Everything is recorded on the blockchain, if their address is found it can be traced if the hacker still has the tokens and not given him a free airdrop…
Check out the Dev Forum
1 Like
and trading fees … they most certainly earned insane amounts of maid … (unless they sold it themselves to users on their platform 
)
1 Like
There are many people who Poloniex does not allow to withdraw their money so their address should be excluded:
Check out the Dev Forum
1 Like
i will not comment further on this; I’m not here to defend any side … just highlighting that they did not (need to) steal all that coin; and might not have done anything illegal even if they did … they did earn a lot of MAID in fees and if I recall correctly they had something in their terms and conditions that they needed to give a warning for delisting of coins around 3-4 weeks … maybe 2 months (but I don’t think the timespan was larger than that) … afterwards funds would be lost … so anybody not actively following their account and not having withdrawn in time might be in a difficult legal situation when wanting “their coin” back …
…if such a short period of time is morally okay is a different question … and as I said I won’t comment on this matter further … i’n no lawyer and I don’t want to get into cross fire here …
4 Likes
but an impressive list of exchanges; almost forgot we had that many over the years …
3 Likes
I am here to defend the people of the community who may not be very regular but have been supporting the project for years and I hope the MaidSafe team will consider ways to help them.
Maybe introduce a rule for legal entities to be able to exchange their tokens for:
Check out the Dev Forum
2 Likes
If there is a consensus from the community that a certain exchange really stole their assets, I would strike back and not include such address in TGE. But there must be a provable case with evidence. I myself wasn’t robbed and do not know details of all these exchanges but somehow it feels right to me to NOT reward a thief.
2 Likes
It’s crazy to me that this is even a consideration.
Kangaroo court.
3 Likes
For at least one of the exchanges, we have David’s personal confirmation of a theft:
Check out the Dev Forum
So who decides which addresses to excluded and opens themselves up to accusations of theft?
4 Likes
what happens if coin move mix with other and separate again? who will be the evil/good guy? are they all evil? is that right then?
do we really think we can do the right thing here if we want to operate morally superior? sounds like there is no way of doing it “right” if we start trying to exclude addresses …
(and yes I failed to keep my mouth shut … sorry … will try again and even harder this time …)
3 Likes
Yes
@Dimitar You bring up many times the possibility of legal action. Well the likes of Poloniex could very likely sue the foundation if they were excluded from the exchange.
So could the others. And considering Cryptoia was/is being settled in court as to collecting funds from their assets, then the foundation would be almost automatically sued for not exchanging the MAID still held.
No its a legal nightmare situation and should not be considered as a realistic thing to be done outside of the courts. If settled by a court then yes its reasonable to be done.
1 Like
Yes, blocking an address is the extreme example.
Of course, there are options where the team contacts the exchanges, notifies them that there will be a free airdrop and invites them to participate within a certain time frame, and invites them to let people access MAID again.
Many options if there is a desire to help. 1000 things have changed, just one more that has the chance to benefit those affected…
@neo you didn’t understand me specifically about Cryptopia. They have been hacked by a hacker. Lets see the address of the hacker from the documents in the court and to block him.
Check out the Dev Forum
3 Likes
I understood, but the hacker has been investigated and maybe found and charged already. So then excluding that address might be actually excluding the court recovering funds (or the entity that bought those MAID from the court)
But I don’t think MAID was stolen. It was not a clean sweep at all, only a certain amount from what i read
This is precisely why each individual case must be considered separately.
By your logic, if the hacker is not found and the Foundation gives him other people’s money, it will also be subject to a lawsuit…
Check out the Dev Forum
No because the foundation is not buying the stolen goods, or taking it off them. That is the distinction. It is just an airdrop.
Also if a thief buys lunch using stolen money then the restaurant is not liable for a lawsuit
And the airdrop is to the hacker so no net movement of money/assets. If the foundation took control of the MAID then thats might be different.
This is logical, but with the law things are a bit more complicated and what is logical is not always correct.
Do you know if court records are public in Australia? Can they be accessed and check if the hacker is detected and has MAID?
Check out the Dev Forum
which law are we talking about anyway? “international law” ?
1 Like
Its New Zealand and the court documents are not as public as say the US. It would take a request to the court to attempt to get the rulings and details.
Also we have to leave such decisions to be authoritarian and imposing our moral judgements in the trash and use the courts to make that sort of decisions.
And if as you say the CEX have so much MAID then they have a lot to lose and plenty to fund lawyers and bankrupt the foundation before it starts
1 Like
I see you’re commenting again on the extreme reaction case, which I’m also sure has legal options.
But personally I find the soft case with trying to contact the exchanges and mutual understanding to help people with the highest probability of success for all.
Of course, the Bitker scammers who stole the $50k that David mentioned deserve to be directly blocked, or you think they will also sue the Foundation for not giving them a second chance to steal?
Check out the Dev Forum
1 Like