this sums it up pretty much
4 Likes
Maybe we need subcommittees and let votes bubble up. at least a proposal should be seconded by a neuron thatās aged a bit
I agree with the above, we are not a court of law and donāt have the ability to fully judge the evidence. Theres is just no way we can know. I always get worried when people get personally offended when otherās try to consider the evidence presented.
1 Like
So I donāt disagree with your points at all. I also believe it should be nearly impossible to make a change like this.
I donāt agree with this sentiment. Anyone can propose anything, at any time. I understand you think itās stupid but thatās why we have these forums and discussions. No one forces you to review all these comments and take the time to respond. You can always just vote and move along with your day.
3 Likes
This situation makes a case for building in an on-chain court system. For example it could have permissions to reverse identity anchor changes for 90 days post. The Kleros project is set up to economically incentive anonymous individuals to reach consensus on truth. Pure token voting like the NNS is a way to establish token holder preferences, but not reach truth. For that reason, the NNS cannot set a precedent of using it as a source of truth (IE who is the legitimate owner of an account). The NNS must reject proposals asking it to do this.
The silver lining of this situation is the neuron is locked for 8 years. By then, there is a chance we have an on chain court to handle issues like this. Or hopefully the alleged hacker is caught by law enforcement by then.
1 Like
Hi @xiaobing
I am very sorry you are having to go through such process.
Were you KYC verified on exchange you purchased your total sum of ICP?
It seems like the proposal may pass, technically speaking itās just reverting his internet anchor to his original state and mnemonic, why is there not more support for this?
@xiaobing has proven the entire chain of custody on this. I will be glad to see him get control of this neuron again, I agree he is the rightful owner given the evidence. I understand dfinity is not a court of law, but it seems that what happened here is obvious.
My concern is that it does set a precedence of intervention, it seems the long-term fix really needs to be no change of mnemonics allowed after creation.
1 Like
why is there not more support for this?
We are not a court of law, simple as that. If this really is stolen, OP should go to the police and the exchanges and file reports to solve this in a court of law. It was due to OPās own negligence as he himself said.
Blockchains should NEVER be the arbiters of whose coins belong to who. Itās not our job. Secure your funds and this doesnāt happen.
1 Like
@xiaobing convinced me that he/his boss was the owner of the account through the evidence that he presented. Once I reached that decision and given the fact that what he was asking was not technically infeasible (i.e. Dfinity, through @zire confirmed that this was not impossible), I felt that there was no choice but to vote my conscience. Therefore I voted yes.
I have read through the decision making process of the no votes. This are my three buckets of the no votes so far.
- No because you donāt believe the evidence that has been presented
- No because you think the exploration of evidence and counter arguments need more time
- No because you think this proposal should not have been brought into NNS proposal in the first place
I have found out some facts through this topic AFTER I voted. So I do think that in the future I would definitely demand more time on such issues. I have struggled with 3 quite a lot. The very existence of a mechanism to revert back a change (revert to the original mnemonic) is deeply concerning to me. As I have mentioned in the first paragraph, I submit that is not the issue before us in the current proposal.
I will present a detailed economic case separately of how the existence of such a mechanism could be exploited in the future ( I am NOT alleging that this was done in this case) for the benefit of a determined adversary playing by the exact same rules set up here. In a nutshell here, a variation of ability to transfer existing neurons (Threshold ECDSA Signatures - #111 by nomeata) temporarily could sway the vote-count in favor of a determined adversary for a specific proposal. While I am not aware about any current such buy-the-vote schemes, it is entirely possible in the future with appropriate systems in place as I will show.
1 Like
Blockchains should NEVER be the arbiters of whose coins belong to who.
I agree, I said that I thought it sets a dangerous precedence. I was only curious as it is a proposal it should have plenty of documentation. I do feel sorry for @xiaobing , though. As others have said it is deeply concerning if it passes, it is also deeply concerning the mnemonic may be altered.
Just curious about people voting No because they believe OP should have instead gone to court. Say OP does go to court, and say it rules for him even without identifying the thief. OP comes back with proof and makes a new proposal. Would you still vote against?
Just in. The bill failed to pass. I expected the bill to fail, but what I didnāt expect was such a lopsided margin of approval.
-
Some people doubt the authenticity of the evidence.
-
Others believe that the person who currently controls the account should be given the opportunity to rebut it;
-
Some people think that this should not be handled by NNS and should be handled by the police.
My answer:
-
We can provide the KYC of binance account. If necessary, we can also provide the video (because some people suspect that the photo has been photoshopped). When we went to Shanghai, we also showed the transaction records of binance account on our mobile phone to @zire So I think this is enough to prove that the binance account transferring ICP to 171674 is ours;
-
I think this needs more discussion to work out a mutually acceptable and fair way (such as @wpb 's plan);
The police have been investigating, it is difficult to confirm who the thief is with the current evidence. ICP generate neurons we temporarily canāt track to the returns, and ICP pledge for eight years, 32000 in the eight years of the time it will not transfer, if the transfer or not transfer eight years later, or never that we would be much to find the thief (according to the current earnings to calculate the yield of 8 years to produce enough the thief to live a good life, The thief could have increased the chance of exposing himself without moving 32,000 ICPs.) I would like to ask those people who think that this proposal I sponsored opens Pandoraās box, shouldnāt we help the victims? Another way to think about it is that if the proposal is used properly it will benefit everyone in the community, right?
We can talk about how to make it sound, how to make sure it helps victims and not thieves?
3 Likes
My bossās take on the failed proposal:
I didnāt expect that the NNS proposal I initiated would have such a result, with the negative vote outnumbering the yes vote by a wide margin! Although this is the blockchain world, it feels like people can ignore the true ownership of assets, and instead agree that anyone who steals other peopleās assets or mnemonics can legally own them. If the blockchain field can be divorced from the normal world view and values, then what is the meaning of participation and ownership? Because anyone has the chance of being robbed, and this is indeed an individual case, who can guarantee that the same thing will not happen to him? 1. If you question the screenshot of evidence I provided, there are hashes of each transaction in it, why not verify it and then make a decision? 2. If you think that I will take possession of the assets of the account after selling the account to others, why do you steal or dare not directly provide the transaction agreement or transaction record of transfer purchase? Iām not stupid enough to give away digital assets of this size for free! The problems and causes of this incident are not purely personal factors, not properly kept, or the computer was hacked, or it may be stolen by internal personnel. However, we should not ignore an important reason, that is, the key generated by the official can be repeated and modified many times, that is, as long as someone obtains other peopleās mnemonic or Yubikey, he can steal other peopleās assets, but the assets are frozen and locked accounts in the project side, is this mechanism set 100% reasonable? Of course, I will not give up on the result of one proposal, I will continue to launch it, and seek help from the police system and social resources. The person who steals his or her assets will not get or enjoy the wealth brought by this asset. On the contrary, he or she will be sentenced to prisonā¦
3 Likes
My take on this ā¦
First, you must know that you are in crypto . Simple thing such as missing a number on your wallet address when you are transferring and your funds are gone forever. Same goes for fund getting stolenā¦
If your funds are stolen by hacker in crypto what can the exchanges and authorities do ? Exchange at most can freeze the funds but thereās no way it can be returned back to the owner if the hacker doesnāt want to .
And for your case , you didnāt protect such a huge amount of funds carefully and loss it as a result. If the funds are not locked up for 8 years , Iām pretty sure it has already has been liquidated by the hacker .
I truly think freezing up the neuron and stop rewarding the hacker daily is what you can propose next and most likely will pass in the proposal.
2 Likes
it probably will change the mind of a few that suggested that. But we are a huge community and now it feels impossible to recover anything that is lost (due to so many factors to consider) . And honestly, the majority of the community rather not care or vote .
There are only a few employees in your company that has access to the key right ? So is easy to narrow down? But because due to the lack of evidence , police is hard to do anything ?
In this case , I can suggest that you can negotiate the terms with the staffs of your company . Release a notice , ask the thief to join a chat anonymously discuss the terms for a return instead of getting nothing for both of you (if the neuron gets freezed)
1 Like
Good enough, pass the vote. This is shameful.
He is a shameful man who attacks others
Iām not sure what part OP is failing to understand about why his ābossāā proposal failed. Go find the employee that stole it from one of the FOUR devices you had attached to it.
You lost control of your assets due to personal negligence. YOU failed to secure your assets. What about the thousands of people this has already happened to? Are we supposed to rewind time and give their money back?
Blockchains are not courts of law. We donāt have any responsibility to say who owns that neuron. If this terrible proposal passes, it sets a precedent that ANYONEās coins can be frozen or moved at any time.
The proposal wonāt pass, in any form.
5 Likes
did you manage to solve your problem and get access back? did i have the same problem?
1 Like