Summary of the events last night - And an apology. - page 6.

Axios

donator

Activity: 131

Merit: 100

Axios Foundation

Quote from: repentance on December 19, 2012, 09:01:52 PM

I'm curious about whether Roger has any special access to the user records of other businesses in which he's an investor, such as BitInstant and Coinlab. As mentioned earlier, there's a lot of "inbreeding" in the Bitcoin economy and the relationships between business owners and other entities in which they've invested really need to be clarified now that this issue has arisen.

I also would like to know which accounts Rogers looked up on blockchain.info, who he was spying on.

mc_lovin

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

www.bitcointrading.com

never a dull moment in the bitcoin world.

but the bitcoin world is sort of small right now, bitcoinstore, memorydealers, and the other associated businesses probably lost a LOT of customers in the past 24 hours. and those customers won't spread the good word about their experiences. it's like they say you do someone good and they might tell 3 people, but do someone bad and they will tell 10. well you just told a forum with now >73,000 members (plus reddit and other communities) EXACTLY how you conduct business and it's frightening yet delightfully entertaining to watch from a distance. I can't see this situation being good for you.

OP: probably shouldn't be linking directly to the 'please delete' thread if it is to be deleted and hidden from view.

I have about 100 other comments I want to make but I shall save face by keeping them to myself.

ninjaboon

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1002

omg, what a PR mess for Roger's bitcoinstore. Going forward, it's important for Roger to ensure this type of issues do not happen in the future.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: thebaron on December 19, 2012, 09:03:58 PM

Obviously we need the government to come in and regulate these people.

Obviously. Roll Eyes

It's like there's a bunch of whiny 12 year old girls here, I swear... Roger made a mistake, and it's been owned up to. If you don't like him, don't use his service. Move on.

thebaron

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Obviously we need the government to come in and regulate these people.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

I'm curious about whether Roger has any special access to the user records of other businesses in which he's an investor, such as BitInstant and Coinlab. As mentioned earlier, there's a lot of "inbreeding" in the Bitcoin economy and the relationships between business owners and other entities in which they've invested really need to be clarified now that this issue has arisen.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Oh please people. I'm admittedly the first one who will get on anyone's case again and again and again relentlessly,
but PLEASE; this time Roger found someone who understood where the problem is, acknowledged it and confirmed how
it will not happen again. What else do you need? Roger Ver is in contrast to all rumours not actually able to redefine
linear time, so what happened, happened, and now a solution has to be found. While Roger was unable to express it due to
god-complex issues, Jon did it. And he did it fine. He did it as you would expect it from any other business unable to effect
linear time.

After piuk's very quick and necessary changes I think we're in the clear here.

Disclaimer: This is in no way a recommendation to use Roger's services; his willingness to break social compacts became clear
enough, but I don't think it is necessary to further harp on things that can no longer be changed due to them having been
happened and the responsible parties acknowleded that things did not go as they should via third person.

Rotsor

full member

Activity: 309

Merit: 102

Presale is live!

Quote from: Axios on December 19, 2012, 08:19:25 PM

I haven't looked into it, but Roger claimed that address belonged to Nethead's wallet. What he claimed: the address wasn't one time use.

Yes, which is why I've brought up this facts, which invalidates the Roger's evidence:

Quote

However just because a wallet contains a public key does not necessarily mean they are the owner of said key

Axios

donator

Activity: 131

Merit: 100

Axios Foundation

Quote from: Rotsor on December 19, 2012, 08:05:08 PM

There seems to be no contradiction between Roger's and Nethead's statements. Roger says their customer sent bitcoins to the Nethead's address. Nethead says that his address was was the anonymiser address for one-time use only, which makes the additional funds sent inaccessible. There is no refutation of that as far as I can tell.

I haven't looked into it, but Roger claimed that address belonged to Nethead's wallet. What he claimed: the address wasn't one time use.

Rotsor

full member

Activity: 309

Merit: 102

Presale is live!

Quote from: Axios on December 19, 2012, 07:54:04 PM

Quote from: Rotsor on December 19, 2012, 07:50:23 PM

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Not *really*. According to Roger - his company gave his address as a payment address to an another customer.

Can't really verify it's Rogers's word vs Nethead's at this point. And Roger already provided false information by claiming that BitPay sent funds to that address.

If that customer can prove that he sent the monies to that address then nethead is lying.

There seems to be no contradiction between Roger's and Nethead's statements. Roger says their customer sent bitcoins to the Nethead's address. Nethead says that his address was was the anonymiser address for one-time use only, which makes the additional funds sent inaccessible. There is no refutation of that as far as I can tell.

mccorvic

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: stochastic on December 19, 2012, 07:09:53 PM

How am I flailing? A company offers an apology to "the community" because of "The community has been outraged at this invasion of privacy." The apology was not offered because of the invasion of privacy and the breaking of the terms of service of blockchain.info. The apology is because "a subset of the community" is outraged.

FTFY

You're "flailing" and whining because you obviously haven't even spent 15 bloody seconds thinking about what you're saying. There are steps being enacted as outlined in the flippin' OP. You want them to pay a guy who has already stolen from them, we get it, but that ain't gonna happen. Not because "talk is cheap" but because that is an ugly and reprehensible thing to do. Especially since the only people who want the guy to get EXTRA money are the thieves and flailers.

Thursday

full member

Activity: 150

Merit: 100

I missed it.

Cliffs anyone?

Axios

donator

Activity: 131

Merit: 100

Axios Foundation

Quote from: Rotsor on December 19, 2012, 07:50:23 PM

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Not *really*. According to Roger - his company gave his address as a payment address to an another customer.

Can't really verify it's Rogers's word vs Nethead's at this point. And Roger already provided false information by claiming that BitPay sent funds to that address.

If that customer can prove that he sent the monies to that address then nethead is lying.

Rotsor

full member

Activity: 309

Merit: 102

Presale is live!

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Let me remind you:

Quote from: MemoryDealers

Alerts Enabled: When notifications are enabled your public keys are inserted in a separate table along with your email, skype handle or google talk username. This mode does sacrifice some Anonymity as we can now see your public keys and view your wallet balance. However just because a wallet contains a public key does not necessarily mean they are the owner of said key (as you can add keys without the respective private key).

That bolded part seems to invalidate the only 'proof' of his fault we ever had.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: stochastic on December 19, 2012, 07:15:27 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on December 19, 2012, 07:09:19 PM

Quote from: stochastic on December 19, 2012, 07:04:24 PM

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money. I am only saying, I don't accept the apology. A worded apology is not worth much to me. Put your $$ where your mouth is. The company violated its own terms of service. If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere.

So, pay a fine? To whom? How much?

kokojie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1003

I understand, as a business owner, sometimes it's difficult to accept that someone stole from you, and
your principles won't let you give it up so easily, even go as far as letting your principles cloud your
judgement. But really you have to accept the loss, learn from the mistake and move on, it's just part of
the cost of doing business. In a sense, it's a valuable lesson, to learn how to prevent the same thing
happening in the future, how to improve your processes.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on December 19, 2012, 07:09:19 PM

Quote from: stochastic on December 19, 2012, 07:04:24 PM

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

I am not saying blockchain.info has to give back money. I am only saying, I don't accept the apology. A worded apology is not worth much to me. Put your $$ where your mouth is. The company violated its own terms of service. If the company wants its customers to not violate its terms of service in the future then they need to show that the company will take a financial hit to show that the are sincere.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on December 19, 2012, 06:48:26 PM

Quote from: mccorvic on December 19, 2012, 06:45:25 PM

Quote from: da2ce7 on December 19, 2012, 06:43:19 PM

Overall I think that it is good for the community if dishonest people get outed.
(and no repaying a mistaken payment is dishonest and shows poor character).

I agree. It is also good that flaws in some of the BTC businesses here were recognized and repaired.

What isn't good are the people still flailing around looking for attention because they have some imaginary axe to grind.

Can we label shad0wbitz and stochastic "Public Flailers"? Cheesy

How am I flailing? A company offers an apology to "the community" because of "The community has been outraged at this invasion of privacy." The apology was not offered because of the invasion of privacy and the breaking of the terms of service of blockchain.info. The apology is because "the community" is outraged.

I am saying talk is cheap. I will believe someone is sorry if they are justly punished for the breaking of terms of service and the violation of a customers privacy.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: stochastic on December 19, 2012, 07:04:24 PM

If I had a business where I let an employee or investor have access to the company car, and that person drove over a customer; my business that allowed the employee/investor use that car would need to pay retribution to the customer. Me telling that customer that I took away the employee's keys is not enough.

If that customer took shots at you with a loaded gun, would you still need to pay retribution?

If nhead was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, I might feel differently, but given the scamming douche he is, I have little sympathy for him. If he wishes to seek restitution, then that is his own prerogative. It is not something that we can (or should) impose as a requirement for blockchain.info.

thebaron

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Oh u, trolls.

Topic: Summary of the events last night - And an apology. - page 6. (Read 13011 times)