Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds

[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...

We can not. You have no idea about the setup that is being used, thus you should avoid making unsubstantiated claims.

Well since you won’t give any information about what is preventing this I guess the only reasonable next step is to blindly trust that nothing shady is going on.

[1715287938]

1715287938

[1715287938]

1715287938

[1715287938]

1715287938

[Lauda]

Well since you won’t give any information about what is preventing this I guess the only reasonable next step is to blindly trust that nothing shady is going on.

I literally just gave out this information.

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.

~Out for a while. Nevermind.

[DarkStar_]

It should be possible to get the individual keys from Copay in a safe, offline manner that does not compromise the keys. I would presume that those holding such a large number of coins would have an airgapped computer, and thus it should be doable. The redeem script for the address 38PtcLxfmaNJnYHJR4Kpy2qXUFHkaTq8RX (last escrow address that has a spent input) should be

Code:

522102596698a9b3a46b91e68643ec84d9a366c7e523f4c6e8448ed47f25f82145be9121037d284f90a07b5c4fac22c019e175b9770063054e93055d0b0e3d340e45b1162d2103adbb0df20118999fb7ba028c9adea6bb2433eca03be52544e743aade23f0ffe853ae

It decodes to the three addresses 1MkacfqMDASc13aLKw9tPZcT4ThXfRJPAB, 1BbhzqYonS2Uf3Vgv1Qbeq4SBLnq34UFVY and 152tUoW2crEVFh7hfHcEnsMAJCSwB6dddx. A signed message from any of those addresses would signify control of one of the keys. It wouldn't necessarily be trivial to sign a message, but definitely doable with a low difficulty.

[Lauda]

It should be possible to get the individual keys from Copay in a safe, offline manner that does not compromise the keys.

It is definitely possible, and I've done derivation on Copay a number of times before although I wouldn't risk this (while the funds are on it) just for the sake of confirming something because some zero-proof allegations were made. This can be done with said wallet after funds are moved to Electrum multisig for the refund (1-to-n capability is lacking in Copay).
The option of sending a trivial amount somewhere seems much safer and easier to do.

It wouldn't necessarily be trivial to sign a message, but definitely doable with a low difficulty.

Importing the priv. key elsewhere would make it trivial indeed; assuming that every escrow has another wallet on said machine.

[suchmoon]

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.

Do you have a sense of the current turnout - how many voted? I could probably find that out on the blockchain but maybe you have the number already. If it's on track to achieve 50%+ in 2 weeks then maybe that's not an issue.

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.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that.

[Boudali.Miloud]

You could argue that if the terms state that you get XBTC for your participation, that shouldn't include the forked coin.  I get that.  I'm curious as to what the consensus is about this; what Lauda thinks; what other members think; and if it was mentioned in the terms of this thing.  I don't think it's way off-topic.

It wouldn't have made sense to claim the BCH at the time of the fork as it would have been a potential security risk to manipulate the private keys holding 1000+ BTC.

It wouldn't make sense for the escrow to keep (or ignore) the BCH after the refunds are issued and the escrow wallet is no longer used. The risk is no longer there and there is a substantial value in BCH and it certainly doesn't belong to the escrow. The escrow could charge a substantial fee for the trouble (and to avoid having to deal with dust forks) but the coins should be distributed.

@suchmoon
Here's the official announcement from nvo about the bch fork:

Makes no difference if you trust it or not.Just split the coins off the bitcoin address and dump the shitcoin and raise more money.The coins exist on the bitcoin address holding bitcoin at the time of the fork.

Official announcement about BCH/BCC:

Yanni Bragui/Marto in slack

"Hi guys, I wanted to clear the state of the BCH from the crowdsale.
The BCH/BCC (result of chain split) belongs to the project. The team won't benefit from these funds, they are not considered as an exceptional "extra".
These coins will be converted to Bitcoin as soon as it is possible, the escrows will handle the process and add the funds to the escrow address.
These coins are considered as exceptional extra funds for the project."

How these funds would benefit the "project" but not the team is unclear.

In any event, Lauda did claim BCH.
Look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z was the btc escrow address (which held 1497.22 btc) at the time of the bch fork which occurred on 2017-08-01  12:20 p.m. UTC.
On Aug 7/17, 1497.22 bch were sent from …p1Z to 1AWiFCKWxWHHvvLdvjGHXG3ViiDs8RE5x7 and then on to 1GkXv39S13k9yyDLtyXR8MsaYWKzRB1JLe, an exchange address that held 43K bch on that day.
This sale would have netted about 112 btc.
Then, if you look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf  you will see that later the same day, 93.999 btc arrived on the btc escrow address.
This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

[Lauda]

Do you have a sense of the current turnout - how many voted? I could probably find that out on the blockchain but maybe you have the number already. If it's on track to achieve 50%+ in 2 weeks then maybe that's not an issue.

You can track that here: https://nvo.party/.

Official announcement about BCH/BCC:

Yanni Bragui/Marto in slack

"Hi guys, I wanted to clear the state of the BCH from the crowdsale.
The BCH/BCC (result of chain split) belongs to the project. The team won't benefit from these funds, they are not considered as an exceptional "extra".
These coins will be converted to Bitcoin as soon as it is possible, the escrows will handle the process and add the funds to the escrow address.
These coins are considered as exceptional extra funds for the project."

That isn't the official announcement of anything. That's the version of nemgun/yanni, i.e. whoever was posting from that account at the time (it's somewhat safe to assume the CEO also had no say in this statement..). I always considered them as part of release milestones, and they were calculated as such pre-any requests.

This sale would have netted about 112 btc.
Then, if you look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf  you will see that later the same day, 93.999 btc arrived on the btc escrow address.
This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

That can't be right as it seems way too high[1]. Fees were paid by NVO, and 18 BTC is not what anyone "pocketed". The only way to know with absolute certainty is to look up the history of the account where it was liquidated, but that is deliberately being blocked by nemgun.

Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

Based on the messages that I quickly skimmed over, it took me ~2 days to successfully manage this. Which seems to be correct as BTC moved on 2017-08-05.
[1] Update: It isn't right; I just went through thousands of messages. Quoting nemgun: "guys, i would like to ask if we can send 25.623 BTC to Yani"; which was the equivalent of 284.7 BCH or so at the time.

[OgNasty]

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.

Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?  Insane...  You even asked for clarity previously and got nothing but deflecting answers and insults.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=289011

You refuse to sign a message or even provide them with an address where the funds are being held, after numerous requests.

Asking the impossible. It's no surprise that neither you nor your master understand how Bitcoin works.

Maybe it was due to you pointing out his refusal to sign an address he used for the multisig escrow, which led to the fact that Lauda doesn't understand that signers on a multisig address can still sign messages using the key they used in the multisig address, putting a huge hole in his argument of why he couldn't prove the funds he claimed to hold?

[Lauda]

Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?  

He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1].

Maybe it was due to you pointing out his refusal to sign an address he used for the multisig escrow, which led to the fact that Lauda doesn't understand that signers on a multisig address can still sign messages using the key they used in the multisig address, putting a huge hole in his argument of why he couldn't prove the funds he claimed to hold?

Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.
[1] Ironically, some of the evidence to debunk the made up stories was posted by someone that I neg. rated.

[OgNasty]

Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?  

He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1].

He even posted evidence...  Again, instead of retaliating to facts with negative trust, why not engage in an actual discussion and explain what people are missing?  The blockchain is there to prove the truth so situations like this don't happen.  You have purposely tried to keep the details secret for some reason, and that isn't acceptable for an escrow.  

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

Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.

Semantics really is the weakest argument.  However, now that you understand what it is people expect of a multisig escrow (proving ownership of funds by signing a message from the key you control in the multisig address) what is the new excuse for why you can't do it?  Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made?

[Lauda]

He even posted evidence...  

What he posted is of no relevance to this thread. The policy change has nothing to do with NVO. If you jump to conclusions when you have: a) No evidence. b) No facts. c) No knowledge of anything that's been going on in the NVO ecosystem for the past 12 months, then you clearly are biased in one way or another. Thus, he intentionally made slanderous statements.

Semantics really is the weakest argument.  

It isn't semantics, it is cryptography. There is no multisig signing standard.

what is the new excuse for why you can't do it?  Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made?

You haven't read anything in the thread, again.
The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).

[OgNasty]

The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).

It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners.  You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money.  Sorry.

[Lauda]

The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).

It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners.  You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money.  Sorry.

Nothing is hidden; you're confusing confidentiality with cryptographic authentication. Those that are actually relevant to the project and/or care to spend 5 minutes of their time know where the funds are.

[OgNasty]

The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).

It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners.  You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money.  Sorry.

Nothing is hidden; you're confusing confidentiality with cryptographic authentication. Those that are actually relevant to the project and/or care to spend 5 minutes of their time know where the funds are.

You're confusing an answer with a deflection.  It's ok though, no honest project would work with you due to how you conduct yourself.  This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.

I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. 

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]

This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.

Neither the team nor the 4th independent escrow  has made a single complaint about me. Peculiar indeed.

I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related.  

Care to stop with the intentional spread of lies? This is the 4th time this is being debunked.

e bch fork which occurred on 2017-08-01  12:20 p.m. UTC.
On Aug 7/17, 1497.22 bch were sent from …p1Z to 1AWiFCKWxWHHvvLdvjGHXG3ViiDs8RE5x7 and then on to 1GkXv39S13k9yyDLtyXR8MsaYWKzRB1JLe, an exchange address that held 43K bch on that day.
This sale would have netted about 112 btc.
Then, if you look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf  you will see that later the same day, 93.999 btc arrived on the btc escrow address.
This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

The fork went to the escrow address with a part of it being released under the first milestone. I didn't even need to provide any proof, someone else did it for me^.

[OgNasty]

This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.

Neither the team nor the 4th independent escrow  has made a single complaint about me. Peculiar indeed.

For real peculiar indeed.  With all the pissed off investors who have been scammed and the failure of the ICO along with the lack of transparency, I'd think they'd be upset with you.  They must have some other reason to be pleased with the situation I'm not aware of.  

I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related.  

Care to stop with the intentional spread of lies? This is the 4th time this is being debunked.

How has it been debunked?  It's a fact.  After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep forked funds.  There is evidence you did this.  It happened.  Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent?

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]

How has it been debunked?  It's a fact.  

A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta.

After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep the forked funds.  There is evidence you did this.  It happened.  Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent.

Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals[1]; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing.
[1] Unless of course you're trying to state that I'm not allowed to change my policies for the future deals that I might accept

[suchmoon]

I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related. 

You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

[OgNasty]

How has it been debunked?  It's a fact.  

A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta.

After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep the forked funds.  There is evidence you did this.  It happened.  Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent.

Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing.

The BCH fork happened in August of 2017.  You made this change in November of 2017.  Regardless, I will take this as an admission that you had no claim to the forked coins in the NVO escrow.  We're making progress.  Now we just need to see an audit of the non-transparent moves that were made while the funds were not protected by the agreed upon multisig escrow and when you alerted depositors that their funds would be moved to an exchange and would no longer protected by the escrow agreement as the evidence you provided above states that you took 18 BTC for that exchange and the allegations are that users were not aware their funds were being moved from the escrow protection.

You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

The evidence he quoted stated that he took 18 BTC for that transfer.  I'm trying to clear up inconsistencies.  People deserve to know what happened to their money.

This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

[Lauda]

Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

Re-read last sentence in paragraph one and then the above post.  

when you alerted depositors that their funds would be moved to an exchange

They are not "depositors", and the funds are no longer theirs after they get their tokens (except in refund/buyback cases; but not investors - holders). You seem to be ill-informed as to how ICO escrow works.

Official announcement about BCH/BCC:
Yanni Bragui/Marto in slack

"These coins will be converted to Bitcoin as soon as it is possible, the escrows will handle the process and add the funds to the escrow address."

Again, read the thread - it was already posted here.

The evidence he quoted stated that he took 18 BTC for that transfer.  I'm trying to clear up inconsistencies.  People deserve to know what happened to their money.

This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

Already debunked to be untrue. Read the thread. Additionally, I've already clarified that I'm paid by NVO (i.e. by the money released to them, and not separate from their milestones) thus the fee (which in case of BCash was not 18 BTC as claimed) is entirely irrelevant to the allegations raised.