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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:55:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: SencneS
I would settle for permanent archiving, written off on EBANK's liabilities, and if at a later date the account becomes active again, the account is restored.

This is exactly how I handle "The BIG Deal" accounts (as detailed above)
So I would support this.
But as I wrote, I consider this an extreme service.

So perhaps, "suspend" the account first (EVE mailing the account holder of the action) - No interest etc paid while suspended.
If the account holder hasnt returned to have his account re-activated withing 6/9/12 months, then close it.


Originally by: SencneS

P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.

EVE mail - Not RL mail.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:56:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Leneerra
sences, I would love to take the money back from the people that stole from me. however I have no loan with ebank, let alone a loan with an undervalued or absents collateral.

As far as I know my account shows no transfers to any account not directly connected to me (only sweep to savings back to me again). I can also prove my eve account is active (my posts here for instance).
so why are you threatening to zero my account?

oh wait, if my alts had an ebank acount that might be a risk, I can see some validity there, but my alts are not banned either
an independant audit would easely verify they never ever even had an ebank account and exist to long for me to have had another alt there while ebank existed

I fully understand your frustration.

I know for a fact that you are not banned, is not a chinese farmer and all that. Either that, or you are a well-spoken robot Razz

While it could be an option to allow staff members to give a green light for accounts to be verified without API key, it's really a slippery slope. Where do we set the line? How much time is members of staff going to spend being bugged by people? Doesn't that cause inequality for ebank customers?

Sadly, for now, a heavy-handed policy is the best way. I would like to see revisions and more options implemented, but that might take time.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:57:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: SencneS
P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.


LVV, Read into why that was said.. That was more of an "It's not a great idea, because we have so few email accounts." Not that we're not doing it. It captures so few accounts sure it's in there but it's next to useless. It's not a great way to notify everyone as almost everyone doesn't have an email address in their account :(

Originally by: LaVista Vista

No, the API sure can't reveal that. That would be a breach of CCP's Privacy Policy


Why am I thinking it does then.. I thought it returned like a 0 status of something if it was banned which wasn't there if it was just ended. If I'm wrong so be it, but I thought that was the only real way to check for a banned account.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:04:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Leneerra
An independant audit would easely verify they never ever even had an ebank account and exist to long for me to have had another alt there while ebank existed


Which is why I suggested Fitz VonHise(SP) :)

I would totally accept his word on the status of peoples accounts if everyone issued him their APIs.

*Waited 5 minutes to post that :)

Giz S
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:09:00 - [215]
 

FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY

You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:18:00 - [216]
 

Edited by: Leneerra on 23/11/2009 22:21:10
And what if someone is under a temp ban for rude language? does that mean he forfeits his ebank balance?

I will ask what chribba would ask for an audit to veryfy none of my alts have any delings with you.
that way we perhaps have an accepteble option for those that are unwilling to provide you with an api key.
checking 2 names against a list of 9000 should not be too expensive
and you can even add a surcharge for using this liquidation option

But even if that was an accepteble option.
You are not keeping a list of verified withdrawal/liquidation requests.
So I still would have no indication when i'd get my isk.
Will you change your liquidation policy in this and provide your customers with with a reasonable option to liquidate in an honest fasion that does not require them to be able to respond within 5 minutes of you guys posting a surplus on your 700b limit?

edit: sorry do not know the auditor you mentioned sencnes

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:23:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Giz S
FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY

You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.


I want to hire this guy as a security consultant.




Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:29:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Leneerra
Edited by: Leneerra on 23/11/2009 22:21:10
And what if someone is under a temp ban for rude language? does that mean he forfeits his ebank balance?

I will ask what chribba would ask for an audit to veryfy none of my alts have any delings with you.
that way we perhaps have an accepteble option for those that are unwilling to provide you with an api key.
checking 2 names against a list of 9000 should not be too expensive
and you can even add a surcharge for using this liquidation option

But even if that was an accepteble option.
You are not keeping a list of verified withdrawal/liquidation requests.
So I still would have no indication when i'd get my isk.
Will you change your liquidation policy in this and provide your customers with with a reasonable option to liquidate in an honest fasion that does not require them to be able to respond within 5 minutes of you guys posting a surplus on your 700b limit?

edit: sorry do not know the auditor you mentioned sencnes



Don't know that guy either - probably just as he isn't loud on the forums ;)

The liquidation policy itself creates the issue of ebank's BoD potentially lining up for withdrawl requests just before the announcement release. I doubt they would do that (probably having way too much fun making everyone elses isk back to worry about their own, atm) - but nonetheless a guarantee against insider trading (or withdrawing in this case) would be nice.

Don't know why you're hiring an ethics officer - this board will happily tell you if you're doing anything that could be construed as unethical :P

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:45:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: Tesal
It needs to be just one person, they need to verify alts, and then delete it.
The funny thing is that eBank has already stated that they want to store the data, why?
Originally by: Ray
How would that identify alts to us?
This is the first (or second) time you said something about finding defaulting people, only after pressure. Why didn't you said that those were the reasons instead of talking about RMT?
Quote:
The issue is there is no current way to capture everyone that has a banned account. I don't see any "projections" at all. We just know people are banned and we expect some of those people have ISK in EBANK. We also KNOW people whom have defaulted loans in EBANK have alt accounts with ISK in them. But we don't know who.

If that is the case why did you say this? I'm amazed no one has commented on this given the statements eBank is doing now that goes completely against what they said there. By the same people. You are saying now that you need to adress the RMT when you said it was solved more than a month and a half ago.

You lie either now or then, and there should go whathever credibility you could have. But again scammers get investments too, so we'll see if people have half a brain. All I see is the same lack of transparency all over the wall. The same eBank that did whathever they wanted to because they are a private institution. The same institution that got all that stolen money through empty words without facts behind them.

Enterthe Nameyoudesire
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:49:00 - [220]
 

ahahahahahaahahahaha

you pubbies all whined to high heaven when we told you you were being scammed

i'm actually amazed you figured it out by now

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:08:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Digging up past statements.


Since I said them, I'll answer you..

There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...

You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.

EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:12:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Digging up past statements.


Since I said them, I'll answer you..

There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...

You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.


its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long

this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:19:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: EvilweaselSA
its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long

this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion


Well, I wouldn't join the scamming legion in the first place, the path of honesty and a good reputation is lined with ISK.

There is no string here, if people just hold out, eventually they'll get their ISK back, it doesn't mean much I know but hey, that's what the intention is.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:29:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: EvilweaselSA
its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long

this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion


Well, I wouldn't join the scamming legion in the first place, the path of honesty and a good reputation is lined with ISK.

There is no string here, if people just hold out, eventually they'll get their ISK back, it doesn't mean much I know but hey, that's what the intention is.


That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:30:00 - [225]
 

Ah ha, but they not only have to hold out, they also have to give you their api keys, first born child and prove that they have not been rmting or even thinking of defrauding you.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:37:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Dzil
That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?


Take a breath Dzil - breath in... breath out.... What now?

The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.

To that I said "No string here", although I could have said "No carrot here" but the reference would be lost. This is different then "No strings attached". Go back to eating some more golden goodness in waffle shape, you need a clear head :)

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:42:00 - [227]
 

Edited by: Kalrand on 23/11/2009 23:42:28
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Dzil
That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?


Take a breath Dzil - breath in... breath out.... What now?

The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.

To that I said "No string here", although I could have said "No carrot here" but the reference would be lost. This is different then "No strings attached". Go back to eating some more golden goodness in waffle shape, you need a clear head :)



Actually, this has been a pretty obvious "string them along for the lulz" since about the time of the Ricidic thing.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:53:00 - [228]
 

Question - what would be ebank's position if I offer a service to anonymously take characters on to a second account, validate them with my API, and transfer them back?


Cordin Hamir
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:54:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.

The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.



Utter rubbish you have no idea what the majority of the stakeholders want and have gone out of your way to avoid trying to find out. It is posible that the majority wish the BoD to continue to try and recover the maximum percentage of isk possible no matter how long it takes - it is equally possible that the majority would just like you to liquidate now, you Ray DO NOT know and to keep pretending that you are acting solely in the interest of this 'majority view' is just garbage.

EBANK is dead - it has lost any last shreds of respect it may have had, those currently involved are also (I believe) on a very steep and slippery slope reputation wise.

Amaarrah
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:56:00 - [230]
 

Edited by: Amaarrah on 23/11/2009 23:56:50
Come to think of it. 8 pages of frustrated "customers" in one single day. Do some of them have a real life? I hope for EBANK's sake these people are not the foundation EBANK is building on. If so, then I would feel sorry for the hard work EBANK is doing. These kind of customers will never be satisfied. For weeks on end its the same bunch that always find anything to complain. So, I have a lot of respect for the way Ray and the bankers handle this topic and the problems they face. I sincerely hope the bank is building on credit from more positive minded players.......

EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:31:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: SencneS

The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.


you're horrible at analogies you should never try them again

but no, everyone's not scamming everyone else, there are the scamees (the people in this thread) too

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:33:00 - [232]
 

Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 24/11/2009 00:45:44
Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 24/11/2009 00:36:47
Originally by: SencneS
Since I said them, I'll answer you..

There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...

You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.
Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement. The thing is that you are the guys who lied or lie there or here, not Mr H. You said whathever was neccesary then and I believe you say it now. Why should people think you deserve to be believed now?

Your mascarade behind Mr. H makes no sense and it is the same masquerade you used with Ricdic to hide further missmanagement, althought it was pointed out that the numbers didn't match at that time and I don't remember you publishing the right numbers on where did the money went.

You have said in this very thread that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn.", but LVV said that he was personally dealing with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers, implying that he was tracking money transfers between accounts as you was saying was the norm in the post he was answering to, so he supposedly used the software and saw it working. For a long time. His own words. How can Mr. H be responsible of those statements?

How is that you found that the code was not there when you have said that you used and kept track of RMT through it? Personally. Not Mr. H. You say that the code is unrelieable now but you said you saw it working then. And all the other software is based on the same code.

PS: It doesn't make sense that you ask for the api to deal with RMT, because any RMTrader laundering isks that have had the money moved to the clean account will be active and unbanned and any RMT account that has been banned and reversed transactions has been already caught by the software.

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:42:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Giz S
FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY

You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.


When the initial API pull is done they grab the character names and corps the other 2 characters are in and then turn around and sell that info to others.

You change your API and guess what, EBank still has that names of those characters 10 years later.

Idiot

On a serious note though.

What is to stop a character with 20 billion in EBank and has a loan default character on the same account from simply doing a character transfer to move one of those characters to another account?
Guess what, they have their 20 billion back and all the ISK they defaulted on.

How do you solve that?

Will account holders have to submit valid government IDs, signing a release for CCP to release all your account information, and tell them the name of your dog??

THE API IS USELESS

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.24 01:03:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement. The thing is that you are the guys who lied or lie there or here, not Mr H. You said whathever was neccesary then and I believe you say it now. Why should people think you deserve to be believed now?

Your mascarade behind Mr. H makes no sense and it is the same masquerade you used with Ricdic to hide further missmanagement, althought it was pointed out that the numbers didn't match at that time and I don't remember you publishing the right numbers on where did the money went.

You have said in this very thread that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn.", but LVV said that he was personally dealing with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers, implying that he was tracking money transfers between accounts as you was saying was the norm in the post he was answering to, so he supposedly used the software and saw it working. For a long time. His own words. How can Mr. H be responsible of those statements?

How is that you found that the code was not there when you have said that you used and kept track of RMT through it? Personally. Not Mr. H. You say that the code is unrelieable now but you said you saw it working then. And all the other software is based on the same code.[/justify]


Not sure exactly what your confusing here..
We don't know if accounts that currently in EBANK have in the past committed RMT, just as others have said, it's not our job, and we don't work for CCP or have access to CCP information, so we can't even if we wanted to.. What is our job is prevent EBANK from losing ISK BECAUSE of RMT. If an account is banned now, for whatever reason, and the GM's have not reversed any transactions then that COULD happen down the road. This is one of the things we're trying to prevent with API. If people are unable to supply working APIs then the account moves into a suspended status, in which they have 3 months to make it working. If they don't then the "Account closure process" is initiated, which EBANK is seeking some public opinion on. (See my EBANK SencneS post for more information)

It seems like you're mixing two thing up.

Just so you understand we do not know who is banned.. This is a way to weed out those people. We do not want those people with Banned accounts transferring ISK to active accounts and withdrawing that ISK. If the GM's having actioned the RMT Reversal yet, how do we know RMT has taken place?

I can't speak for LVV, but I can say as a Teller everyone works with everyone to work out any questionable activity. I don't see why you think this is something bad, or we have some sort of sinister motive behind it.

It was proven that Mr.H defrauded EBANK and tried to get away with 90B ISK not trying to hide behind a fraud, if that's what you think then, ok, whatever.

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:20:00 - [235]
 

Quote:
What is our job is prevent EBANK from losing ISK BECAUSE of RMT.
How do you lose money if the transaction has not been reversed? If it has you have closed the account. And why would GM ban an account for RMT and not revearse transactions? That makees no sense. You do not solve anything here because there is nothing to solve, as you have said it's not your job to find RMT and any found by ccp is already handled without api.

Quote:
I can't speak for LVV, but I can say as a Teller everyone works with everyone to work out any questionable activity. I don't see why you think this is something bad, or we have some sort of sinister motive behind it.
I didn't say that, do not put words in my mouth that I have not said. What I said is that the things you are pretending you need the api for you did it already without the api.
Quote:
It was proven that Mr.H defrauded EBANK and tried to get away with 90B ISK not trying to hide behind a fraud, if that's what you think then, ok, whatever.
I did not expressed my opinion on Mr.H, wich is no good btw. He defrauded, but that has nothing to do with the RMT code. Jesus, you are almost as good as the best scammers at twisting facts.

In resume: I do not confuse anything (that you have adressed at least) and you read what you want from my words to answer whathever you want to. I'll try to put it simpler for you, some facts to be quoted with this same words if you want to answer:

  • RMT banned accounts do have their transactions revearsed and you check that trough software.
  • Any other RMT that happens is not your job to find and you won't do it with the api.
  • If ccp bans an account for any other reason that is not RMT and do not revearse tansactions you lose nothing.
  • You try to justify the change to api because you say Mr.H code is not reliable, but you have your own staff saying that they used it for a long time successfully.
  • You have no problem with the rest of the code made by Mr.H.
  • You state that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn." and that is why you need the api.
  • You said and LVV backed that you did investigate those transfers through an "incredible system available to us". "This is the audit process ALL tellers perform when processing withdrawals".
  • You implied that these mechanisms did not exist when the answer you gave to my concerns was that "There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case."
  • LVV stated that he personally had been dealing with RMT for a long time with the tellers using the tools you talked about, so you can not say Mr.H said it was there but it wasn't.
  • You say that "If the GM's having actioned the RMT Reversal yet, how do we know RMT has taken place?" right after saying It's not your job to find out to justify apis.
  • The api will not help you when investigating transfers because it provides nothing to go further with the facts mentioned above.
  • You tried to blame Ricdic for more than what he did, all eBank problems when it was later obvious that more money was missing.
  • You have not yet said where that money went (I assume this, since you have not corrected that bit from my post).
  • You tried to blame Mr.H for more than what he did.


There are more facts, but this will be enough for now. Next time try to adress the things I say instead of trying to deviate the attention, please. Seeing this I want to recommend people to see the whole picture and to think for themselves, and anyone with an loan to not give eBank a cent until all the inconsistencies have been addressed and/or the payments happens.

Kapila Parthalan
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:49:00 - [236]
 

Ok, I have read the entire thread up to this point, and I see several points that remain unaddressed. While I am supportive of the overall idea, there are numerous problems.

There have been several differing statements on the intended use of the API keys. The stated reasons are:

  1. Prevent depositors who are in debt to EBANK from withdrawing their ISK

  2. Combat RMT

  3. Prevent banned players from transferring ISK to another EBANK account in order to withdraw it

  4. Check whether accounts are active so that deposits by banned or inactive players can be written off



Here are some of the relevant quotes:
Originally by: Omber Zombie
The API key verification came up as an idea originally to combat RMT, it also had the side benefit of linking alt accounts within ebank for loan forfeits so that additional loans could not be given out, and so asset recovery could be made on those forfeits.


Originally by: EBANK SencneS
Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.


Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra
what I consider private is:
2 other chars on my single account

And that is the exact reason for the Limited API requirement. We want to know that information. Why should we pay you out if you're an alt of a loan defaulter or former disgraced board member?


Originally by: SencneS
The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.


Originally by: SencneS
I actually expect not much from banned accounts personally. What I do expect is a LOT of ISK from people who have stolen or defaulted a loan from EBANK. Now I could be wrong and it be the other way around, but I fully expect if those people have the integrity to put in the API, and let us capture the fraud/stolen/defaulted ISK they may have more then they realized.



Continued in 5 minutes...

Kapila Parthalan
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:56:00 - [237]
 

None of these reasons are satisfactory:

  1. Prevent depositors who are in debt to EBANK from withdrawing their ISK
    If a player took out a loan from EBANK, whether with the intent to repay it or to scam, he would not leave ISK in EBANK. If he intends to scam, he would withdraw it prior to the scam to ensure he has it, and if the loan is legitimate then he wouldn't keep ISK in EBANK with much lower interest rates than the loan interest rates. Additionally, if a player was stupid enough to actually have deposits when he defaulted, he could hide his alts by transferring the character.

  2. Combat RMT
    The API key doesn't help EBANK combat RMT. I'm not sure if this is a reason anymore. Initially, SencneS thought the API revealed whether an account was banned. SencneS later stated that fighting RMT was not really EBANK's job.

  3. Prevent banned players from transferring ISK to another EBANK account in order to withdraw it
    My previous post addresses this:
    Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
    Another thought: when a player makes a withdrawal, it is probably unnecessary to check that his account is active, since he can't access the ISK anyways if his account is inactive. You can still write off dormant deposits based on whether he has logged into the EBANK web site. Therefore, there is no need to check that the EVE account is active, except for transfers to other players, which most players do not need to use.

    Also, the API key does not show that an account is banned, only that the account is inactive. Checking whether an account is active can be done in numerous ways other than the API key.

  4. Check whether accounts are active so that deposits by banned or inactive players can be written off
    Again, the API key is not required.



I also feel that EBANK does not have sufficient protection of our information's privacy and security.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
We will do our utmost to keep the data we obtain from the Limited API Key private and secure, but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge. I'll let them all know I will be extremely angry and upset if they do though.


Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.

I don't see how we can implement one that still sees the staff members that action withdrawals have access to that information to check for alts on our list of known thieves and loan defaulters.

Can you?


Why do staff members need to see that information? A much better method would be to automatically compare the character names to the names on this list: it reduces the staff workload, reduces information exposure, reduces the chance of human error, and so on.

Originally by: LaVista Vista
The API is simply the easiest option. [...]
The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key. And so is doing it manually through evemail, for instance.


None of the verification needs to be manual. Monitoring of forum posts, chat channels, and .01 ISK transfers can all be automated.

Originally by: Omber Zombie
While the posting/0.1 isk transfer/whatever to say you are active suggestions are nice (and partially helpful), not everyone is able to log in at required time nor choose to post on forums, API was the easiest, had the best coverage and most automatic way we could do it.

You don't need to make a withdrawal if you are not able to log in.

Continued in 5 minutes...

Kapila Parthalan
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:08:00 - [238]
 

There have also been conflicting statements on what information would be accessed, stored, and used by EBANK.

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.



Originally by: LaVista Vista
The API is simply the easiest option. There's very little information worth anything. And people can monitor what data EBANK pulls(Just find the IP of the EANK server and match against that).



Originally by: Omber Zombie
I fully understand why people wouldn't want to give up their API key for this, but the information contained in what we are accessing is purely for automating purposes, we are not going to sit there and examine the data - there is simply way too much info even if we cared to look through it.

Basically it comes down to trusting us not to misuse that data, and while I understand that is asking a lot in light of previous management of the bank, keep in mind that we are not running this bank for personal gain at this point - the amount of work/time being put into this is purely to get it back up and running and get YOUR isk back to you. We make nothing out of it (other than some weird sense of satisfaction of solving a problem, at least for me).


LaVista and Omber Zombie seem to be saying that EBANK does not intend to access unnecessary data. LaVista said we can monitor what data EBANK accesses. However, Ray has stated that they will take and store information other than character names that may be completely unrelated to bank operations. Why does EBANK need information on personal standings? Can you clarify what information you intend to access and how it will be used?

Anyways, that is the end of the section on the API keys. I know Ray said that the decision is final and not negotiable, but I think that making irreversible decisions is never a good idea, especially when made before fully discussing alternative solutions.


Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Wyehr
]I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.

Correct, it's also closer to the capital amount the bank can handle effectively at the moment.


Considering the low profit EBANK is making on its 700B ISK, why do you think it is the amount the bank can handle most effectively?

I still think that the requirement that accounts are accessed every 3 months discourages long-term deposits which would be beneficial to the bank. Perhaps you could allow a form of CD for long-term deposits, and only have the 6-month limitations on normal accounts.

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:49:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan

Originally by: Ray McCormack

Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.


Stuff



I think Ray was saying that in jest.

On your other points I agree on most of them, just wanted to throw the above in there, I am sure Ray can clarify if he feels like it.

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:51:00 - [240]
 

In case you missed it, RMT interacts with Ebank in two steps:

First step: RMTer deposits money.
Second step: RMTer transfers money and someone else withdraws it.

Ebank takes a double hit if both transactions happen and only the first is reversed. This potential double hit is a valid concern for management and (other) depositors alike. It has nothing to do with Ebank fighting RMT, per se. Also note that if we assume that CCP doesn't have access to Ebank data, they are unable to see the second step as a RMT transaction, since nothing in CCPs data connects the depositor with the withdrawer. (I'm pretty sure that isn't a word, but I can't think of a better one.)

Ebank seems to be taking the position that they are unwilling to honor accounts funded by RMT deposits whether the initial deposit has been reversed by CCP yet or not. See post #193. I think plenty of us will agree with that position.

That said, I still think that the API requirement is, well, misguided. In my previous reply (post #206) I tried to show that the API key will not help this in any way.

If CCP has reversed the RMT's deposit, Ebank knows about it and can cancel the transfers to other accounts (assuming the destination accounts weren't withdrawn prior to the freeze).

If CCP hasn't reversed the deposit, but did ban the account, the associated Ebank source accounts will get flushed regardless of the verification method used, and the destination accounts will be unaffected.

If CCP hasn't reversed the deposit, and did not ban the account, Ebank presumably has no better knowledge and will allow that account to be liquidated or withdrawn like every other account.

Let us pretend that the API server responds to queries on banned accounts with "403 OMG!BANZ0r3D", giving Ebank clear and undeniable proof that an account is banned. Now, the question becomes this: what possible motivation does an ISK seller have to log into Ebank's website so that they can provide the API key of their banned account?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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