Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds

[allahabadi]

The only responses one can expect from Lauda: No/Wrong

No constructive response; feels like talking to a semi-programmed AI that can only channel negatives.

[1714028187]

1714028187

[1714028187]

1714028187

[1714028187]

1714028187

[1714028187]

1714028187

[Rmcdermott927]

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?

[Lauda]

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.

[Boudali.Miloud]

@Boudali.Miloud
do you mind telling us the source?

Sure.

For btc,
During the crowdsale, investors were asked to send funds to the escrow address 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z which was published in post #1 of the main nvo thread.
Lauda updated it to “354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf” after the bch fork last year but it hasn’t been updated since then.

blockchain.info tells us that on Aug 3/17, all funds on “3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z” were sent to “3QV4kZtdzE8S2XdYXMbYQrgaJYBfDnypCC” and then to ”354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf”.
This was done in order for Lauda to safely claim bch.
Following the money from ”354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf” onward will reveal the other addresses I have posted.


For the altcoins, can I PM you the sources?
I have no objections if you decide to make all or part of that information public.

[vlom]

thank you.

you can send it via PM if you like. but i think it would be better to post it here so that everybody has the same info.

[suchmoon]

If necessary, I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.

Why can't it be posted publicly instead of having to trust yet another person?

This is what's so irritating about this debacle - the OP disappeared after one post (of course) without providing any proof, and you're replying with one-word retorts. So far it looks like the funds are still there but I wouldn't put my neck on the line by going to telegram or some other transient source to get answers that I later wouldn't have any proof of.

If I was one of the NVO bagholders I'd be furious. I think they're entitled to proper communication.

[Lauda]

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.

[Rmcdermott927]

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.

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/pSfxTSl

[Lauda]

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/pSfxTSl

Those 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.

[Rmcdermott927]

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/pSfxTSl

Those 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.

[Lauda]

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/pSfxTSl

Those 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?

[suchmoon]

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.

I don't think anybody here expects personal/sensitive info about investors. 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.

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.

TG (or any chat contraption) is not a good way to communicate with investors. There are some scraps of info on Reddit and Medium although I was only able to find it by googling "NVO vote". Nothing on NVO website that I can see. How did the bagholders learn about the vote? It seems very short (2 weeks) and on short notice. Did the team or the escrow e-mail registered users?

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?

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[vlom]

I don't think anybody here expects personal/sensitive info about investors. 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.

and if i were an escrow i would have these data. and it much less time consuming to post it than argue with people here. and please dont answer: thats why your are not an escrow....

Did the team or the escrow e-mail registered users?

i am not sure if they collected the addresses at the beginning and i think that they will say no.
and no e-mail was sent.

and the website did not have an update. why? i think they will blame nemgun or say that they have to wait for the return of yanni.

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[Quickseller]

You can trivially sign messages from each private key that are associated with the public keys that were combined to create the multisig address...

[vlom]

I ask you kindly to stop spreading false (out of context) and outdated information about the forks.

OK.

[Lauda]

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.

[DarkStar_]

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.

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) Also, is it a possibility to send a trivial amount from the escrow address(es) to a specific BTC address to prove ownership?

[Lauda]

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.