Summary of the events last night - And an apology.

[thebaron]

Obviously we need the government to come in and regulate these people.

[SgtSpike]

Obviously we need the government to come in and regulate these people.

Obviously.   

It's like there's a bunch of whiny 12 year old girls here, I swear... Roger made a mistake, and it's been owned up to.  If you don't like him, don't use his service.  Move on.

[ninjaboon]

omg, what a PR mess for Roger's bitcoinstore. Going forward, it's important for Roger to ensure this type of issues do not happen in the future.

[mc_lovin]

never a dull moment in the bitcoin world.

but the bitcoin world is sort of small right now, bitcoinstore, memorydealers, and the other associated businesses probably lost a LOT of customers in the past 24 hours.  and those customers won't spread the good word about their experiences.  it's like they say you do someone good and they might tell 3 people, but do someone bad and they will tell 10.  well you just told a forum with now >73,000 members (plus reddit and other communities) EXACTLY how you conduct business and it's frightening yet delightfully entertaining to watch from a distance.  I can't see this situation being good for you.

OP: probably shouldn't be linking directly to the 'please delete' thread if it is to be deleted and hidden from view.

I have about 100 other comments I want to make but I shall save face by keeping them to myself.

[Axios]

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.

I also would like to know which accounts Rogers looked up on blockchain.info, who he was spying on.

[Axios]

ok i have to ask....

what kind of extra info can you get from a TX using an admin acc on blockchain.info?

[Wallet {email='zootreeves@gmail.com'
, guid='abf66471-fe0a-6820-8977-55d7e8c1f6b2'
, shared_key='XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX'
, secret_phrase='My Secret'
, alias='piuk'
, created=Tue Jan 03 12:52:07 GMT 2012
, updated=Tue Dec 18 19:47:40 GMT 2012
, created_ip='81.187.238.52'
, updated_ip='127.0.0.1'
, sms_number='+44 7525431876'
, country='GBP'}
]

[DannyHamilton]

ok i have to ask....

what kind of extra info can you get from a TX using an admin acc on blockchain.info?

[Wallet {email='zootreeves@gmail.com'
, guid='abf66471-fe0a-6820-8977-55d7e8c1f6b2'
, shared_key='XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX'
, secret_phrase='My Secret'
, alias='piuk'
, created=Tue Jan 03 12:52:07 GMT 2012
, updated=Tue Dec 18 19:47:40 GMT 2012
, created_ip='81.187.238.52'
, updated_ip='127.0.0.1'
, sms_number='+44 7525431876'
, country='GBP'}
]

The "secret_phrase" is no longer available and lookup by address has been removed along with the hashing of bitcoin addresses:

. . .
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

. . .

Note, this is not the user's password.  It is a "secret phrase" used by support to identify you when you contact them looking for assistance with your account.

[Rassah]

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.

I worked at a business where theft was common, and I never understood this. Why? Why should businesses accept the losses and allow the thieves to continue? Is privately, and if needed publicly, shaming them so horrible? Are they supposed to be concerned about hurting the sensibilities or feelings of the person who is stealing from them? Is this some sort of a culturally agreed on thing, where the reputation of a thief or scammer is too precious compared to the well being of the victim? Why don't businesses just stop putting up with it and stop enabling it?

[Rassah]

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Roger said that the email address used on nethead's Bitcoinstore account matched the email address of the wallet containing the address the coins were sent to, tying nethead directly to it. Nethead claimed that the address in question was a one-time anonymizing address, but that would very likely be a lie, since Blockchain's anonymizer doesn't work like that. Anonymizing addresses receive coins, send them to the mixer, and the coins come out of the mixer into the rest of your wallet. These addresses are not "disposable," or meant to be used only once. It's your address. Maybe nethead deleted it, but I don't know what would happen in that case (coins lost forever? Address output still in database, so nethead still received the coins?) Maybe puik can explain the technical part of it. Also, on the page that lets you create an anonymous address, it specifically states, "Transactions received to anonymous addresses cannot be linked to your regular wallet." If that's true, Roger would not have been able to do an address lookup to get nethead's email. So, either nethead lied, or puik has some 'splaining to do.

[videos4btc]

lol this was awesome just pure awesomeness....

[adamstgBit]

 To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

[videos4btc]

To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

Thank you, seems to be about correct.

[SgtSpike]

To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

No, nhead published the sensitive information, not BitcoinStore.  BitcoinStore only published it after nhead had already done so.

[DannyHamilton]

To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

No.

More like this:

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms
• Customer requests refund
• BitcoinStore refunds to address given by customer

At this point everything is fine so far. Then:

• In separate transaction Bitcoin accidentally has additional 4+ BTC sent to Customer
• BitcoinStore requests that Customer send back the extra 4+ BTC
• Customer decides he prefers to keep the BTC and lies saying the address receiving the 4+ BTC is not his
• BitcoinStore accesses proof that the address does belong to Customer and provides that proof only to the Customer
• Customer gets angry that this proof of his lie was available an publishes his own sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet to let them know that BitcoinStore has access to this proof
• BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

[DannyHamilton]

Thank you, seems to be about correct.

Not at all.  It was NetHead (the customer) who published his own sensitive information publicly in the internet.  The only wrongdoing on the part of BitcoinStore was accessing the sensitive information in the first place to prove directly to the Customer only that they knew he owned the address that he was lying and stating he didn't own.  They should not have had access to this information, and they no longer do.  They only has access because Roger of MemoryDealers.com was also acting in the capacity of an employee of blockchain.info.  He mis-used the access that he had as a blockchain.info employee to assist in the bitcoinstore.com dispute.  Because of this he is no longer acting in an employee capacity at blockchain.info, and blockchain.info has reviewed and improved their security practices relating to personal information.

[videos4btc]

Thank you, seems to be about correct.

Not at all.  It was NetHead (the customer) who published his own sensitive information publicly in the internet.  The only wrongdoing on the part of BitcoinStore was accessing the sensitive information in the first place to prove directly to the Customer only that they knew he owned the address that he was lying and stating he didn't own.  They should not have had access to this information, and they no longer do.  They only has access because Roger of MemoryDealers.com was also acting in the capacity of an employee of blockchain.info.  He mis-used the access that he had as a blockchain.info employee to assist in the bitcoinstore.com dispute.  Because of this he is no longer acting in an employee capacity at blockchain.info, and blockchain.info has reviewed and improved their security practices relating to personal information.

So then can we safely conclude they both were wrong. Both Roger and Nethead? Would this be fair?

[adamstgBit]

To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

No.

More like this:

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms
• Customer requests refund
• BitcoinStore refunds to address given by customer

At this point everything is fine so far. Then:

• In separate transaction Bitcoin accidentally has additional 4+ BTC sent to Customer
• BitcoinStore requests that Customer send back the extra 4+ BTC
• Customer decides he prefers to keep the BTC and lies saying the address receiving the 4+ BTC is not his
• BitcoinStore accesses proof that the address does belong to Customer and provides that proof only to the Customer
• Customer gets angry that this proof of his lie was available an publishes his own sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet to let them know that BitcoinStore has access to this proof
• BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

thanks for the clarification.

I guess i would of done the same thing, prove to the guy i know hes lying to try and get the guy to send back the bitcoin...[/list]

[adamstgBit]

Thank you, seems to be about correct.

Not at all.  It was NetHead (the customer) who published his own sensitive information publicly in the internet.  The only wrongdoing on the part of BitcoinStore was accessing the sensitive information in the first place to prove directly to the Customer only that they knew he owned the address that he was lying and stating he didn't own.  They should not have had access to this information, and they no longer do.  They only has access because Roger of MemoryDealers.com was also acting in the capacity of an employee of blockchain.info.  He mis-used the access that he had as a blockchain.info employee to assist in the bitcoinstore.com dispute.  Because of this he is no longer acting in an employee capacity at blockchain.info, and blockchain.info has reviewed and improved their security practices relating to personal information.

So then can we safely conclude they both were wrong. Both Roger and Nethead? Would this be fair?

fair

[DannyHamilton]

So then can we safely conclude they both were wrong. Both Roger and Nethead? Would this be fair?

Yes, this has already been well established.  NetHead was wrong to request fraud on Customs forms, wrong to keep BTC that were accidentally sent to him, and wrong to lie about his ownership of the address that the coins were sent to.  Roger of MemoryDealers.com was wrong to abuse his employment at blockchain.info for the purposes of assisting himself in his transaction with BitcoinStore.

Because of this, Roger has been publicly chastised, and has lost his access to any information at blockchain.info, BitcoinStore has apologized for the incident, and both blockchain.info and BitcoinStore have improved their business practices.

Meanwhile, NetHead has published his own personal information and continues to keep the BTC that were accidentally sent to him.

[jl2012]

To recap...

 - Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
 - BitcoinStore request customer to pay some hidden fee
 - Customer wants refund
 - BitcoinStore refunds customer in full +4BTC (why? idk), and asks Customer to send back the extra 4BTC
 - Customer is pissed off for having BitcoinStore wast his time and refuses to give the 4BTC back
 - BitcoinStore publishes Customers sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet

is this what happened?

No.

More like this:

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms
• Customer requests refund
• BitcoinStore refunds to address given by customer

At this point everything is fine so far. Then:

• In separate transaction Bitcoin accidentally has additional 4+ BTC sent to Customer
• BitcoinStore requests that Customer send back the extra 4+ BTC
• Customer decides he prefers to keep the BTC and lies saying the address receiving the 4+ BTC is not his
• BitcoinStore accesses proof that the address does belong to Customer and provides that proof only to the Customer
• Customer gets angry that this proof of his lie was available an publishes his own sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet to let them know that BitcoinStore has access to this proof
• BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

That's what I know:

• Customer pays for something on BitcoinStore
• Customer requests BitcoinStore lie on Customs forms (against BitcoinStore policy)
• BitcoinStore offers choice of refund or truth on Customs forms
• Customer requests refund
• BitcoinStore refunds to address given by customer
• In separate transaction Bitcoin accidentally has additional 4+ BTC sent to Customer
• BitcoinStore requests that Customer send back the extra 4+ BTC
• Customer claims the address receiving the 4+ BTC is not his
• BitcoinStore accesses proof that the address does belong to Customer and provides that proof only to the Customer
• Customer insists he does not receive the 4+ BTC
• BitcoinStore publishes customer's contact details here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131574.0 (now removed)
• Customer publishes his own sensitive information to EVERYONE on the internet to let them know that BitcoinStore has access to this proof
• BitcoinStore's ability to access this proof is removed due to abuse of the access

[/list]