However, my ignorance of all things ETH-related kicked in pretty quick while reading that scam accusation thread. But what grabbed me is that if
this post is true (which was responded to by bountyhunters.io in the next post), then I would say the neg is completely justified and should stay because that would mean bountyhunters.io outright lied. But the explanation they gave sails right over my head.
I felt the same way, hence this topic.
Just wondering why he has got single negetive feedback ?
That's another reason why I opened this topic. It could be all DTs feel like it "sails right over their head", but it could also be a bunch of nonsense which is typical for any scammer to produce once caught.
Their "explanations" seem to be just some random texts. No verbal gymnastics can justify asking for private keys. I think their attempt to whitewash it is a big part of the issue.
You write it down better than I did
There is also some weird arrogance along the lines of "do you think we would stoop to scamming piddly bounty hunters who only have dust in their addresses" (this is not a literal quote LOL), which is kinda weird attitude towards their customers to say the least.
I noticed that too, and it's something I've seen many (potential) scammers use: "it's only dust, why would I scam dust". Meanwhile, they're waiting to catch a big fish.
I haven't read it far enough to figure out if they completely removed the option or just added other options. Here's the thing though: they only did this after get called out and it's impossible to ensure that the keys they already (possibly) collected wouldn't be misused. It's up to LoyceV to decide how much time needs to pass to review this again but I'd say it's all still too fresh ATM.
Agreed. I'm not in a rush.
I was considering it but I'm still missing a few bits of the story that I don't have time to research now... perhaps next year
I can wait until next year
From our FAQ:
- Confirm your transaction via your private key or with a help of MetaMask plugin. Note, we would highly recommend that you DO NOT use your main Ethereum wallet for this step. Instead, choose a new wallet that contains a minimal amount of funds. (If our website is compromised or you accidentally visit a different website, your funds can be stolen. You are doing this at your own risk).
- The transaction is then formed and signed in the user’s browser. We don’t store or transfer any private data, as we care about the security of your wallet. This operation is only needed when you personally sign a transaction; otherwise we will not be able to transfer your tokens.
Do I get this correctly: you're asking clients to risk their funds, so that you can save a bit on transaction fees?
The best I can figure out is that you heard of this fancy new thing (Merkle airdrop) that would shift the cost of distributing tokens onto the recipients and you decided to do it despite having no clue how to implement it safely.
I was wondering about that too: eventually, a user would want to sell the tokens on an exchange, so they have to be sent out anyway.
It has 38 views. That doesn't sound like thousands of users understand what you're doing.
Take a note, that BuntyHunters is a project created by the ICOPromo team (
https://icopromo.com/): a subsidriary of
ChronoBank.io (one of the first successful ICOs on the market, that raised over 5,400 BTC in their in early 2017). ChronoBank, in its turn, is well known for its good reputation and strong developer team.
And nobody realized asking for private keys is a big no-go in crypto community?
Your
explanation shows a lot of irrelevant things, such as that 80% of the users are bots or spammers. I don't see what that has to do with any of asking for private keys. You also say the receiver will pay the fee. If fees prohibit you from making a transaction without having the receiver's private key, wouldn't it be much better to move to a different blockchain than the one you're using? It sounds to me like it has fundamentally flaws.
Also, you're linking this:
~instead of sending tokens to every single address, the distributor simply specifies users who are allowed to receive tokens in the so-called whitelist — now it’s the user who has to «ask» for the transfer to happen, all required calculations being shifted on the user respectively. Simply put, the working principle can be described as following: the user has to prove that his address has been included into the list by carrying out relatively voluminous calculations on the client’s side and then pay the fee for the transfer (as discussed above, traditional airdrops require the distributor to pay the fees for each transfer himself). In a way, this allows distributors to kill two birds with one stone: instead of carpet-bombing unknown (and in most cases uninterested) accounts with tokens, they’re now able to share them with those who actually engage in the project, also cutting the costs on the fees.
You're dealing with bounty hunters. Isn't the whole point that they're interested and want their bounty? By making it an extra step for them to request what you owe them, I bet many of them won't do it. That doesn't seem right either.
Stellarterm:
And so on...they all ask for private keys.
When using an online wallet to access your funds, you indeed need your private key.
It's better to use a local wallet instead of an online wallet, but that choice is up to the user.In my opinion this can't be compared to the situation where you're only
receiving funds.
The thing is, I am not really sure about this one and I have more than 1 opinion. I just don't have clear answer and I understand your doubts, especially when someone ask for private keys.
I'm still not entirely convinced in either one direction
