Freewallet.org Flag - Please Support

[rosezionjohn]

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request?

Let me guess freewallet's answer, "if request is sent from the same IP address"

[bob123]

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request?

I think he was referring to technical (web-) requests (most probably only withdrawal), not to requesting KYC itself.

Let me guess freewallet's answer, "if request is sent from the same IP address"

Wait.. are you trying to tell me this isn't a good criteria to determine legitimacy 
Me and the whole freewallet team are shocked! 

[Freewallet]

We'd like to comment on some statements here but moderators keep removing our replies.

[LoyceV]

We'd like to comment on some statements here but moderators keep removing our replies.

Posts are only deleted when they break forum rules. I suggest to read Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ.

You keep breaking this rule:

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.

You should use the edit button instead

[Freewallet]

We'd like to comment on some statements here but moderators keep removing our replies.

Posts are only deleted when they break forum rules. I suggest to read Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ.

You keep breaking this rule:

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed.

You should use the edit button instead

No multiple posts were made.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Remove the selective KYC, let customers control their private keys & nobody will doubt you.

[bob123]

No multiple posts were made.

You always replied with multiple posts in a row instead of simply quoting and answering in one single post.
Each time you answered X people, you created X posts in a row.

If you can't even admit doing such a lenient mistake.. how shall people trust you with their money 
I don't understand why you can't even be honest about such a trifle..

[Freewallet]

You always replied with multiple posts in a row instead of simply quoting and answering in one single post.
Each time you answered X people, you created X posts in a row.

If you can't even admit doing such a lenient mistake.. how shall people trust you with their money 
I don't understand why you can't even be honest about such a trifle..

Well, this opinion might be illustrative when it comes to online discussions, that do not imply the answer of an accused party.

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

Speaking to the point: there is no such policy imposing us to close KYC in favor of only those users who complain in public.

As always, we are available when it comes to a customer's query.

[bob123]

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

You either don't get it or try to ignore it miserably.

Posting two times in a row doesn't mean that people shouldn't trust you.. but the fact that you can't even admit it and expressing it as 'moderators are evil, they delete posts' is just a plain stupid move.
And imo, THIS makes you even less trustworthy and more shady than you already have been.

Why can't you simply admit that you made a mistake here by multi-posting ?
How can i know that you will admit your mistakes when they are more severe (e.g. loss of user funds) if you can't even admit posting twice in a row ? ..

[LoyceV]

No multiple posts were made.

I'm confused: you complain your posts get removed by Mods. I told you why that happened, and how to avoid it. Instead of using this advice, you simply deny it?
What's this? Or this? Or this? As a courtesy, I've reported them again

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

Lying won't let people trust you with anything.

[Freewallet]

Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".

You either don't get it or try to ignore it miserably.

Posting two times in a row doesn't mean that people shouldn't trust you.. but the fact that you can't even admit it and expressing it as 'moderators are evil, they delete posts' is just a plain stupid move.
And imo, THIS makes you even less trustworthy and more shady than you already have been.

Why can't you simply admit that you made a mistake here by multi-posting ?
How can i know that you will admit your mistakes when they are more severe (e.g. loss of user funds) if you can't even admit posting twice in a row ? ..

Through this exaggeration, I am just trying to point out to certain bias in this discussion.

Which user's funds were lost, may we have a look at this case/user ID etc.?

[marlboroza]

Shouldn't that be merged into one post? I noticed mprep merges multi-posts all the time. Oh, well, anyway:

@freewallet, again, can you confirm or deny https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165363.msg51845395#msg51845395

[suchmoon]

So if a new post is made at the time my response has been just submitted, should I return to my most recent post and edit it by adding a reply to this new post?

Yes. If your post is the most recent one in the thread you shouldn't make a new one.

You should use the edit button instead

Shouldn't that be merged into one post? I noticed mprep merges multi-posts all the time. Oh, well, anyway:

mprep being nice doesn't mean that every mod will do it, particularly like above when Freewallet still refuses to use the Edit button after being explicitly told to.

[Freewallet]

@freewallet can you confirm or deny this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165363.msg51836767#msg51836767 ?
In scam accusation you have stated this:

Hello,

As per our terms and conditions, we are authorized to perform the verification procedure: https://freewallet.org/terms (please read the 5th paragraph)

However, we are making sure to have our customers' accounts verified as soon as it is technically possible.

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

Thank you for preparing the requested documents; we'll definitely get back to you today.

User transfered $190000 and exchanged them. Tried to withdraw BTC and then you performed KYC.

First, KYC should have been enforced at step 1 (user transfered 190000$ exchanged them).
Second, KYC should have been enforced at step 2 (user tried to withdraw BTC worth $190K)

I will quote this again:

[...]we are authorized to perform the verification procedure[...]

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

It is not that you are authorized to perform the verification procedure, you are obligated to perform verification procedure for $190K. Things you mentioned in this thread, KYC because of different IP is pretty much nonsense. Things you said in scam accusation thread, that you have performed verification procedure because your algorithm has detected suspicious activity is also pretty much nonsense.

All this means that you know shit about AML regulation.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and understanding of the process: it's very determined.

Will you admit that not all credible AML algorithms (including the software) adhere to these guidelines?

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

[actmyname]

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

In this case, how did you stop this customer from losing money?

[bitmover]

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

When you hold the customers private keys, you are responsible for its security.

If suspicious transactions were identified, it is because your system lacks security, as you are the only one responsible for its security (as the user cannot spend funds, only you can).

It is the same as a bank, a cloned credit card... it is always banks/credit card fault, never customer fault. So, if suspicious transactions happened, you are the only one to blame.

Imo, the biggest problem is the lack of transparency. Why don't you let users choose if they want you to control the private keys or not? Why don't you ask them if they want to make KYC (and transact more than X btc) or not? Holding their funds hostage just because a lot of btc showed up, or you decided to create a "new holding criteria" is trustworth.

[marlboroza]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and understanding of the process: it's very determined.

But you didn't confirm nor deny correct amount above which you are enforcing KYC. Can you write exact number using USD?

Will you admit that not all credible AML algorithms (including the software) adhere to these guidelines?

Why are you asking me questions? Fuck me if I know why.

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

You are playing on AML card so I will assume that you have reported lots of suspicious transactions to authorities because of AML regulation, especially because you are operating under Hong Kong's law which is part of FATF.

Is my assumption correct or wrong? 

[Freewallet]

When you hold the customers private keys, you are responsible for its security.

If suspicious transactions were identified, it is because your system lacks security, as you are the only one responsible for its security (as the user cannot spend funds, only you can).

It is the same as a bank, a cloned credit card... it is always banks/credit card fault, never customer fault. So, if suspicious transactions happened, you are the only one to blame.

Imo, the biggest problem is the lack of transparency. Why don't you let users choose if they want you to control the private keys or not? Why don't you ask them if they want to make KYC (and transact more than X btc) or not? Holding their funds hostage just because a lot of btc showed up, or you decided to create a "new holding criteria" is trustworth.

We do not deny this liability and consider it out top mission.
You've probably heard of many security breaches revealed with advanced exchange and wallet platforms. Preventing such breaches is a continuous task to do.

Our service model is based on providing a secure cold storage technology so we do not share private keys with individual addresses.
We are not able to detect every single individual situation bearing the risk of fraud with 100% guarantee and therefore impose KYC based on these criteria.

The one claiming a full transparency from financial service is in the best position for likes, approves and "supporting the flag".
However, as a service provider we also encounter the necessity to properly address all requests from public authorities on certain transactions.   
From the part of customer service, we strive to ensure the best possible speed of resolution of such cases that are inevitable in existing reality.

We know that thanks to our system we identified a lot of suspicious transactions, which prevented our customers from losing money. That's a mere practice.

In this case, how did you stop this customer from losing money?

By ensuring he is a rightful owner of these funds.

[bob123]

[...]  so we do not share private keys with individual addresses.

Elaborate this statement please. Feel free to make it as technical as possible.

[Freewallet]

But you didn't confirm nor deny correct amount above which you are enforcing KYC. Can you write exact number using USD?

As we mentioned, amount is not the criterion.

You are playing on AML card so I will assume that you have reported lots of suspicious transactions to authorities because of AML regulation, especially because you are operating under Hong Kong's law which is part of FATF.

Is my assumption correct or wrong? 

There are no "AML cards". From time to time we have to address the legal requests of public authorities.