Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 06:03:40 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [Update] CryptoCoinMedia's False Accusations  (Read 3441 times)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 12:27:45 AM
 #41



Given the fact you still haven't apologized to Intersango and are acting like a spoiled child, I think they should charge you a license for back programming contracting of 5000BTC .  If you don't want to pay it, you should pull every line of code that they helped with out of your codebase.  It is not up to them to tell you which lines this is, so unless you have specific version-history knowledge of their contributions, they have the legal power to force you to throw out all of your code.  You should be gracious for their past help, and apologize for your outrageous acccusations you have made in the past 48 hours.

Intersango seems like they are way nicer than me though, so feel lucky.



I dont recall ever caring about getting the code back. Thats not the issue at hand.

1481263420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263420
Reply with quote  #2

1481263420
Report to moderator
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481263420
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263420

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263420
Reply with quote  #2

1481263420
Report to moderator
RaggedMonk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 12:29:42 AM
 #42

I still own the IP 100%

Do you have documentation to prove this? I think you a just huffing and puffing with nothing to support it.

What does your contract/sale agreement with miserydearia say?  Do you even have one?  

What makes you think you own the name Witcoin?  Did you trademark it?  Registering a domain name does not give you legal control of that word.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 12:37:17 AM
 #43

mizerydearia, RaggedMonk, enough. This has been drawn out too much to no ones benefit.

CryptoCoinMedia won't be posting anymore on this issue, I'm in personal talks with him regarding it.

mizerydearia, I've pm'd you about moving forward with this, I've not heard back from you yet you've had time for lengthy posts on this and the other thread.
I want a dump of the user records from your DB backup and the wallet backup, from that point on I'll ensure that all the users get their coins back. Email me (doctor.nefario@gmail.com) with how I can get those.

I'll take it forward to resolve this working with both mizerydearia and CryptoCoinMedia.

RaggedMonk, change the title of this thread to something else.

Nefario.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
RaggedMonk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 12:41:38 AM
 #44

mizerydearia, RaggedMonk, enough. This has been drawn out too much to no ones benefit.

CryptoCoinMedia won't be posting anymore on this issue, I'm in personal talks with him regarding it.

mizerydearia, I've pm'd you about moving forward with this, I've not heard back from you yet you've had time for lengthy posts on this and the other thread.
I want a dump of the user records from your DB backup and the wallet backup, from that point on I'll ensure that all the users get their coins back. Email me (doctor.nefario@gmail.com) with how I can get those.

I'll take it forward to resolve this working with both mizerydearia and CryptoCoinMedia.

RaggedMonk, change the title of this thread to something else.

Nefario.

I would say you should certainly NOT take control of these coins.  Doing so puts you at significant legal liability, as it could be argued you are accepting stolen coins.  You are walking into a trap.  Wash your hands of this.

I'll change the title.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 12:58:43 AM
 #45

Thank you RaggedMonk,

I'm taking personal responsibility for this, BitcoinConsultancy/Intersango are not involved.

Nefario.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
RaggedMonk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 01:02:09 AM
 #46

Nefario: You shouldn't knowlingly take possession of stolen bitcoins.  Particularly when the owner of the service is so litigious and vindictive.

Misery: What was the nature of your agreement with CCM?  Do you have a written contract? It seems like you dont.

It sounds like CCM claims somewhere between 70% and 100% ownership of witcoin.  

It sounds like you have the only copy of the wallet in a full system backup.  You have been acting as sys admin, and may have a claim on up to 30% ownership.  You should renounce any claims of ownership, and argue you were working as a contractor for CCM.

This means he is solely liable for returning witcoin deposits.  

You can legally delete all backups. A backup of a key is not possession of bitcoins, it is access to them.  You are not destroying the value, you are destroying your access to the value. The bitcoins are legally property of the witcoin entitiy which you are no longer employed by.  You are not legally obligated to retain copies, seeing as how you are no longer employed by him, and he has not been paying you.  Witcoin (owned entirely by CCM) is entirely liable for returning these "stolen" bitcoins.  The fact that CCM does not has backups of his customers' deposits is just negligent business practices, and liability falls to him to pay them back.

Wash your hands of this and let him deal with it.  Don't let him threaten you.  He is trying to blame you for his own mistakes.
intersango
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


Intersango.com


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 01:12:24 AM
 #47

cryptocoinmedia said, WHY WOULD I CONTACT A THIRD PARTY ABOUT MY OWN SITE HuhHuhHuh


Why would you SLANDER a 3rd PARTY???

You would contact a 3rd party if you didn't believe them to be a 3rd party before slandering them.

You said we were responsible and slandered us. I said we were not and were a 3rd party and that you made no attempt to contact us before posting your slander. The proof came out and you offered no apology and you are saying "Why would I contact a 3rd party?"

If you believed us to be a 3rd party, why would you slander us?

If you didn't believe us to be a 3rd party, why would you not ever attempt to contact us?

Please cease the slander.


PS: nefario, I agree that you should try to separate yourself from this issue. You can see how our name is slandered for doing free work. I would seriously consider RaggedMonk's opinion

Support@Intersango.com
Intersango.com - The only exchange owned and operated by core bitcoin developers. We have NO hidden fees and do not deceptively advertise. We offer the safest exchange with a proven track record.
intersango
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


Intersango.com


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 01:16:20 AM
 #48

Nefario: You shouldn't knowlingly take possession of stolen bitcoins.  Particularly when the owner of the service is so litigious and vindictive.

Misery: What was the nature of your agreement with CCM?  Do you have a written contract? It seems like you dont.

It sounds like CCM claims somewhere between 70% and 100% ownership of witcoin.  

It sounds like you have the only copy of the wallet in a full system backup.  You have been acting as sys admin, and may have a claim on up to 30% ownership.  You should renounce any claims of ownership, and argue you were working as a contractor for CCM.

This means he is solely liable for returning witcoin deposits.  

You can legally delete all backups. A backup of a key is not possession of bitcoins, it is access to them.  You are not destroying the value, you are destroying your access to the value. The bitcoins are legally property of the witcoin entitiy which you are no longer employed by.  You are not legally obligated to retain copies, seeing as how you are no longer employed by him, and he has not been paying you.  Witcoin (owned entirely by CCM) is entirely liable for returning these "stolen" bitcoins.  The fact that CCM does not has backups of his customers' deposits is just negligent business practices, and liability falls to him to pay them back.

Wash your hands of this and let him deal with it.  Don't let him threaten you.  He is trying to blame you for his own mistakes.



legality aside, it would be highly unethical for misery to delete his access to the coins no matter how inappropriate cryptocoinmedia behaves. Even if the coins were cryptocoinmedia's and not the users of the site, I would still believe this to be true. Please do not suggest he delete his access.

Support@Intersango.com
Intersango.com - The only exchange owned and operated by core bitcoin developers. We have NO hidden fees and do not deceptively advertise. We offer the safest exchange with a proven track record.
RaggedMonk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 04:32:47 AM
 #49

legality aside, it would be highly unethical for misery to delete his access to the coins no matter how inappropriate cryptocoinmedia behaves. Even if the coins were cryptocoinmedia's and not the users of the site, I would still believe this to be true. Please do not suggest he delete his access.

I don't think it would be unethical, but I was sort of "calling his bluff".  Misery seems like too nice a person to actually do this.  The main point I was trying to make clear to CCM was that he has more liability in this matter than misery does.  Reporting misery to the police would be like committing murder and snitching on your getaway driver.

Possession of a bitcoin address is like knowing the numbers to access a swiss bank account.  I think a good analogy for this situation is CCM got misery's help to open a bank.  A number of people made deposits, which were kept in swiss bank accounts.  The bank's physical location got closed from mismanagement and lack of company funds.  CCM was grossly negligent in not keeping backups of the information to access these accounts, and as the owner of the company, he is responsible for them.  Misery is a teller, who, being a thorough person kept his own personal records about how to access these accounts, even though he was not paid for the last ~month of his work (his making a record is going above-and-beyond). Now this disenfranchised teller is the only person who is able to recover these funds, because of management's mistakes.  CCM is ridiculous to be threatening police action against him for this information: Misery has no legal obligation to store or provide it to CCM.  Any return of the information to access these funds is completely an act of good faith.  CCM is now liable for the full amount of deposits, and is frantically trying to push the blame off on his teller to save his own ass from the mess he got himself into.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
 #50

legality aside, it would be highly unethical for misery to delete his access to the coins no matter how inappropriate cryptocoinmedia behaves. Even if the coins were cryptocoinmedia's and not the users of the site, I would still believe this to be true. Please do not suggest he delete his access.

I don't think it would be unethical, but I was sort of "calling his bluff".  Misery seems like too nice a person to actually do this.  The main point I was trying to make clear to CCM was that he has more liability in this matter than misery does.  Reporting misery to the police would be like committing murder and snitching on your getaway driver.

Possession of a bitcoin address is like knowing the numbers to access a swiss bank account.  I think a good analogy for this situation is CCM got misery's help to open a bank.  A number of people made deposits, which were kept in swiss bank accounts.  The bank's physical location got closed from mismanagement and lack of company funds.  CCM was grossly negligent in not keeping backups of the information to access these accounts, and as the owner of the company, he is responsible for them.  Misery is a teller, who, being a thorough person kept his own personal records about how to access these accounts, even though he was not paid for the last ~month of his work (his making a record is going above-and-beyond). Now this disenfranchised teller is the only person who is able to recover these funds, because of management's mistakes.  CCM is ridiculous to be threatening police action against him for this information: Misery has no legal obligation to store or provide it to CCM.  Any return of the information to access these funds is completely an act of good faith.  CCM is now liable for the full amount of deposits, and is frantically trying to push the blame off on his teller to save his own ass from the mess he got himself into.



Multisig bitcoin ownership didnt exist at the time this happened. Its more akin to the teller cleaning out the cash from the bank because the manager asked him to do something he didnt like then burning the money when told to give it back. Its a question of ethics.

Of course  If I have too I will pay the coins back myself however there is no way for me to know who owns them without access to the db. As nefario said this is closed untill the parties sort it out.

RaggedMonk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
February 29, 2012, 06:06:24 AM
 #51


Multisig bitcoin ownership didnt exist at the time this happened. Its more akin to the teller cleaning out the cash from the bank because the manager asked him to do something he didnt like then burning the money when told to give it back. Its a question of ethics.

Of course  If I have too I will pay the coins back myself however there is no way for me to know who owns them without access to the db. As nefario said this is closed untill the parties sort it out.

Multisig has nothing to do with this.  The coins are the property of witcoin.  The information to access those coins should have been protected and secured.  Witcoin (you) failed to do this, and now are liable.

If he used this access information to drain the account, it would clearly be theft.  However, having simple knowledge of how to access the coins was part of his duties, and is not incriminating in any way.

You should consider yourself lucky, and be grateful that misery can restore this information to you.  I don't understand why you are threatening him.
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
February 29, 2012, 06:56:21 AM
 #52

You should consider yourself lucky, and be grateful that misery can restore this information to you.  I don't understand why you are threatening him.

To us, witcoin users you mean. We should feel lucky? Thank you. I know witcoin users aren't the ones aggressively demanding payment, but it would be nice if a service turned out to feel responsible to its users for a change. Nefario is doing a great service here, most of this money will probably have to be donated, but at least will be utilized.

(I get that from the perspective of CryptoCoinMedia, he should probably be grateful. But still, nothing was happening before he started this. Would be nice if you moved that issue to a non-public area, it's rather disappointing for people who liked the witcoin idea.)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 07:34:57 AM
 #53

You should consider yourself lucky, and be grateful that misery can restore this information to you.  I don't understand why you are threatening him.

To us, witcoin users you mean. We should feel lucky? Thank you. I know witcoin users aren't the ones aggressively demanding payment, but it would be nice if a service turned out to feel responsible to its users for a change. Nefario is doing a great service here, most of this money will probably have to be donated, but at least will be utilized.

(I get that from the perspective of CryptoCoinMedia, he should probably be grateful. But still, nothing was happening before he started this. Would be nice if you moved that issue to a non-public area, it's rather disappointing for people who liked the witcoin idea.)


This ^

To the users of witcoin I am eternally grateful for their patience and understanding. Nefario is the good guy here for providing arbitration.


Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 07:43:24 AM
 #54


Multisig bitcoin ownership didnt exist at the time this happened. Its more akin to the teller cleaning out the cash from the bank because the manager asked him to do something he didnt like then burning the money when told to give it back. Its a question of ethics.

Of course  If I have too I will pay the coins back myself however there is no way for me to know who owns them without access to the db. As nefario said this is closed untill the parties sort it out.

Multisig has nothing to do with this.  The coins are the property of witcoin.  The information to access those coins should have been protected and secured.  Witcoin (you) failed to do this, and now are liable.

If he used this access information to drain the account, it would clearly be theft.  However, having simple knowledge of how to access the coins was part of his duties, and is not incriminating in any way.

You should consider yourself lucky, and be grateful that misery can restore this information to you.  I don't understand why you are threatening him.

Im only 30% financially responsible for it and yet here I am offering to cover the whole cost even though it would take me a long time to get the coins back to people. At least the witcoin users know where they stand with me.  I would hate to be your business partner with such an attitude. I dont see anyone else stepping up except nefario to provide arbitration and myself to cover the loss.

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
February 29, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
 #55

RaggedMonk, the coins only become stolen if MZ refuses to return them, I'm getting involved because I thought witcoin was a cool project. After talking to CCM, the projects not going to be revived, so we need to get the users back their coins.

I think a lot of the background and details have been worked out already so there isn't any need to go over them again.

The next step forward is for MZ to respond as to whether he's going to return the goods or not, and that's what I'm working for.

I've not heard any response from him, I'm a little too busy today but if I've not heard anything by tomorrow I'm going to chase him.

Nefario.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!