How often does theymos go through the account recovery PMs?

[stellar96 scammer]

Yesterday I lost acess to my account, you can read the relevant thread here if you're interested:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858370

I followed the precedure and sent theymos a PM with a signed address included to an undetided quote of my posts. He's been active after I contacted him but yet no action. The email of the account hasn't been chainged and I can't access it. Should I worry that I did something wrong maybe?

[Sythyn]

It has been said that theymos gives this a low priority and will only complete a few of such requests per month.

[stellar96 scammer]

Oh wow. This guy actually already tried to sell the account once... He's surely using several accounts to exploit signature campaigns. I already see this causing harm..

[Xian01]

It has been said that theymos gives this a low priority and will only complete a few of such requests per month.

So what does Theymos do around here other than collect BTC for forums advertising, and pay out $100k a month for development of new forums software ?

Perhaps that responsibility could be delegated to someone who cares enough about being a good steward of this community.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m6zmi/mark_karpeles_attorneys_are_legally_laundering/cm1tjmk

[Quickseller]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

[MadZ]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

[Quickseller]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party.

[MadZ]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him.

[Quickseller]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him.

Why is it silly to use escrow for such a small amount? Escrow is free. How would theymos know that the scammer/lender did not send bitcoin to the original owner via an address sent via Skype or some method that checking the account would not reveal.

[MadZ]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him.

Why is it silly to use escrow for such a small amount? Escrow is free. How would theymos know that the scammer/lender did not send bitcoin to the original owner via an address sent via Skype or some method that checking the account would not reveal.

Most escrows are not free and many might not deal with a small amount like this. He seemed to need this loan as soon as possible, and finding a free escrow who was willing and available in the near future would have only added time to the transaction. He made a trade off between speed and safety and paid the price. There is always the problem of proving a transaction took place, which most reputable lenders solve by making transaction addresses public on the forums and keeping communications through PMs which can be checked later. In this case, stellar is denying loaning to the user at all. Both agree that payment was never sent, so this is not an issue here. No one has claimed to have bought the account, and no other lender has come forward to claim that the account is justly being held in collateral. There has been no legitimate explanation as to why the OP is no longer in control of the account he claims to be his, and if he can prove his ownership, then it should be returned to him.

[Quickseller]

Just curious,

How do all these accounts keep getting compromised?


~BCX~

IMO they don't. They are likely shills of people who do not want to allow forum accounts to be sold or are bad enough at security to download some kind of malware that their password is compromised.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

It is my understanding that the OP was advertising the fact that he was willing to send first to even an untrusted lender. As a result he gave his credentials to someone that decided to take his account and not fund his loan (big surprise). IMO his account should absolutely not be recovered because he was stupid enough to advertise that he was willing to not use escrow to an untrusted party.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him.

Why is it silly to use escrow for such a small amount? Escrow is free. How would theymos know that the scammer/lender did not send bitcoin to the original owner via an address sent via Skype or some method that checking the account would not reveal.

Most escrows are not free and many might not deal with a small amount like this. He seemed to need this loan as soon as possible, and finding a free escrow who was willing and available in the near future would have only added time to the transaction. He made a trade off between speed and safety and paid the price. There is always the problem of proving a transaction took place, which most reputable lenders solve by making transaction addresses public on the forums and keeping communications through PMs which can be checked later. In this case, stellar is denying loaning to the user at all. Both agree that payment was never sent, so this is not an issue here. No one has claimed to have bought the account, and no other lender has come forward to claim that the account is justly being held in collateral. There has been no legitimate explanation as to why the OP is no longer in control of the account he claims to be his, and if he can prove his ownership, then it should be returned to him.

Are you sure about that? I have been able to arrange escrow in a matter of minutes with at least 3 escrow services and none of them charge an official fee for trades and some of them don't even ask that the sender pay a 2nd TX fee when the escrow needs to hold onto the money until they can verify the goods have been received by the buyer. The announcement threads of most escrow services say that they offer their services to make the forum a safe place to conduct business and does not have any public limits as to how small of trades they are willing to escrow.  The forum does not moderate scams so there is no reason for it to get involved in this case. The only recourse that the OP has is to open a scam accusation (which he has done) to get both his account and the account that scammed him to received negative trust (which they both now have) until the scammer returns his account (which will likely never happen).

[stellar96 scammer]

stellar69 never paid me anything

I was stupid and I admit to that huge mistake of mine, still not right for him to hold the account.

I believe I sent theymos the appropriate information required in the signed message. Hopefully he'll go through it and I'll get my account back sometime. I'll surely follow up to let everyone know.

Until then, please keep the discussion on topic.

Thanks.

[MadZ]

quote pyramid

Are you sure about that? I have been able to arrange escrow in a matter of minutes with at least 3 escrow services and none of them charge an official fee for trades and some of them don't even ask that the sender pay a 2nd TX fee when the escrow needs to hold onto the money until they can verify the goods have been received by the buyer. The announcement threads of most escrow services say that they offer their services to make the forum a safe place to conduct business and does not have any public limits as to how small of trades they are willing to escrow.  The forum does not moderate scams so there is no reason for it to get involved in this case. The only recourse that the OP has is to open a scam accusation (which he has done) to get both his account and the account that scammed him to received negative trust (which they both now have) until the scammer returns his account (which will likely never happen).

I understand that scamming is not actually punishable under the forum rules, only via the trust system. The difference between this and other scams is that this involves a forum account, which the administration can and ought to intervene in, since it damages their forums directly. This shouldn't really be treated any differently than another method of account hacking which involves similar levels of deception.

An interesting point to bring up is that according to theymos, any account can be recovered if you sign an address or PGP key associated with the account. If the forum rules take no position on scamming as you say they do, then it seems to me that a user has the right to recover their account regardless of whether it has been sold or used as collateral, as long as they are able to provide the right verification. The administration does not condone account sales, it merely tolerates them because they would happen elsewhere if not here.

[Quickseller]

quote pyramid

Are you sure about that? I have been able to arrange escrow in a matter of minutes with at least 3 escrow services and none of them charge an official fee for trades and some of them don't even ask that the sender pay a 2nd TX fee when the escrow needs to hold onto the money until they can verify the goods have been received by the buyer. The announcement threads of most escrow services say that they offer their services to make the forum a safe place to conduct business and does not have any public limits as to how small of trades they are willing to escrow.  The forum does not moderate scams so there is no reason for it to get involved in this case. The only recourse that the OP has is to open a scam accusation (which he has done) to get both his account and the account that scammed him to received negative trust (which they both now have) until the scammer returns his account (which will likely never happen).

I understand that scamming is not actually punishable under the forum rules, only via the trust system. The difference between this and other scams is that this involves a forum account, which the administration can and ought to intervene in, since it damages their forums directly. This shouldn't really be treated any differently than another method of account hacking which involves similar levels of deception.

An interesting point to bring up is that according to theymos, any account can be recovered if you sign an address or PGP key associated with the account. If the forum rules take no position on scamming as you say they do, then it seems to me that a user has the right to recover their account regardless of whether it has been sold or used as collateral, as long as they are able to provide the right verification. The administration does not condone account sales, it merely tolerates them because they would happen elsewhere if not here.

He may or may not recover this account. However the argument against recovering the account is that the OP willingly gave his account credentials to someone else. The reason was so he could receive a loan from stellar96 (allegedly), and although stellar96 has not provided a TXID to document that he has given the loan it is possible that he did give the loan (either via a traditional client that will broadcast the TX on the blockchain or via an off chain wallet service like coinbase) and the OP is trying to get free bitcoin.

Theymos has said on reddit that he will generally do an investigation as to if the person claiming to own the account should really be the owner of such account and implies that he does not rely solely on a signed message. He implies that if an account has been sold then he will not recover the account back to the previous owner if he can tell that it was sold.

[alani123]

Stellar69 has yet to provide any valid proof. I wouldn't trust any of his claims against OP after so many proofs were provided by him.

And actually...

He implies that if an account has been sold then he will not recover the account back to the previous owner if he can tell that it was sold.

It's been said by mods that accounts will be recovered regardless. That's why buying accounts is always risky for the buyer. because if the seller has used an address in a PM, he'll be able to claim the account's ownership at any time.

[Quickseller]

Stellar69 has yet to provide any valid proof. I wouldn't trust any of his claims against OP after so many proofs were provided by him.

And actually...

He implies that if an account has been sold then he will not recover the account back to the previous owner if he can tell that it was sold.

It's been said by mods that accounts will be recovered regardless. That's why buying accounts is always risky for the buyer. because if the seller has used an address in a PM, he'll be able to claim the account's ownership at any time.

This is not true. Theymos has said that he will only potentially recover an account to the rightful owner.
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2hne0g/useraccounts_bitcointalkorg_not_like_other/

Account recoveries are my lowest priority because they involve a ton of investigation, and you shouldn't lose your account in the first place. If my investigation is not thorough, I could end up accidentally "recovering" an account by giving it to a thief. But I don't often have hours of spare time to devote to such things, so I end up doing only a few account recoveries per month, and many requests get ignored. (I choose recent requests that look straightforward. For any forum business, if I ignored your past requests, resend it every couple of weeks and make it more clear/straightforward.)
This case is one that I have looked at previously. It has a 7-page thread. It's clear that the OP owned the account at one point. But there's a decent chance that the current owner bought the account from the original owner. Since the case is uncertain, I'm erring on the side of inaction for now.

If you sell an account and it is apparent that the account has been sold to theymos (the only person who is willing/able to recover accounts) then the seller will not be able to recover the account.

Regardless of what the mods say (I haven't even seen them say this and you did not post a link/quote so I would dispute they have even said this) they are not the ones who process these requests nor do they make the decision to recover an account or not.