meant by the second part. Once you buy a NEMstake you just redeem it after NEMs official launch, you won't need to be on the stakeholder list if you bought off of AE.

Cool, and what about the NEM Stake Auction? Any news on that? The main thread was impossible to sift through for more details.

I'm referring to this btw.

Thanks again

[patmast3r]

So... are we not to buy stakes from NEMstake? I missed the boat being a stakeholder.

If so, are we supposed to cross-reference from the list?

You can still but NEMstakes, what happened with the stolen stakes will not affect NEMstake holders.

Edit: Sorry I am not sure what you meant by the second part. Once you buy a NEMstake you just redeem it after NEMs official launch, you won't need to be on the stakeholder list if you bought off of AE.

Cool, and what about the NEM Stake Auction? Any news on that? The main thread was impossible to sift through for more details.

I'm referring to this btw.

Thanks again

Sorry, no updates on that other than that it is still planned to happen.

[sdersdf2]

Just getting caught up - besides the 6-stake sock puppet issue, which seems to be minor, or at least to have passed - why is the price going down? Is there anything else depressing it, or was that it?