Freewallet.org Flag - Please Support

[bob123]

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

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

Hi Bob,

This is not supposed to be a technical statement. It's rather a business model.

'Private keys' and 'addresses' are technical terms.
So, please explain what you meant with your statement.

The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'.

I honestly start thinking you almost know nothing about bitcoin at all, which makes it even more worrying that you are hosting a fake-wallet..

[LoyceV]

The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'.

I think it's just an incorrect translation. If I may edit the quote, I think this is what Freewallet meant:

Our service model is based on providing a secure cold storage technology so we do not share private keys with of individual addresses.

(quote edited)

[Freewallet]

'Private keys' and 'addresses' are technical terms.
So, please explain what you meant with your statement.

The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'.

I honestly start thinking you almost know nothing about bitcoin at all, which makes it even more worrying that you are hosting a fake-wallet..

Let's put it this way: under our model, it's not feasible to provide private keys to individual wallet addresses.

Anyway, this is our right as a service provider as well as one of the options available in the market today.

Regards,

[bob123]

Let's put it this way: under our model, it's not feasible to provide private keys to individual wallet addresses.

Regardless of your model. It is always possible to provide private keys from individual addresses.
Each address (or more precisely: public key) has an associated private key. That's how bitcoin works.

The way you derive those private keys doesn't matter here.

[Freewallet]

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

And what do you do with the money of people that don't speak out against you after you subject them to a "random" KYC check?

Per your TOS you can just claim that, right?

We treat all the issues equally no matter if they are spoken in public or not.

[bob123]

We do not argue whether it is technically possible or not.

There is nothing to argue.
It is (and has to be) possible. Period.

We know how Bitcoin works.

Obviously not as detailed as you should.

[LoyceV]

There are established and common methods used to identify a personality, which are applied in today's AML practices.

The proper way is to establish this before the user deposits. If a user passes KYC, you know who the user is and you know funds deposited afterwards belong to that user. If anything comes up, you can always ask the same user to verify his identity again to prove ownership of the account/funds.

However, if you do this after depositing, you can't be certain the original user is the same as the person submitting KYC-documents.

[AdolfinWolf]

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

And what do you do with the money of people that don't speak out against you after you subject them to a "random" KYC check?

Per your TOS you can just claim that, right?

We treat all the issues equally no matter if they are spoken in public or not.

Equal as in, you claim the money after x amount of time, or you don't... ?

Anyways, if only you hadn't advertised your service as a wallet, but rather a changelly-esque style exchange, a lot of these arguments mentioned above would've been avoided.
(Though i must note that asking for KYC after someone performs a transaction is still scummy behaviour, whether legal or not, and rather absurd if the transaction doesn't include fiat and or gateways to fiat.)

Again, Your TOS is still ridiculous though. I'm not sure where you're based, but i'm pretty sure you can't just claim funds of customers that you deem to be "Fraudulent".

[Freewallet]

The proper way is to establish this before the user deposits. If a user passes KYC, you know who the user is and you know funds deposited afterwards belong to that user. If anything comes up, you can always ask the same user to verify his identity again to prove ownership of the account/funds.

However, if you do this after depositing, you can't be certain the original user is the same as the person submitting KYC-documents.

Stop hiding behind obfuscation, you clearly don't follow established and common methods. Most exchange & custodial wallet have detailed information/procedure such as :
1. Limit deposit/withdraw (whether it's daily, weekly, monthly or all-time) without identity verification
2. If user deposit above limit, you should ask for identity verification after deposit is made, not when user attempt to withdraw.

Why don't you start by mention those information on your Customer Support page for sake of transparency and prevent your user getting confused/angry?

Let me answer to both statements made above:

Since we are not able to perform KYC to absolutely all users, we can't be certain that suspicious activity will not be manifested on the accounts that have avoided the verification.
Under the current model, a few users are requested to comply with KYC/AML requirements whereas the proposed option puts many more of them under stress.

Mind that the real practice of "other wallets" may vary and contradict to the "detailed terms".

Anyways, if only you hadn't advertised your service as a wallet, but rather a changelly-esque style exchange, a lot of these arguments mentioned above would've been avoided.
(Though i must note that asking for KYC after someone performs a transaction is still scummy behaviour, whether legal or not, and rather absurd if the transaction doesn't include fiat and or gateways to fiat.)

Again, Your TOS is still ridiculous though. I'm not sure where you're based, but i'm pretty sure you can't just claim funds of customers that you deem to be "Fraudulent".

Thanks for making these points.

We appreciate the feedback of the community expressed here and considering the modification of our present KYC policy with respect to reasonable concerns.

[nero_monney]

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming? Feel so newb while reading the thread....

[suchmoon]

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

[actmyname]

Let me answer to both statements made above:

Since we are not able to perform KYC to absolutely all users, we can't be certain that suspicious activity will not be manifested on the accounts that have avoided the verification.

Wait, you're not able to perform KYC to all users? Why not?

Do the rules only apply for so many people, to which thereafter it becomes a cesspool of money-laundering?

Loyce's point made sense: you have no way of telling whether the user who deposited the funds is the user who will later withdraw the funds. You should have KYC apropos to linking the two cryptographic identities: it's the reasonable thing to do when considering cryptocurrencies.

Either that or get rid of bullshit KYC

[hacker1001101001]

~

Either that or get rid of bullshit KYC

+1 just get rid of it, KYC is bullshit.

I agree, Freewallet are tracking nothing by doing KYC after deposit happens, it's that simple of an logic.

[qwerty6274]

IMO, if an error occurs, you’d better not repeat the command as many times as you can. Why not ask for help first? I’ve always thought that it’s just what support do: solve stuff like that.

[nero_monney]

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

To my mind, only the true-users can pass the KYC procedure while scammers will fail it. THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them. Am I not right?

[AdolfinWolf]

And what’s wrong with the KYC? Shouldn’t it be done in case to protect users from scamming?

How does KYC protect from scamming?

To my mind, only the true-users can pass the KYC procedure while scammers will fail it. THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them. Am I not right?

You're not right. You can buy photoshopped or even hacked documents for as little as 30$ per document.

Without access to either a government database or some heavily developed AI, it's as good as impossible to see the difference between a hacked/photoshopped document and a real one.

THey won’t manage to provide all the private info to claim that an acc and money belongs to them.

This is false, since you will only be asked AFTER your account is "hacked" - there's no identification given to freewallet prior to your wallet being compromised, thus freewallet can never differentiate whether the info is A. real, and B. matching the actual account owner.

So any identification will do.

[rosezionjohn]

Some newbie accounts who woke up to defend freewallet after months in hybernation:.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521448;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520952;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521462;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520852;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2511390;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520822;sa=showPosts

I don't know how many more are there but Freewallet should also ask these accounts/bots to oppose the flag.

[marlboroza]

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.

But it is one of the criteria.

Please post amount above which freewallet has to perform identity verification because of AML and CTF regulation and all criteria for which you ask users to verify identity to comply with AML/CTF regulation.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Some newbie accounts who woke up to defend freewallet after months in hybernation:.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521448;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520952;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521462;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520852;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2511390;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2520822;sa=showPosts

I don't know how many more are there but Freewallet should also ask these accounts/bots to oppose the flag.

Paid shills probably however the supports from only DTs count so there are nothing much to worry. I gave my support for this flag. Sometimes I wonder how I miss a topic which is already 5 page long 😜

I need to spend more time in reputation I guess.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Are they at it again?

14,000 USD worth of tokens worth frozen in this users account for 18 months?

Like I said before.....losted all hopes after almost 1 and a half year....thanks for not helping me and losing me a 14.000 usd.

Still waiting......at this moment i have losted all my hopes that this will ever be done.....so disappointing......

Hello everyone,

i am waiting for about 6 months FREWALLET team to add ROX token to their wallet.

I am patient guy but this is really to much. I looked for this topic on the internet and I saw that there was some tokens added in month, max 2 months, so I thought ok i wioll wait for a little bit and that's it.

But now I am allready waiting for 6 months!!!! I am really afraid that I will lost all my funds.....

Please freewallet team, help me with this issue, it is really taking to long....

Hi Charlie, our management added new tokens since then, however, I am sorry ROX wasn't on the approved list. We will continue monitoring the situation with ROX and will let you know of any news. I noted down your details