open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked [EBANK] Not The Announcement - A Tim Burton Film
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

KaarBaak
Minmatar
Seatec Astronomy
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:37:00 - [151]
 


A couple of issues about the api 'thing' I don't understand:

1) If the purpose is to verify the existence of 'bad' alts, why is there a need to maintain the api holding? What does it mean that you're going to use them to examine standings information in the future?

2) I don't see the problem with all members of the board posting their limited API for 24 hours so that the existence/identities of their alts can be verified. Trust should be a two-way street.

KB

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:38:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: RAW23

You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.

Making information public and giving it to EBANK worlds apart.


You must be thinking of the reputation ebank held before it scammed a couple trillion isk and froze everyone's accounts. Let me bring you up to this year:

Ricdic
Mr. Horizontal
Hexxx


These three all would have had access to customers public API keys in the scenario you outline above.

Therefore, I've chosen my trusted list of auditors. Any one of them is welcome to check your bank staff's API keys. I eagerly await the results.



Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:38:00 - [153]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra
I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble.

Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.


Does that mean the intention is to 'flag' people who have set positive standings to characters known to have defrauded Ebank?

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:41:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Dzil

Therefore, I've chosen my trusted list of auditors. Any one of them is welcome to check your bank staff's API keys. I eagerly await the results.




I don't see any list.


Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:43:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?

Because liquidation is subject to conditions as outlined in the OP that aren't yet met.



Your conditions amount to a refusal to liquidate the capital of your bank as this is a limited offer paid for through profits. This capital however belongs to account holders and is not the property of Ebank.

You have seized the money of your customers, and are offering limited liquidation to some of your customers based on the profits you have made from seizing their assets - profits that also belong to your customers and that you don't have the right to use for your liquidation scheme.

This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.

The priority of proper corporate governance in this situation is simple; oversee the bank's movement into a liquid state, security check customers, then do the right thing and return capital to its rightful owners. You can then rebuild with what is left.



Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:47:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.

Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:50:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.

Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?



So all standards and principles go out the window because this is EVE? Could you explain to me how your planned expropriation of account balances differs from a scam given that it will capture not only those who have defaulted on debts but also anyone who is not willing to be blackmailed into handing over sensitive private data?

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:55:00 - [158]
 

How about we get Fitz VonHeise to verify account activity.

He is well know, trusted I would believe.. Anyone have any objections with using Fitz VonHeise as the API Checker??

Note that I have not seeked EBANK's approval, not Fitz VonHeise's approval for using or suggesting this. I am just offering up a person whom I would take the word of if they are say who they are and are currently active..

Should we persue Fitz and ask him if he would want to perform the verification?

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:56:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Could you explain to me how your planned expropriation of account balances differs from a scam given that it will capture not only those who have defaulted on debts but also anyone who is not willing to be blackmailed into handing over sensitive private data?

Unfortunate collateral damage due to someone's ill-fitting mistrust. No system is perfect, this is the closest we'll get to achieving our goal of revealing thieves' and defaulters' remaining accounts.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:57:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.

Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?



Quite a flippant answer, I was expecting a better response than that.

Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.

If you wish your bank to be succesful, you need to run it through mutually voluntary contract. Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book. Why should anyone pay back a loan to an organisation that forcibly expropriates assets?


Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:01:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.

Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.

Dagny Bronstein
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:03:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book. Why should anyone pay back a loan to an organisation that forcibly expropriates assets?


... because otherwise he won't get back his collateral and all ISK his more obvious alts have deposited will be expropriated by EBANK.

Originally by: Karl Marx
The bourgeois economists have a vague notion that it is better to carry on production under the modern police
than it was, e.g., under club-law. They forget that club-law is also law, and that the right of the stronger
continues to exist in other forms even under their 'government of law'.
Razz

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:10:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.

Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.



Not true. You have decided of your own free will to deny ownership to your account holders. No-one forced you to do this, and a catch-all "there's no ethics in EVE" position is cynical and evades the real issue.

You ask people to pay back loans - an ethical principle
You ask people to give you API for security - an ethical principle
You ask people to invest in you - an ethical principle

You have ethics when it suits you - and you cannot build something by contradiction. If you expect customers to invest in you or pay back loans, then you are showing a belief that property belongs to you - ie that private property has an owner and must be respected. You are also showing belief in a contract - that people must do what they agree to do.

Business ethics is not a one-way street - you cannot believe in private property when calling in a loan then not believe in it when you are seizing someone else's money. If you don't believe in private property rights or capitalism, then how do you expect to pay out loans and have them returned? How do you expect to attract investors?

I hope you will rethink your cynical attitude and come to understand that as a bank, you must enforce and advance the rights of private property above all else. I hope that everyone who owes you a loan defers repayment until you change your policy, and that any potential investors refuse to invest in you until you change your policy to one based on sensible capitalism.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:18:00 - [164]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:19:37
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:18:08
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.

Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.



Not true. You have decided of your own free will to deny ownership to your account holders. No-one forced you to do this, and a catch-all "there's no ethics in EVE" position is cynical and evades the real issue.

You ask people to pay back loans - an ethical principle
You ask people to give you API for security - an ethical principle
You ask people to invest in you - an ethical principle

You have ethics when it suits you - and you cannot build something by contradiction. If you expect customers to invest in you or pay back loans, then you are showing a belief that property belongs to you - ie that private property has an owner and must be respected. You are also showing belief in a contract - that people must do what they agree to do.

Business ethics is not a one-way street - you cannot believe in private property when calling in a loan then not believe in it when you are seizing someone else's money. If you don't believe in private property rights or capitalism, then how do you expect to pay out loans and have them returned? How do you expect to attract investors?

I hope you will rethink your cynical attitude and come to understand that as a bank, you must enforce and advance the rights of private property above all else. I hope that everyone who owes you a loan defers repayment until you change your policy, and that any potential investors refuse to invest in you until you change your policy to one based on sensible capitalism.


I ... I ... I seem to find myself in complete agreement with Liberty!Shocked

Ray - Don't you think it constitutes gross mismanagement to put together a plan that is underpinned by the premise that EBank is a trustworthy institution in good standing with the community of its customers when it so manifestly is not? To call a refusal to trust EBank "ill-fitting" seems ridiculous given the reality of the current situation. Given your present actions how can anyone have any confidence that api information will not be used to strong-arm them in the future, as account balances are being used now?

If you manage to write off (read: steal) say, half the outstanding account balances, knowingly including many belonging to customers who are at no fault at all, will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:24:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: RAW23
will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?

I consider nothing of this to be a success or a failure, it's the best of an extremely bad situation.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:27:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: RAW23

I ... I ... I seem to find myself in complete agreement with Liberty!Shocked




Welcome to the winning side Wink

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:30:00 - [167]
 

Omg people. I totally hate being the bearer of bad news but after reading 5+ pages of delicious idiocity I have decided the best most can hope for is an epic reformation of ebank scam part deux.

P.s. I am merely an observer and not a shareholder. Ebank will dissolve and somebody controlling the isk will take it. Do not argue with me. It is not just human nature when Internet ships are involved but it, more importantly, is eve nature.

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:32:00 - [168]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:33:15
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:32:54
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23
will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?

I consider nothing of this to be a success or a failure, it's the best of an extremely bad situation.



Way to evade the question!

You must have made some projections when considering this course of action. How many legitimate accounts do you expect to see wiped due to this move? At what percentage would you accept that you are no longer acting in the best interests of your customers?

SentryRaven
KIA Corporation
Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:33:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Welcome to the winning side Wink

Doubtful, at best.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:34:00 - [170]
 

Liberty's overall point is correct, despite the nauseating ideological overtones. However, this issue is long-dead. People argued that the decision to stay open will require actions whose consequences will result in a useless institution. EBank has decided to ignore these arguments and proceed regardless.

While Liberty wasn't around at the time, the issue is still already decided. I would save your incisive objections for 1-2 years from now when EBank attempts to spin this debacle in their favor.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:41:00 - [171]
 

and there I somehow pressed cancel and lost my verbose rant...

Lets put sommething in the open. You are not asking my api to allow me to witdraw any because the only liqidation option you offer is currently inactive (below your self imposed asset limit)

So you are forcing me to provide you with my api just to keep my money listed as mine, nothing more.

Other things that were in my rant.
- Sencnes, if yo are so worried about server loads, the .01 isk deposit validation is probebly the least demanding on both your system as well as on the eve servers.
- People can get banned for other reasons than rmt.
- your customers are not the criminals
- If you want to veryfy my legitemacy for a withdrawal we can talk about it, but I am not going to give you my api to keep you from stealing my isk.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:44:00 - [172]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Has BMBE ever had problems with RMT? Maybe issue with depositors that has defaulted loans on alts, yet gains interest on the ISK in their account?
Tsk tsk Vista - BMBE is not a deposit bank. Surely you know this Wink


Originally by: LaVista Vista

As for the "fact" that it will hurt EBANK

Sigh - Please don't put words in my mouth.
I quite clearly wrote "I think" - Hence simply offering my opinion on the matter, and not in anyway dressing it as "fact".
But I stand by that opinion - And I think the many replies to this thread on the API key issue goes some ways as to show I'm probably not completly wrong - Or at least alone in thinking so.


Originally by: LaVista Vista

The API is simply the easiest option.

Agreed.
But "easiest option" doesn't make it the "most correct/proper option".


Originally by: LaVista Vista

There's very little information worth anything

Now *you* are trying to pass of something you *think* as "fact".
As this thread abundantly shows, thats very much a subjective view.


Originally by: LaVista Vista

The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key.

Labour intensive?
You need to write some initial code (which really shouldnt take much time), and then it runs automated.
No extra "labour" needed.


Originally by: LaVista Vista

And so is doing it manually through evemail

Agreed.
Anything that can't be automated is not worth bothering with in the first place.
(Although with the new mail system - part of "New Eden" (formerly COSMOS) it might actually be doable - But would probably be messy)


<continued>

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:50:00 - [173]
 

Now I understand full well that

a: You wish to avoid defaulters to withdraw ISK they have on other EBANK accounts.
b: You wish to avoid RMT'ers to withdraw ISK.

Those *are* your stated reasons for this (API key) meassure right? Else please correct me.

oh and

c: Trying to re-coup idle/dead ISK that will never be claimed - To get a much needed ISK infusion into EBANK.

I'm not sure "c" has openly been used as a justification for this (API key) meassure though. But more a "co-incidential side effect".
I've read the whole thread, and that's at least the impression I'm left with - If I misremember this, feel free to correct me (with a reference)

-------

Now...

a:
Fair enough (read on however)
And *this* is the *only* reason for needing API key's.

b:
Frankly, unless CCP has asked you to act on this, this is none of your (EBANK) business nor concern.
RMT is to be handled by CCP and no one else. Period.

To me it looks like an "a" or "c" in disquise tbh.

c:
If you had come right out and said that this is a major part of your reasoning for wanting the API keys (to check for "dead" accounts - banned accounts, or people having left the game) I would have liked that much more.

Or maybe you did. Kinda.
Originally by: LaVista Vista

Say that we have 100bill worth of ISK that was owned by people who's banned, who will never withdraw their ISK? We'd have to make 100bill EXTRA before people could get their ISK back. That takes time.

However : To verify if an account is "dead" (banned) or not, you *do not* need API keys.

-------

Let me return to "a"

Just how many outstanding loans do EBANK have?

Aka just how many persons can possible "cheat" EBANK by having multiple accounts - Some with positive balances, and some with loans.

Ie. have you actually tried to calculate how much you can possible gain back from defaulters (by seizing their positive accounts)

Tbh. I think the ISK amount will be pretty damn low.
Which invalidates option "a" altogether, and hence the need for API key.


Let me reason why I *think* (not a "fact" tyvm) this:

Scenario A:
From the get go I'm deliberatly trying to scam EBANK on a 50B ISK loan.
Lets say I actually manage to get the ISK.

Would I dare *risk* having other accounts with a positive balance in EBANK?
That would be utterly stupid.
If I was going to scam 50B from EBANK I would make damn sure they didnt have any of *my* ISK at hand.


Scenario B:
In good faith I take out a 50B loan with EBANK.
I get the loan.
My business venture fails - And I decide to tell EBANK they aren't getting a penny back.

In this case I *needed* the 50B ISK.
It thus stands to reason I would not have billions of ISK sitting iddle in other EBANK accounts.


I honestly can't think of a scenario where someone defaulting/scamming on a loan with EBANK would have substantial amounts of ISK stashed away elsewhere in EBANK accounts.

Thus eliminating the "a" reason for wanting the API key completly.

Only "c" is left, and that doesnt require an API key.



Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:52:00 - [174]
 

Meh...API is necessary, but I wouldn't give it to all the EBank staff. It needs to be just one person, they need to verify alts, and then delete it. This could also be done with a 3rd party to verify the API as well. OZ is probably the best person to hold this information. Data security is a legit issue. Steps can be taken to minimize exposure.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:56:00 - [175]
 

Didn't read much beyond the OP. Thread probably going to hell because its EVEBANK.

However, considering the state EBANK is already in, its actually a reasonable way to go about it, and restores a lot of faith in the good-will of the upper-staff.

The only problem is at a mere 10% loss off account (as opposed to account face value * current NAV / total obligations) and first come, first serve, there will be a stampede of people cashing out each month: the offer suffers from being both limited and perhaps almost too good (in that those who get out are effectively being hugely favored over those who are too slow to get on the cash-out list each time NAV goes over 700). Never thought I'd be criticizing them for making the liquidation offer too good, too early Laughing.

The killing of inactive accounts also makes some sense: if people have stopped playing EVE it behooves both the bank and all investors still playing the game to have those accounts written off the books.

Dumb Jerk
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:00:00 - [176]
 

Torn, perhaps there's a D and E. It would be an excellent way to:

D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.

E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. Razz)

I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account.

Whoopie DooDah
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:04:00 - [177]
 


exernastia 275,000,000,000.00
............
...............
..................

REALLY?

i'm sorry, there's dumb and then there's you.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:12:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Dumb Jerk
D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.

Just becomes another dead account then - (Sorta) covered by "c"
(And no I don't think EBANK is *that* deceiving about their reasons)

Originally by: Dumb Jerk

E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. Razz)

I personally prefer *not* to know actually.
Might be someone (the person) I like, thus making it hard for me to keep disliking the character. Would spoil the fun Wink
Can't answer on EBANK's behalf ofc - But again, I doubt they're that deceiving about their reasons.

I happen to know most of the EBANK people - And they're good people.
Doesnt mean I agree with them on everything - And in this particular case I think they've made an error in judgement about the API key issue - And is thus calling them out on it.


Originally by: Dumb Jerk

I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account.
I mentioned that in my very first post in this thread.
Should probably have included it again. But it's so obvious so.. *shrug*

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:16:00 - [179]
 

Originally by: Dumb Jerk
Torn, perhaps there's a D and E. It would be an excellent way to:

D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.

E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. Razz)

I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account.


This. And even if they didn't, it's 15 bucks to do a character transfer, right? So anyone with more than a PLEX's worth of ISK owed to ebank is going to cap their losses at 300 mil and recover the debt.


SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:36:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: TornSoul
b:


It's not really because we want to "help" CCP with RMT hunting, it's because if we let RMTers withdraw ISK from EBANK, then later down the road, CCP catches up with them and reverses a heap of transactions EBANK is left out in the cold with a negative balance.

Here is how I believe RMTers used EBANK in order to launder ISK.

1) They deposit ISK into EBANK under Mr. X
2) Mr. X transfers ISK from Mr. X and Ms. A
3) Ms. A requests a withdrawal.

Here is what happens later.

1) GM ISK Hunter, checks Mr. X
2) GM ISK Hunter finds out Mr. X purchased said ISK from Mr. EIS
3) GM ISK Hunter reverses transaction from Mr. EIS to Mr. X
4) GM ISK Hunter finds out Mr. X deposited the ISK into EBANK.
5) GM ISK Hunter reverses the ISK from EBANK.

End result is... EBANK which has already processed a withdrawal to Ms. A, finds out a GM Reversal has taken place and we're out the original deposit.



Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (35)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only