I got a email and call from the bank as well, they couldn't tell me exactly where the card numbers were compromised from or what even happened for that matter, but i thought there might have been a connection. I have also been issued a new debit card (the one I used to pay for my bASIC). They said that they will update me with that info once the investigation has been finished. If there is a connection I will update.
Topic: SCAMMER: Cablepair (Tom) from BTCFPGA.com/bitcoinasic.net - page 11. (Read 24133 times)
NB4 verdict.
Have notified theymos for his verdict here.
Bump
Was this out of the blue because of suspicious activity on your card, or is it just SOP is cases like this where a chargeback has been done and the cardholder says that the merchant might not be reputable?
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
They can also sell the numbers on the blackmarket.
CitiBank
Hopefully Citi has contacted whoever provides the merchant account and filled them in.
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
which bank?
Fruck !@##
I think he is only stealing BTC @ the moment as he sees this as an easy untraceable crime etc ...
Its a big step to Upgrade to CC fraud as in major jail time....
Will change my card ....
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
which bank?
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
which bank?
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
Might be worth cross-posting this advice to the threads in the Custom Hardware forum, too.
Just a "heads up" on this case......
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
I have just received an encrypted email, one where I had to log into THEIR system to read the email and reply.
the Bank have been following this case/new-site & the forum.
They are STRONGLY of the opinion that a 'Card replacement' is in order for any CC related to this case.
Since the original cards were processed and the 3 digit security number was supplied to validate the transactions, there is nothing to prevent the CC being re-billed or the card details being 'used' illegally.
Since the details (address & cardholder details, card number & security digits) are in the possession of a 3rd party
Tom previously mentioned that the bASIC project was funded in part by people from the "Lenders club" and has referred to "old Bitcoin money" being involved in the project. Some people belonging to that club are no longer in good standing in this community and I continue to find the silence about who else was involved in the bASIC project concerning.
One would expect legitimate investors to require regular reports and evidence of progress on the project and to be aware that it was in trouble, demanding answers and solutions. Hell, I even wonder whether those "investors" existed or whether they were a fiction created by Tom to lend credibility to his project. Are they silent now because they don't want any responsibility for the failure of this project falling on themselves or because they never existed?
Too much about this whole situation stinks to take anything about it at face value now. I think this community needs to try to find out whether those investors exist and establish whether they have any legal liability in relation to this clusterfuck.
One would expect legitimate investors to require regular reports and evidence of progress on the project and to be aware that it was in trouble, demanding answers and solutions. Hell, I even wonder whether those "investors" existed or whether they were a fiction created by Tom to lend credibility to his project. Are they silent now because they don't want any responsibility for the failure of this project falling on themselves or because they never existed?
Too much about this whole situation stinks to take anything about it at face value now. I think this community needs to try to find out whether those investors exist and establish whether they have any legal liability in relation to this clusterfuck.
Well written, Lukas. I'll do my best to bide by your words in the future.
On a side note, Phinnaeus, I very much respected your work (and calm) during the Pirate fiasco. I feel as if that scenario is a bit different than this.
Thanks, Lukas. Do you think it was a scam from the beginning or did it simply go wrong at some point?
PERSONALLY, I don't think Tom started this venture with the intent of stealing money. However, the end result is the same: Lots of people are owed money, and Tom is missing in action, with zero accountability. What is most troubling is there were several of us who attempted to him help to varying degrees, and all he ever did was avoid and deny the need.
Tom has lied to me several times on several things, ranging from white lies, omissions, fabrications, to downright boldface lies. I would say there are more untruths to the situation than hard facts.
I'd like to reiterate that I find the "doxing" of his family worthless and detestable. That information will not help those who are owed, and only brings you down to that level. I found Tom in about 4 hours on the ground. Pictures of his baby won't help you do that.
It really pains me to write all this. From a business perspective, I should walk away and keep my mouth shut, but I'm really struggling. Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it. On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it. All of these things are bad for the community and bad for Bitcoin, and that greater effort is what this is supposed to be about.
Maybe a scammer tag will help drive Tom back to the fold so he can share, honestly and completely, what happened and how we can all move forward. Frankly, I doubt it. He is not behaving rationally at this point, maybe hasn't in months.
Well written, Lukas. I'll do my best to bide by your words in the future.
Quote
It's really not acceptable for only one person to have access to the funds of a business. There always needs to be a plan in place where someone else can quickly grasp the financial situation of a business and move money as necessary. People get sick, they have mental breakdowns, they get hit by buses, they decide they've had enough and walk away. Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.
Bitcoin 100 is structured in such a way, and will remain so. I've never had control of funds, and there's a backup person in place, in case.
Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.
Frankly, is raises a hell of a lot more than that. I have many, many suspicious about Tom, but my conjecture might be completely off (though I don't think it is). I don't think his issues are an excuse in the least, and I personally, face-to-face, offered him an out specifically crafted for him, with exactly what he wanted. He left town instead.
Quote
Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it. On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I think people are well aware of the fact that Tom's personal issues are greatly compromising his ability to do the right thing here. While not an ideal solution, the best option at the moment would be for Tom to hand off processing the BTC refunds to someone else while he pursues whatever personal help he needs. Maybe there aren't enough funds to refund everyone in full at this point, but even partial refunds would be better than nothing.
It's really not acceptable for only one person to have access to the funds of a business. There always needs to be a plan in place where someone else can quickly grasp the financial situation of a business and move money as necessary. People get sick, they have mental breakdowns, they get hit by buses, they decide they've had enough and walk away. Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.
People can have compassion for Tom's personal circumstances and still believe that doing nothing isn't a viable option.
Thanks for that, it explains a lot. Get help Tom.
Thanks, Lukas. Do you think it was a scam from the beginning or did it simply go wrong at some point?
PERSONALLY, I don't think Tom started this venture with the intent of stealing money. However, the end result is the same: Lots of people are owed money, and Tom is missing in action, with zero accountability. What is most troubling is there were several of us who attempted to him help to varying degrees, and all he ever did was avoid and deny the need.
Tom has lied to me several times on several things, ranging from white lies, omissions, fabrications, to downright boldface lies. I would say there are more untruths to the situation than hard facts.
I'd like to reiterate that I find the "doxing" of his family worthless and detestable. That information will not help those who are owed, and only brings you down to that level. I found Tom in about 4 hours on the ground. Pictures of his baby won't help you do that.
It really pains me to write all this. From a business perspective, I should walk away and keep my mouth shut, but I'm really struggling. Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it. On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it. All of these things are bad for the community and bad for Bitcoin, and that greater effort is what this is supposed to be about.
Maybe a scammer tag will help drive Tom back to the fold so he can share, honestly and completely, what happened and how we can all move forward. Frankly, I doubt it. He is not behaving rationally at this point, maybe hasn't in months.
If it was a planned scam from the outset, they surely would have just run off with all the moolah, yes?
Maybe. I'm asking because Tom said he had a working prototype and Lukas said he couldn't see any value in it (or something like this, I don't remember what he said exactly).
Jump to: