MemoryDealers.com founder Roger Ver abuses admin access at Blockchain.info

[SgtSpike]

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

[Raoul Duke]

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.

[casascius]

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

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

[misterbigg]

just a folder full of .html and .js files would be more than satisfactory, and would have the benefit of being cross-platform.

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

[Axios]

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

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

1FZFQzDkoSFvPgiLouMfoSQSFaqNDfegJz

Transaction: 76737be8f5b395a5514771ac444000c6c10dd44d954e853c163a1a63985414db
Date: 2012-12-19 00:19:22
From: 1FZFQzDkoSFvPgiLouMfoSQSFaqNDfegJz
To: 1H4UR5M72Ybpo4zrqWe8JKKYSeN1gxqBcU
Amount: 4.5119 BTC

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

[MPOE-PR]

CharlieContent, This issue has been settled now.
Blockchain.info user funds wer 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,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

Roger Ver

Certainly not.

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

[MemoryDealers]

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

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

1FZFQzDkoSFvPgiLouMfoSQSFaqNDfegJz

Transaction: 76737be8f5b395a5514771ac444000c6c10dd44d954e853c163a1a63985414db
Date: 2012-12-19 00:19:22
From: 1FZFQzDkoSFvPgiLouMfoSQSFaqNDfegJz
To: 1H4UR5M72Ybpo4zrqWe8JKKYSeN1gxqBcU
Amount: 4.5119 BTC

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

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.

[MemoryDealers]

CharlieContent, This issue has been settled now.
Blockchain.info user funds wer 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,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

Roger Ver

Certainly not.

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

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.

[John (John K.)]

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.

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

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

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

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

[DannyHamilton]

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

I think you should change the thread title,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

Certainly not.

. . . 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 . . .

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.

[misterbigg]

I think you should change the thread title,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

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.

[John (John K.)]

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

I think you should change the thread title,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

Certainly not.

. . . 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 . . .

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.

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

Roger and the support agent's access to this information has been revoked.

[DannyHamilton]

I think you should change the thread title,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

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 . . . Blockchain.info . . .

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.

[Axios]

This address is actually owned by Bitpay.com

An employee of Bitcoinstore mistakenly asked Bitpay to send money to this account.

I have since instructed Bitpay not to disperse any funds unless specifically asked to do so by myself.

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

[MPOE-PR]

CharlieContent, This issue has been settled now.
Blockchain.info user funds wer 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,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

Roger Ver

Certainly not.

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

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.

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.

[MPOE-PR]

I think you should change the thread title,  or better yet,  lock the thread and ask the mods to delete it.

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?

Why am I quoting saying something I did not say?

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

[lulzplzkthx]

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.

[DannyHamilton]

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

Roger and the support agent's access to this information has been revoked.

When I read the following:

What happened
. . . Roger used his access to the blockchain.info admin panel to lookup . . .

Why does Roger have access to the blockchain admin panel
He . . . helps with support . . .

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.

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.

[John (John K.)]

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.

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.

[greyhawk]

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.