Digitalcoin Dev ROBBED!

[disclaimer201]

LoL @ 500k of supposedly fair coin.

There are roughly 144 million DigitalCoins in the future, about ten % of them are mined now.

500k is a lot, but DGC is known for a 100% fair start, no instamine, and no premine. If he owned 500k, he bought most of them. It isn't hard to have so many coins. I have over 100k myself, most which I bought at 3000 satoshis before the price rise to 60000 satoshi last fall. It's nothing, if you were a Bitcoin and Litecoin early adopter. Heck, you can buy tens of thousands of DGC right now at almost the same cheap price that I bought at last year.

[usahero]

LoL @ 500k of supposedly fair coin.

There are roughly 144 million DigitalCoins in the future, about ten % of them are mined now.

500k is a lot, but DGC is known for a 100% fair start, no instamine, and no premine. If he owned 500k, he bought most of them. It isn't hard to have so many coins. I have over 100k myself, most which I bought at 3000 satoshis before the price rise to 60000 satoshi last fall. It's nothing, if you were a Bitcoin and Litecoin early adopter. Heck, you can buy tens of thousands of DGC right now at almost the same cheap price that I bought at last year.

Yeah right. Thats why he created more coins.. To buy them. Yeah right.


Btw it was not fair start, and I know, because I mined them. There was period of flash mine or whatever u want to call it.

[samson]

There are two separate things that happened here, so better don't mix them up.

1 - Dev was robbed and this incident is unrelated to CrptoAve and happened much earlier.

2 - CryptoAve was attacked and shutdown before users' funds were compromised. All users received back their deposits. CryptoAve will be reopened soon.

1) Dev wasn't robbed he sold them for about $30,000 but couldn't very well admit to it because he was soliciting investors at the same time, hence the "mysterious employee stole them" line of bs. You're setting up the stage to admit that here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=514689.msg6187281#msg6187281

2) That story changes every time you post it. First it was just a few that compromised, then none. If you will look at your post above it makes no sense. If the exchange was shutdown prior to any funds being compromised, then why did they have to "receive their funds back".

Oh I am so looking forward to CryptoAve reopening as I have a special reopening celebration planned. I called in a few favors from some top notch "security testers" and it better be rock solid, maybe even Realsolid LOL....



This isn't going to stop till Baritus does one of two things.

1) Post the address of the "stolen" wallets himself, that's all it takes and nothing more.

2) Publicly admits he sold the coins


There's a reason he won't post them himself because he knows I can track them right to him and this way he can always deny any wallet identified as the "stolen" ones, are not them.


Maybe I should start turning up the heat on everything Baritus related.



~BCX~

Maybe you should go fuck yourself.

[MagicOne]

This isn't going to stop till Baritus does one of two things.

1) Post the address of the "stolen" wallets himself, that's all it takes and nothing more.

2) Publicly admits he sold the coins

I have to agree with BCX on this one (which is rare ).

I am a long time supporter of DGC and hold a fair chunk.

In the interest of those who have invested in Digitalcoin why not just resolve this once and for all. I don't even care if Baritus sold the coins to be honest, if they were his he can do what he wants with them as far as I am concerned. The longer this goes on the more the reputation of Digitalcoin gets damaged.

If the coins were stolen, post the address. If not admit you sold the coins (everyone needs cash now and then - nothing wrong with that). End of story, and we can all move on.

Secondly, I hate to say it but, the level of personal attacks on BCX does not reflect well on Digitalcoin supporters. Ad hominem attacks on BCX really show there is no sound argument for not disclosing the addresses which is all BCX is asking.

It would take Baritus all of a few minutes to post those addresses.

The question is this: Does the arguably severe level of damage this is doing to Digitalcoin not warrant Baritus spending 5 minutes to come and address this issue once and for all?  I can find no reason why Baritus or someone else in the know will not do this, even if it is public information, not everyone is a block chain detective!

Lastly, I actually believe Baritus is telling the truth, which makes it even harder for me to understand why he won't personally post the adresses.

[disclaimer201]

Ad hominem attacks are the only way to deal with trolls who spread confusion and nothing else. The damage you speak of is free promotion. Most new users didn't even know about DGC a month ago because DGC has been terrible on marketing. I judge the dev not by what a known computer hacker claims
(who has been derailing market prices since the first Litecoin crash, for which he is responsible by threatening to 51% Ltc in summer 2012 and DDOSing major pools and services) but by what I can see the dev has actually done for the currency. Solid work and constant improvements.

Fine, he "stole his own coins". Believe it and be happy. Meanwhile, in DGC land people are actually working on improving the coin.

[MagicOne]

Ad hominem attacks are the only way to deal with trolls who spread confusion and nothing else. The damage you speak of is free promotion. Most new users didn't even know about DGC a month ago because DGC has been terrible on marketing. I judge the dev not by what a known computer hacker claims
(who has been derailing market prices since the first Litecoin crash, for which he is responsible by threatening to 51% Ltc in summer 2012 and DDOSing major pools and services) but by what I can see the dev has actually done for the currency. Solid work and constant improvements.

Fine, he "stole his own coins". Believe it and be happy. Meanwhile, in DGC land people are actually working on improving the coin.

I respectfully disagree. Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy and are usually pulled out in order to discredit someones character while not addressing the real issue.

I really fail to see how this 'free promotion' is anything but negative in terms of Digitalcoin. How many people, who didn't previously know about Digitalcoin, do you honestly think will read this thread and think, "there is a good looking, positive, drama and rumor free coin to invest in"?

Your comment about judging the dev is precisely my point as you simply go on to discredit BCX's character in order to invalidate his valid questions.

As you might notice I did say that I believe Baritus. So it logically follows I don't think he 'stole his own coins'.

I would actually like DGC to do well, for the dedicated DGC community and for my own personal benefit as a holder. But I have come to a point where I have bitten my own lip for long enough and think enough is enough and this issue should once and for all be put to rest. I am not attacking Baritus' character or defending BCX's character.

My point is, address the issue, give BCX and others what they want as they are really not asking for much and lets let this thread slip into history! Simple.

Or... Continue with this stubborn refusal to not post the addresses and let BCX cause even more damage in one way or another. I sure as hell know what I would choose if I was Baritus.

[brooklynite]

.... I have over 100k myself, most which I bought at 3000 satoshis before the price rise to 60000 satoshi last fall. It's nothing, if you were a Bitcoin and Litecoin early adopter.

BS. Why do you have to lie so hard? The lowest DGC was EVER TRADED in history is 3,000 Satoshi on 11/18/13 probably a few minutes or low volume not even 100k in DGC. Chances of you being the person who bought them at that price are almost certainly zero. Why the F do you brag about something you actually have not done?

Its funny that you act all HUMBLE too, saying "It's nothing" [for you], [no big deal] like that 70 BTC you "almost" had for a few minutes on Dec 15th, 2013,  is NOTHING to you.

I bet the greedy you didnt even cash out.

This kind of bragging language with a mountain of BS behind it seriously bugs me on this forum.

[disclaimer201]

.... I have over 100k myself, most which I bought at 3000 satoshis before the price rise to 60000 satoshi last fall. It's nothing, if you were a Bitcoin and Litecoin early adopter.

BS. Why do you have to lie so hard? The lowest DGC was EVER TRADED in history is 3,000 Satoshi on 11/18/13 probably a few minutes or low volume not even 100k in DGC. Chances of you being the person who bought them at that price are almost certainly zero. Why the F do you brag about something you actually have not done?

Its funny that you act all HUMBLE too, saying "It's nothing" [for you], [no big deal] like that 70 BTC you "almost" had for a few minutes on Dec 15th, 2013,  is NOTHING to you.

I bet the greedy you didnt even cash out.

This kind of bragging language with a mountain of BS behind it seriously bugs me on this forum.

I did buy all the way down to 3000 satoshis. The price was a bargain for such a well maintained coin. Then I sold some again for 25-30k. I also mined DGC since last summer. 70 Bitcoins is indeed a lot of money. But I mined Litecoin from June 2012, and Bitcoin from June 2011. Having a much harder time getting over selling 500 Bitcoins for 5-10 Dollars. That hurt a bit, but who could have known back then. Also, I never put a single dollar in Bitcoin besides mining.

It was and it is very easy to buy 100k DGC then and now.

[disclaimer201]

.... I have over 100k myself, most which I bought at 3000 satoshis before the price rise to 60000 satoshi last fall. It's nothing, if you were a Bitcoin and Litecoin early adopter.

BS. Why do you have to lie so hard? The lowest DGC was EVER TRADED in history is 3,000 Satoshi on 11/18/13 probably a few minutes or low volume not even 100k in DGC. Chances of you being the person who bought them at that price are almost certainly zero. Why the F do you brag about something you actually have not done?

Its funny that you act all HUMBLE too, saying "It's nothing" [for you], [no big deal] like that 70 BTC you "almost" had for a few minutes on Dec 15th, 2013,  is NOTHING to you.

I bet the greedy you didnt even cash out.

This kind of bragging language with a mountain of BS behind it seriously bugs me on this forum.

I did buy all the way down to 3000 satoshis. The price was a bargain for such a well maintained coin. Then I sold some again for 25-30k. I also mined DGC since last summer. 70 Bitcoins is indeed a lot of money. But I mined Litecoin from June 2012, and Bitcoin from June 2011. Having a much harder time getting over selling 500 Bitcoins for 5-10 Dollars. That hurt a bit, but who could have known back then. Also, I never put a single dollar in Bitcoin besides mining.

It was and it is very easy to buy 100k DGC then and now.

You have to be a sock puppet of Baritus', you're both so bad at out right lying.

The charts clearly show you are full of shit, are they wrong?

Brooklynite just busted your lies wide open.

Do what you do best, change the story and try again LOL


~BCX~

The chart actually shows that what I say is correct. You could buy thousands of coins for cheap for a sustained period of time. That's what I did, and I'm not the only one. And if you are clever you will see this altcoin and bitcoin low as the perfect chance to get in.

[disclaimer201]

The chart actually shows that what I say is correct. You could buy thousands of coins for cheap for a sustained period of time. That's what I did, and I'm not the only one. And if you are clever you will see this altcoin and bitcoin low as the perfect chance to get in.

Yes it is theoretically possible if you were the sole buyer that day.

Give it up, you're outted.

Time to move on to the next sockie.


~BCX~

Do you want to inform me about my DGC holdings? Now, you are funny. DGC rocks and I will hold on to the coin and continue to support it. Whoever stole Baritus' coins and dumped them in the middle of a price depression is an idiot. You are so convinced that he took his own coins and dumped them that you even rule out the possibility someone might have actually stolen them from him.

[memecoin]

This timeline doesn't make sense:

• 16 March 2014: Baritus announces closure of CryptoAve citing security concerns.
• 03 April 2014: OpenSSL vulnerability (dubbed Heartbleed) is uncovered by team of security engineers.
• 07 April 2014: Knowledge of Heartbleed is made public.
• 09 April 2014: Baritus makes the claim that Heartbleed was exploited to attack CryptoAve.

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

[rumlazy]

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

The heartbleed bug existed in the wild for months before it was made public.

[memecoin]

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

The heartbleed bug existed in the wild for months before it was made public.

It has been in the code for roughly two years. The point to all of this is why CryptoAve? If one has knowledge of this flaw, why would one attack a brand new exchange with few users and no potential to profit for doing so?

[rumlazy]

It has been in the code for roughly two years. The point to all of this is why CryptoAve? If one has knowledge of this flaw, why would one attack a brand new exchange with few users and no potential to profit for doing so?

While cryptoave was small, it still had a good amount of money on it worth stealing.  I'm not at all saying it did or didn't happen, as I'm neutral on it until real proof of what happened comes out.

[samson]

This timeline doesn't make sense:

• 16 March 2014: Baritus announces closure of CryptoAve citing security concerns.
• 03 April 2014: OpenSSL vulnerability (dubbed Heartbleed) is uncovered by team of security engineers.
• 07 April 2014: Knowledge of Heartbleed is made public.
• 09 April 2014: Baritus makes the claim that Heartbleed was exploited to attack CryptoAve.

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

Things are a lot more complicated than the above simplicity and we know for sure that Heartbleed was known before April 3rd.

Did you know that CloudFlare were notified of the Heartbleed bug at the end of March ? I'm going to assume you didn't know this due to the incorrect information in your above post.

So what could have happened with Heartbleed and how come some people knew about it way before others ?

Why did Cloudflare and who knows who else receive advance warnings when pretty much most of the rest of the world didn't ?

I believe I know the answer to this question and it's all to do with who found it. They're a commercial security company with paying customers.

I'll bet this company (Codenomicon, google them) found the issue at some point over the last few months and have been 'hawking' it to their existing customers and maybe picking up a few new customers along the way - quite probably Cloudflare is one of these customers.

Codenomicon are a commercial entity so this is exactly how anyone would expect them to operate.

The golden question to which nobody knows the answer is when was it first discovered ? Who knew about it and when did they know ? It was definitely before March 30th but this information has not been published anywhere, not yet anyway.

I hope one day we find out when the vuln was first discovered, I'm sure it was way before it was made public.

[samson]

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

The heartbleed bug existed in the wild for months before it was made public.

It has been in the code for roughly two years. The point to all of this is why CryptoAve? If one has knowledge of this flaw, why would one attack a brand new exchange with few users and no potential to profit for doing so?

If you look back to the first weeks of March there were a lot of different sites being hacked every other day.

Gox had gone and I suspect they were coming for the leftovers.

[memecoin]

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

The heartbleed bug existed in the wild for months before it was made public.

It has been in the code for roughly two years. The point to all of this is why CryptoAve? If one has knowledge of this flaw, why would one attack a brand new exchange with few users and no potential to profit for doing so?

If you look back to the first weeks of March there were a lot of different sites being hacked every other day.

Gox had gone and I suspect they were coming for the leftovers.

I've posted the basic facts. I see that CloudFlare claims to have been notified prior to 03 April, but the facts I provided are not incorrect according to the sources. It is entirely possible, and probable, that individuals knew of Heartbleed before these recent weeks. I know that you are a supporter of Digitalcoin and will defend it in all instances, but you cannot deny that it seems odd CryptoAve would have been attacked with this flaw. The volume on the exchange was minimal, and the deposit amount was no doubt minimal as well.

To me, the order of events seems suspicious and convenient. If someone can prove to me otherwise, I will concede. I hope for your sake and the sake of others that Baritus is more than confident with the security of CryptoAve when it launches again. BCX will be relentless.

[samson]

Baritus has claimed that CryptoAve was attacked with the Heartbleed vulnerability roughly one month prior to the vulnerability being uncovered and made public. If an individual had knowledge of this flaw before the the entire world, why would that individual choose to attack CryptoAve of all places? Why not go after a much larger website? Why not sell the knowledge of this vulnerability to the highest bidder?

This does not make any rational sense.

Sources:
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,951.0.html
http://heartbleed.com/
http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,1010.0.html

The heartbleed bug existed in the wild for months before it was made public.

It has been in the code for roughly two years. The point to all of this is why CryptoAve? If one has knowledge of this flaw, why would one attack a brand new exchange with few users and no potential to profit for doing so?

If you look back to the first weeks of March there were a lot of different sites being hacked every other day.

Gox had gone and I suspect they were coming for the leftovers.

I've posted the basic facts. I see that CloudFlare claims to have been notified prior to 03 April, but the facts I provided are not incorrect according to the sources. It is entirely possible, and probable, that individuals knew of Heartbleed before these recent weeks. I know that you are a supporter of Digitalcoin and will defend it in all instances, but you cannot deny that it seems odd CryptoAve would have been attacked with this flaw. The volume on the exchange was minimal, and the deposit amount was no doubt minimal as well.

To me, the order of events seems suspicious and convenient. If someone can prove to me otherwise, I will concede. I hope for your sake and the sake of others that Baritus is more than confident with the security of CryptoAve when it launches again. BCX will be relentless.

I had 100's of thousands of various coins on CryptoAve prior to the attempted hack.

The true timeline of the heartbleed story is only starting to emerge now, I'm sure we will all learn more about this extraordinary incident in the coming weeks and months.

I wouldn't be surprised if this exploit was used against Gox.

[lucienlu]

I feel sorry for him but I am also wondering about his security awareness. If he can't secure his own funds I doubt he is able to guarantee the safety of funds on CryptoAve. This guy could also have stolen the admin login details or accessed the cold storage (if there is cs???).

[samson]

I feel sorry for him but I am also wondering about his security awareness. If he can't secure his own funds I doubt he is able to guarantee the safety of funds on CryptoAve. This guy could also have stolen the admin login details or accessed the cold storage (if there is cs???).

If you had physical access to the computer where I store all my coins you could steal them all if you got a keylogger on there, however nobody apart from me has physical access to my coin storage computer.

It's been made clear that the computer where these coins were stored had nothing to do with CryptoAve - remember not all people operate out of a basement with a single computer.