Poll

What should be done with the 57 Million FIMK - initially cheated to a single stakeholder and recently stolen - now frozen out of circulation?

Leave them frozen forever on the thief's accounts (leaving only 943M total FIMK in circulation)
6 (19.4%)
Just don't intervene, unfreeze them
0 (0%)
Return everything to the original holder
5 (16.1%)
Transfer to association's use (combined promotion, forging rewards, basic income), pay nothing ever to the original holder
6 (19.4%)
Transfer to association's use, pay 18.7M (max genesis block account) FIMK back to the original holder, keep the rest as a sanction
8 (25.8%)
Transfer to association, pay no FIMK to the original holder, refund soon the 75 BTC he donated, less 1 BTC fee
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, pay no FIMK to the original holder, refund 75 BTC after block rewards are gone on 2017-11-22
1 (3.2%)
Transfer to association, pay 18.7M to the original holder, refund 50 BTC after 2017-11-22
1 (3.2%)
Transfer to association, pay 18.7M to the original holder, refund 25 BTC, keep 25 BTC as a sanction
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, refund 25 BTC, keep 25 BTC as a sanction
3 (9.7%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, keep 50 BTC as a sanction
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, refund 50 BTC after 2017-11-22
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, refund 50 BTC after one year
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, refund 50 BTC or 32500 USD in BTC (whichever is smaller) after one year
0 (0%)
Transfer to association, use 25 BTC to buy FIMK from the market for the original holder, refund 50 BTC less 1 BTC fee soon
0 (0%)
Something else, please elaborate in the thread.
1 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 31

Voting closed: December 29, 2014, 06:21:21 PM

Author Topic: **VOTE** Discussion about the destiny of the stolen 57 Million FIMK frozen  (Read 24833 times)

Eliphaz Fimk on: December 20, 2014, 09:34:31 PM

  • FIMKrypto coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • FIMKrypto
Advisory vote. The results will NOT be binding,  the association reserves the right to reconsider the decision.

Not all combination options are listed but you get the idea. After the popular inclination is known we might do another short vote with just 2 or 3 exact alternatives.

New registrations to the forum may not be approved until Dec 29th when the final decision has been made to protect the advisory vote's authenticity.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 06:46:46 PM by Eliphaz Fimk »

DC8 #1 on: December 20, 2014, 10:00:27 PM

  • Fimker
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Thank you for reminding me of how lucky I am for not having to do any hard decisions, especially on Christmas time. :P Ahh, I think I want a cup of tea now.

Sijoittaja #2 on: December 20, 2014, 10:00:33 PM

  • Fimker
  • **
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
I think froze all to untill all pos rewards are paid, or take all FIMKs to community and sell them good price for bitcoins, and then give back to these stolen fimks owner, bitcoins he invested in start + some small year interest. All extra Fimk or bitcoins to improve FIMKrypto :)

Zska #3 on: December 21, 2014, 12:17:31 AM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
I would really like to hear what victim has to say...

dance #4 on: December 21, 2014, 12:28:55 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
I would really like to hear what victim has to say...
I would really like to hear about the intention to donate some part of saved FIMKs to national income pool. Especially if these 57 millions came out from trickery with IPO limits.
FIMK: dance

rjr #5 on: December 21, 2014, 02:55:33 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Especially if these 57 millions came out from trickery with IPO limits.

The transfers being called "theft" took place over a five minute period on Dec 18 with blocks 281262, 281260, 261255.

http://80.240.143.139/blocks/282181

http://80.240.143.139/blocks/282186

http://80.240.143.139/blocks/282188

This was FIMK transfer from at least three accounts, not one:

SENDER: FIM-NFV5-JRFR-DFFH-7F4FD RECIPIENT: FIM-7JC5-N5W4-KMKB-6GLQL AMOUNT:17.675M

SENDER: FIM-82EA-756T-7T6S-9KVFP RECIPIENT: FIM-J9FG-5GSE-QM28-689DJ AMOUNT: 20.404M

SENDER: FIM-6TF7-7EAN-RHK9-6PSZN RECIPIENT:FIM-W2F2-BLYK-92Z9-DZ8B9 AMOUNT: 19.103M

So my first questions are (1) how did the thief get 3 passwords to three different accounts and (2) did all 3 of these accounts belong to one person?

All three of the sender accounts ("victims"?) have previously withdrawn 10M-15M FIMK on July 7:


http://80.240.143.139/accounts/FIM-NFV5-JRFR-DFFH-7F4FD
: 15M transferred out July 7

http://80.240.143.139/accounts/FIM-82EA-756T-7T6S-9KVFP: 10M transferred out July 7


http://80.240.143.139/accounts/FIM-6TF7-7EAN-RHK9-6PSZN
: 5M transferred out July 7

With this kind of time coordination for huge withdrawals of 30M on July 7 and 57M on December 18, it looks like to me that one person had at least three accounts with at least 30M FIMK total at launch (when the two largest official single accounts at launch were only given 18.8M FIMK), and that there's a lot more to this story than just somebody getting hacked.

Why should the transfer of 57M FIMK on Dec 18 from these three accounts trigger an alarm, and transfer of 30M FIMK on July 7 from the exact same three accounts not trigger an alarm?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 12:14:36 PM by rjr »

dance #6 on: December 21, 2014, 04:03:21 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
This was a theft from at least three accounts, not one:
SENDER: FIM-NFV5-JRFR-DFFH-7F4FD RECIPIENT: FIM-7JC5-N5W4-KMKB-6GLQL SENDER: FIM-82EA-756T-7T6S-9KVFP RECIPIENT: FIM-J9FG-5GSE-QM28-689DJ SENDER: FIM-6TF7-7EAN-RHK9-6PSZN RECIPIENT:FIM-W2F2-BLYK-92Z9-DZ8B9
So my first questions are (1) how did the thief get 3 passwords to three accounts and (2) did all 3 of these accounts belong to one person?
Accounts are of one person. It's obvious, look at account names and their transaction history.
FIMK: dance

rjr #7 on: December 21, 2014, 04:19:34 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Accounts are of one person. It's obvious, look at account names and their transaction history.

I vote that if this is one person with multiple accounts at launch, their holdings be reduced to maximum single account value at launch (18.8M FIMK) and the remaining FIMK (57.0-18.8=38.2M FIMK) be added back to the reward pool for ongoing forging.

kani #8 on: December 21, 2014, 05:36:03 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Before we have a vote on the matter, I would like to know what the options really are.

Seems to me that the tokens are cryptographically secured, and only accessible by the thief.  Locking the funds is a good first step and protects the FIMKrypto network... maybe that is all that is needed, or possible.

I question whether or not the association should really take responsibility for refunding the victim, no matter the sum. To do so would be a precedent tough to manage (What happens next time someone has stolen FIMK??? Does the association step in there also?  Where do you draw the line?)

Tough loss for one individual, but maintains some sanctity of the blockchain.
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

eRoh #9 on: December 21, 2014, 09:09:00 AM

  • Grand Fimker
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
    • View Profile
Since we are dealing with a theft and/or a fraud here, it's quite weird that nobody has mentioned the police...
FIM-34B3-PWY5-TMHC-9JYW8

Pohatta #10 on: December 21, 2014, 09:27:39 AM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
FIM-6JXS-8RYY-8H8K-52ACJ

Eliphaz Fimk #11 on: December 21, 2014, 10:05:22 AM

  • FIMKrypto coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • FIMKrypto
We're not even considering refunding the majority of the stolen funds (in FIMK that is), as it has already been confirmed the stash was obtained by cheating in the initial distribution terms.

Options that'll be technically available will be presented later today. I'm awaiting confirmation from Dirk to my stance that moving the stolen funds anywhere from the locked accounts is technically not feasible, sealing any options about using them ever again as such.

rjr #12 on: December 21, 2014, 11:54:02 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Options that'll be technically available will be presented later today. I'm awaiting confirmation from Dirk to my stance that moving the stolen funds anywhere from the locked accounts is technically not feasible, sealing any options about using them ever again as such.

Blockchain rollback would get them back in circulation.  FIMK has so little use right now that a rollback is much more feasible than when NXT agonized over doing it during the Bter theft.  And much more justified, since the rollback would enforce the original intent of controlling max individual ownership amounts at launch.

Rolling back the blockchain to enforce the original rules is a lot different that rolling it back to help one guy that got hacked.

Looks like the last zero-transaction block before this all started was 281228 at 12/18/14 18:56:31.  Theft was over (I think) by block 281725 at 12/19/14 02:28:31.

http://80.240.143.139/blocks?page=136

I would support a hard fork that starts at block 282229.   That initial hard-fork block could have multiple transactions sending excess FIMK held by the "subject of interest" back to a Foundation account and eventually circulated back into where ever forging rewards are drawn from.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 12:24:37 PM by rjr »

J #13 on: December 21, 2014, 12:16:23 PM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
If Bitcoin would done rollback when Mt.Gox attacked, then its exchange rate could be now heading to mars after passed moon, even it would affected lot of other users too :P

Pohatta #14 on: December 21, 2014, 12:26:52 PM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Rolling back the blockchain to enforce the original rules is a lot different that rolling it back to help one guy that got hacked.
The problem here is that the "guy that got hacked" was cheating in the launch. So the situation is a bit like a thief stealing from a thief. Also as said before this is now setting the precedence how we deal with stolen money. IMO we should never start playing with the blockchain. However, I can just ans just understand the decision made here as it is unbearable to the FIMK community to have a thief own roughly 10% of the all FIMK ever in the circulation (57M now and easily another 43M by forging).

One option is to freeze all 57M FIMK and return some BTC the user invested in the launch. That way the honest FIMK community is benefiting (less FIMK in circulation => higher the value of the remaining coins). IMO we have to also think if we need high stake members who were willing to cheat in the first place. In this scenario, if the user wants to be part of the community he/she can use his returned BTC to buy back from the open markets. Again beneficial to the rest of the community.
FIM-6JXS-8RYY-8H8K-52ACJ