Summary of the events last night - And an apology.

[da2ce7]

If you ask me, (that nobody has), this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and not repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).

I would be glad to know to avoid such a person in future business dealings.

Edit: Spelling

[mccorvic]

Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).

I agree.  It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired. 

What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.

[SgtSpike]

Talk is cheap, I think the real victim is the person who's privacy was invaded.  That person should be given compensation for this cheap attack and it should be more than 4 BTC.

No, he shouldn't.

Thanks for the public apology Jon.  My faith in your business never wavered because of this incident (I know that we're all only human), but it is still good to hear an official statement that this sort of thing will not happen again.

[SgtSpike]

Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).

I agree.  It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired. 

What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.

Can we label shad0wbitz and stochastic "Public Flailers"? 

[stochastic]

Talk is cheap, I think the real victim is the person who's privacy was invaded.  That person should be given compensation for this cheap attack and it should be more than 4 BTC.

It's clear that you haven't run or owned a business. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so cavalier about rewarding criminals and thieves.

It is not a scam if someone gives extra money as a refund.  When you click send on the bitcoin client you are confirming the sending of that amount.  The person that receives that amount is under no obligation to return that money.  The user signed up for nonreversible payments when they used bitcoin.  They also agreed that the owner of that bitcoin address is the new owner of the amount of bitcoins sent to them.

In fact an investor of blockchain.info violated its terms of service.  If I violate the terms of service of a service I use then I may lose my account or have to pay a fine.  If an company breaks its own terms of service of its account and and released that information to a third party then that business needs to pay a fine to the customer that was harmed.

Below sums up the problem very well.

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:

We will . . . distribute . . . your personal information to third parties unless we have your permission or are required by law to do so.

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.

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer.  Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

[thebaron]

Oh u, trolls.

[SgtSpike]

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer.  Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him.  If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative.  It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

[stochastic]

Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).

I agree.  It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired. 

What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.

Can we label shad0wbitz and stochastic "Public Flailers"? 

How am I flailing?  A company offers an apology to "the community" because of "The community has been outraged at this invasion of privacy."  The apology was not offered because of the invasion of privacy and the breaking of the terms of service of blockchain.info.  The apology is because "the community" is outraged.

I am saying talk is cheap.  I will believe someone is sorry if they are justly punished for the breaking of terms of service and the violation of a customers privacy.

[stochastic]

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer.  Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him.  If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative.  It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money.  I am only saying, I don't accept the apology.  A worded apology is not worth much to me.  Put your $$ where your mouth is.  The company violated its own terms of service.  If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere.

[kokojie]

I understand, as a business owner, sometimes it's difficult to accept that someone stole from you, and
your principles won't let you give it up so easily, even go as far as letting your principles cloud your
judgement. But really you have to accept the loss, learn from the mistake and move on, it's just part of
the cost of doing business. In a sense, it's a valuable lesson, to learn how to prevent the same thing
happening in the future, how to improve your processes.

[SgtSpike]

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer.  Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him.  If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative.  It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money.  I am only saying, I don't accept the apology.  A worded apology is not worth much to me.  Put your $$ where your mouth is.  The company violated its own terms of service.  If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere.

So, pay a fine?  To whom?  How much?

[Rotsor]

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Let me remind you:

Alerts Enabled: When notifications are enabled your public keys are inserted in a separate table along with your email, skype handle or google talk username. This mode does sacrifice some Anonymity as we can now see your public keys and view your wallet balance. However just because a wallet contains a public key does not necessarily mean they are the owner of said key (as you can add keys without the respective private key).

That bolded part seems to invalidate the only 'proof' of his fault we ever had.

[Axios]

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Not *really*. According to Roger - his company gave his address as a payment address to an another customer.

Can't really verify it's Rogers's word vs Nethead's at this point. And Roger already provided false information by claiming that BitPay sent funds to that address.

If that customer can prove that he sent the monies to that address then nethead is lying.

[Thursday]

I missed it.

Cliffs anyone?

[mccorvic]

How am I flailing?  A company offers an apology to "the community" because of "The community has been outraged at this invasion of privacy."  The apology was not offered because of the invasion of privacy and the breaking of the terms of service of blockchain.info.  The apology is because "a subset of the community" is outraged.

FTFY

You're "flailing" and whining because you obviously haven't even spent 15 bloody seconds thinking about what you're saying. There are steps being enacted as outlined in the flippin' OP. You want them to pay a guy who has already stolen from them, we get it, but that ain't gonna happen. Not because "talk is cheap" but because that is an ugly and reprehensible thing to do. Especially since the only people who want the guy to get EXTRA money are the thieves and flailers.  

[Rotsor]

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Not *really*. According to Roger - his company gave his address as a payment address to an another customer.

Can't really verify it's Rogers's word vs Nethead's at this point. And Roger already provided false information by claiming that BitPay sent funds to that address.

If that customer can prove that he sent the monies to that address then nethead is lying.

There seems to be no contradiction between Roger's and Nethead's statements. Roger says their customer sent bitcoins to the Nethead's address. Nethead says that his address was was the anonymiser address for one-time use only, which makes the additional funds sent inaccessible. There is no refutation of that as far as I can tell.

[Axios]

There seems to be no contradiction between Roger's and Nethead's statements. Roger says their customer sent bitcoins to the Nethead's address. Nethead says that his address was was the anonymiser address for one-time use only, which makes the additional funds sent inaccessible. There is no refutation of that as far as I can tell.

I haven't looked into it, but Roger claimed that address belonged to Nethead's wallet. What he claimed: the address wasn't one time use.

[Rotsor]

I haven't looked into it, but Roger claimed that address belonged to Nethead's wallet. What he claimed: the address wasn't one time use.

Yes, which is why I've brought up this facts, which invalidates the Roger's evidence:

However just because a wallet contains a public key does not necessarily mean they are the owner of said key

[greyhawk]

Oh please people. I'm admittedly the first one who will get on anyone's case again and again and again relentlessly,
but PLEASE; this time Roger found someone who understood where the problem is, acknowledged it and confirmed how
it will not happen again. What else do you need? Roger Ver is in contrast to all rumours not actually able to redefine
linear time, so what happened, happened, and now a solution has to be found. While Roger was unable to express it due to
god-complex issues, Jon did it. And he did it fine. He did it as you would expect it from any other business unable to effect
linear time.

After piuk's very quick and necessary changes I think we're in the clear here.

Disclaimer: This is in no way a recommendation to use Roger's services; his willingness to break social compacts became clear
enough, but I don't think it is necessary to further harp on things that can no longer be changed due to them having been
happened and the responsible parties acknowleded that things did not go as they should via third person.

[repentance]

I'm curious about whether Roger has any special access to the user records of other businesses in which he's an investor, such as BitInstant and Coinlab.  As mentioned earlier, there's a lot of "inbreeding" in the Bitcoin economy and the relationships between business owners and other entities in which they've invested really need to be clarified now that this issue has arisen.