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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

Kapila Parthalan
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:01:00 - [241]
 

Edited by: Kapila Parthalan on 24/11/2009 04:03:28
Originally by: Katiana Swan
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.

I also thought so, but it is unclear.

Originally by: Wyehr
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?

They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal.
Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.

Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:02:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Proton Power
Instead of 6mths inactivity I would personally say go 8.

The military was something that came up during the vote, and we're willing to listen to this in our discussion group, which will be formed shortly (well, within the next few months).

On 'further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK': I would be tempted to do something like Mme Pinkerton suggested. I.e., leave all the liability on the books (for accounts you think are defunct) and use some sort of internal discounting to arrive at your working figures for management of the bank.

As at least a nod toward the legitimacy of any input-gathering, hopefully the clock won't start running on this 'countdown until EBANK breaches a lot of EBANK-client commitments to inequitably convert a lot of ISK' until after the consultation with the discussion group has concluded.

Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:03:00 - [243]
 

People have faith in banks because they trust that the bank will return their money when they ask for it. EBANK has already broken this fundamental trust and is even going to the extreme to charge an excessive amount for withdrawals. The more you continue EBANK, the more you are enforcing the notion that customers have no choice when it comes down to investments. Nothing you do will ever satisfy your customers.

You should seriously consider closing down EBANK and start a new bank taking into account the lessons learned from this mess. The more you continue to force yourself onto people the more people are going to recent EBANK. Right now you are loosing credibility very fast and soon will reach the point of no return where no one will ever invest with anyone involve with EBANK.

If you think you can’t open a new bank, then why you think is better to force EBANK onto its customers? You should liquidate and have “active” players claim their ISK via eve email to ensure accounts are active. Anyone not emailing within one month should be consider inactive and will not get paid – forfeit their ISK. If the total claims are larger than the bank’s NAV, then paid a pro-rated amount.

I don’t believe any customer is happy with the present situation, and while the closing down proposal seems extreme, at least people will have closure.


Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:03:00 - [244]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
We would love to offer you income reports from the various divisions, but due to other more pressing requirements those have fallen by the wayside. Once the internal audit is complete (yes, it's still ongoing) they will be worked on as a priority. For now you can assess our periodic updates to our progress by monitoring the Public Financials.


You´re planning to add to your overhead by recruiting at least ten members of staff - and yet none of those positions is for a financial bod. Fire the amateur who prepares your Public Financials and recruit someone who at least can tie up financial statements.

How long have you been in charge? Three months plus some? It takes a public company in RL two weeks to be externally audited, including the management letter. I accept that whoever is conducting your internal audit is not an accountant, but seriously, EVE accounts are significantly simpler than RL accounts. Something is not right there.

Income reports for the various divisions, which can only mean your ventures, because everything else is immaterial, *is* one of your most pressing requirements. Don´t you understand that?

Here´s a summarised, revised version of your forecast P&L:
Loan Interest - 6,798,789,237 (6.21% of 109,463,246,858)
Advertising - 403,000,000
Dividends - 1,737,958,735
Ventures - 0 (0% of 64,077,132,578)

Net Income - 8,939,747,972

Costs ???

Accumulated Loss (1,227,305,023,202)

Years required to cover loss - 11.44

I´ve excluded Titan BPCs on the basis they are ad-hoc sales, not monthly. However, significant elements are missing. First, you haven´t included any costs, and you must have some and will have considerably more if you recruit large numbers of staff. Second, you haven´t shown any revenue from Ventures. By the way, why is the ventures value different from the Balance Sheet? Ditto for investments.

You are unlikely to significantly increase your loans portfolio. Advertising is immaterial. Investments are unlikely to rise significantly. Ventures should generate better returns than any other source. And yet you consider divisional income reports unimportant.

I´ve left out the obvious one. Sleight of hand on deposits. And I think you know what I mean there.

One last suggestion. Split the accumulated losses in two - losses up to the date you took over, and profits/losses since.

Tiberizzle
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:15:00 - [245]
 

Quote:
EBank has little rep to lose at this point

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:38:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Wyehr
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?

They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal.
Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.


So, if we can see that the API isn't more useful than any other form of verification, why not pick one of the many options that is less repugnant?

Chalrynn Illyndar
Navy of Xoc
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:39:00 - [247]
 

My question on the matter, is why not just send a log of all the money transfers to one of the various GM's who is involved with the RMT? It would at least help on CCP's end since I imagine there is no way for them to actually tell EBANK anything due to their EULA/Privacy policy.

This is also likely the issue EBANK is having, They have Deposits from 50 people for various amounts and they just see "-50,000,000.00 [GM ISK REMOVAL]" with no reference to where it was from so they have to write it off as a loss while the isk is actually sitting in one of those 50 people's account. Depending on how it's handled on the GM's side it could mean a number of things... Was it one 50 million isk transaction? Two 25 million isk transactions...? Etc.

But, Random Joe depositing isk later withdrawing isk without any transactions in between is definitely not laundering anything. A 0.1 isk deposit would verify the activity of the account in this situation.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:39:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 24/11/2009 04:48:09
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
How do you lose money if the transaction has not been reversed?
It could one day be reversed?... Unless you're suggesting we gamble on the fact that it will never be reversed. I don't, sounds too risky to me but whatever works for you. If you want us to gamble with public ISK then I'll take your suggestion under light consideration.

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
What I said is that the things you are pretending you need the api for you did it already without the api.
It's not the same.. What LVV did was petition most questionable transactions. We felt it wise to have a single source for questionable transactions, if he did more I'm not sure but we all worked on questionable stuff, but if a petition was used LVV filed it I believe.

*RMT banned accounts do have their transactions revearsed and you check that trough software.
- Half right, the initial check had to come from EBANK Ricdic, He needed to report it, Mr.H then used something he programed to reverse the transaction enter records etc. It said way back in that thread you dug up that it was manual checking the software did some things not all. Keep on dwelling on this it does wonders for a system now obsolete.

*Any other RMT that happens is not your job to find and you won't do it with the api.
- huh? Let me make this clear because you must be missing it. I could give two turds if people RMT, in fact I don't care if it's in EVE legal or not. The issue is not us to HUNT for RMT, it's to PREVENT RMT from effecting EBANK. Why this is so difficult for you to understand I'll never know.

*If ccp bans an account for any other reason that is not RMT and do not revearse transactions you lose nothing.
- OK... Then address this in the "What should happen to suspended accounts. This is specifically addressed there.

*Mr. H's code
- The code has been reworked. Some things are clear, work and don't need changing, others did, others where questionable. Point is, questionable code shouldn't be kept in.. Why would we.. Not sure why this is difficult for you.

*...and that is why you need the api.
- Yes.. It's one of the reasons, not all of them, and you say I'M twisting your words.. Shocked

*The "System"
- You're really hung up on the past obsolete system. Look whatever your grudge is stop beating around the bush and post it. Some of that was not coded by Mr.H (OH god I've opened another can for you to harp on) the important part the actual "Reversal" part was done by Mr.H, he did all the reversals with his stuff. The easy to use tools to help us determine if it was questionable was done by our current devs. You continue to bring this up like you think know something, out with it, come on, get to the point. Because I can't see it yet.

*You say that "If the GM's haven't 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.
- We have to knowugh If we get a reversal shouldn't we know Shocked

*You tried to blame Ricdic for more than what he did, all eBank problems when it was later obvious that more money was missing.
- Getting banned and removing what he claims to be about 60B in raw ISK along is MORE then he did. Ricdic has ISK and assets in banned characters we can't touch, sorry his "bill" is more then just 250B he claimed to have taken. <- Note "CLAIMED"

*You tried to blame Mr.H for more than what he did.
- No, just what he did, tried to take 90B ISK, and created some questionable code which is obsolete.

If you see more let me know.

Edit:- had to cut down a lot but I'll add some *'s

Remus Kurgan
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:43:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: RAW23

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




Welcome to the winning side Wink

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book.


Oooooh, are we playing Cold War EVE edition????

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:24:00 - [250]
 

Message from the heart...

This is an endeavor to create an solid fully trusted banking system, where thieves, scammers, and RMTers would have to put forth 200% more effort to get around in and use. Anyone that believes requesting limited API is bad, really saddens me.

Forget for a second that this is EBANK and consider this..

A website in which people can goto and check to see if the person they are dealing with has at any point the past been associated with any known "Virtual EVE Criminals". A site you can enter the name of and it reports back, "Fully verified, no criminal activity"

Wouldn't that be what people would want to see?

Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way. Has had hundreds of Billions of ISK defaulted loans, has had possibly hundreds of billions lost due to RMT. Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. All in the name of security and offers benefits like quicker deficit recovery, monumental security for EBANK, and the ISK it holds.

Now I can see why people push so hard against it, I really can. But surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive. Doesn't anyone look at the larger picture anymore.

I guess a visionaries hope of a Utopian place where everyone is "Good" and not a Thief, Scammer, or RMTer is just a foolish one. Crying or Very sad

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:27:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Katiana Swan
I think Ray was saying that in jest.
I also thought so, but it is unclear.

I wasn't.
Originally by: Varo Jan
It takes a public company in RL

Everyone's an expert. Does that mean you're volunteering to do them for us? I have other more pressing concerns currently, no point in having flashy financials if all the figures are zero.
Originally by: Varo Jan
Don´t you understand that?

Thanks, you'll find I mentioned that in the OP, but kudos for being able to point out the obvious.

------

Regarding the API stuff, I read most of the posts. I ignored the ones made by that angry guy with all the bold and underline, he's clearly got issues. None of the arguments have changed my mind on the matter though, the Limited API Key requirement will not change and is in place for the multitude of reasons already mentioned.

Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating.

We will however make accommodation for those returning to claim their ISK, accounts will not be written off completely and will be available after a brief freeze period after being re-opened. We'll finalise that decision over the next few months and let everyone know.

One thing everyone needs to understand is I have nothing to hide, I will be brutally honest about every decision made by the bank - I have no need to hide anything as it's quite obvious I'm a prick that will just do whatever he thinks is best.

Corporate Thief
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:44:00 - [252]
 

Edited by: Corporate Thief on 24/11/2009 05:44:51
SencneS, your post needs more puppies to be honest.

This game wouldn't exist in nearly as entertaining a fashion if it were a Utopia; the whole point is that it isn't. Honestly, though, I offer my services to people who consider themselves morally superior to me. It's bad business and frankly ironic that I shouldn't be allowed to use EBANK when one of the current BoD is a repeat customer of mine...

*Edit: Spelling errors I missed Embarassed

Angus McSpork
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:03:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Message from the heart...

This is an endeavor to create an solid fully trusted banking system, where thieves, scammers, and RMTers would have to put forth 200% more effort to get around in and use. Anyone that believes requesting limited API is bad, really saddens me.

Forget for a second that this is EBANK and consider this..

A website in which people can goto and check to see if the person they are dealing with has at any point the past been associated with any known "Virtual EVE Criminals". A site you can enter the name of and it reports back, "Fully verified, no criminal activity"

Wouldn't that be what people would want to see?

Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way. Has had hundreds of Billions of ISK defaulted loans, has had possibly hundreds of billions lost due to RMT. Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. All in the name of security and offers benefits like quicker deficit recovery, monumental security for EBANK, and the ISK it holds.

Now I can see why people push so hard against it, I really can. But surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive. Doesn't anyone look at the larger picture anymore.

I guess a visionaries hope of a Utopian place where everyone is "Good" and not a Thief, Scammer, or RMTer is just a foolish one. Crying or Very sad


/golf clap

However, there are many issues and problems with what you're doing.

Your suggestion of a website about 'virtual EVE Criminals' sounds great and all--IF IT WAS VOLUNTARY from the ground up. However, you're going to hold 9000 accounts' ISK hostage in a no-negotiations manner. In Ray's own words "Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating". This is not a voluntary exchange for new accounts only or even a new bank. Give us what we want or we'll scam you.

This is ESPECIALLY egregious given that (I believe) ebank staffers have came and said they cannot gaurantee the safety of the API information only that we are to trust the same organization that, in your own words, has had "four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way".

In the instances of past directors who gamed the eBank system.. Would the API key really have somehow stopped it?

This whole API thing is just a simple way of getting people ****ed off enough to not bother claiming what they entrusted your institution with. And it is still so easy to get around it isn't funny if someone wanted to spend a little RL money.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:16:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack


Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating.




This is the worst statement I have heard the whole time.

I now know how you will return peoples cash, you will do it by destroying accounts without API verification (whether you coat it with the RMT or banned accounts or scammers excuse)

If you did it through growth the projection is too long (about 18B a month reinvested into loans and ventures returning 6% gives a return of about 3-4 years).

This is a stealth approach that punishes customers further. Liquidate or work the money back but this destruction via API is the worst approach.

For what it is worth keep my money because I am not handing over my API.







question: Should every business manager ask for limited API keys to prove that shareholders are still current and that haven't previously defaulted on loans or scammed the IPO/bond manager.

Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:27:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

Originally by: Varo Jan
It takes a public company in RL

Everyone's an expert. Does that mean you're volunteering to do them for us? I have other more pressing concerns currently, no point in having flashy financials if all the figures are zero.


Son, if I´d wanted to ram my experience down your throat, I´d have done so. Learn to read between the lines.

No, I´m not volunteering - you couldn´t afford me, and I wouldn´t join or work for a corp whose ethics are highly questionable.

Flashy financials? Now you´re being silly. Try simple, accurate financials, which you need to run a business.

Quote:
Originally by: Varo Jan
Don´t you understand that?

Thanks, you'll find I mentioned that in the OP, but kudos for being able to point out the obvious.


The obvious is what you are not doing. But I take my hat off to you on one thing - you are very good at throwing up smokescreens.


Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:37:00 - [256]
 

I hope you are happy with the writeoff in liabilities you expect from this ray.
But i realy do not think that a bank that unilateraly changes its tos has any viabilty.
The only consistency ebank has shown over its existence is broken promises and unreleased promised features.

A realy nice basis for a bank
Give us your money, if we cannot make it work we will just change the rules.
And if you do not like it we will just accuse you of anything socially unaccepteble at that time.


SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:45:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
Question: Should every business manager ask for limited API keys to prove that shareholders are still current and that haven't previously defaulted on loans or scammed the IPO/bond manager.


I would have thought this answer would have been answered by your own history of actions :)

While I don't hold it against you in any way, you took information that was gained by disclosure to recover ISK you lost to a scammer. While the methods are different the result is exactly the same.

Even though I have not run a personal IPO in the past, part of the reasons why I didn't was I didn't feel I should be rewarding those that pay for my shares with ISK Stolen from someone else.

We see far far too many unknowns buy shares/bonds from people, I assumed it was because they wanted the main to remain anonymous. I thought and did the same thing for a while, didn't want some people to know what I owned. In the end I found it to be stupid to be honest. Who cares if someone knows I own x amount of shares in y company. Yet people believe this is private information which should be kept with the up most secrecy.

I guess it's always me looking at it from the point of view I have done nothing wrong, nothing to hide, and believe I have conducted myself in an honorable way. Anyone that doesn't want their alts exposed in my opinions is a short list of reasons why.

1) They have scammed with the alt.
2) They do questionable business with an alt.
3) They are part of alliances with conflict of interests and both alliances don't check API to make sure they are not spys (rare but I guess it could happen)
4) They want to remain anonymous so they can troll the forums every so often.

Well, 1- I've never done, 2- I could careless if people knew I ninja salvages, I do sometimes. 3-No alliances here, besides I think it's a stretch considering the paranoia of some alliances 4- Hell I troll on this character.

I guess it's all about enlightenment, eventually people will be enlightened enough to realize that anonymity will only take you so far, to get the extra step you need to become transparent, or at least behave in a transparent nature.

Mme Pinkerton
The pink win
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:11:00 - [258]
 

/me is worried she will lose all the ~50.000 ISK she has deposited with EBANK Crying or Very sad

I have two accounts with EBANK created by different characters, say A and B.

A and B have transferred money between each other (and have probably given EBANK the same email address, but I cannot check that atm).

A and B have been on different EVE accounts.

A has been biomassed. B is still active.

Does this mean I do RMT?

Angus McSpork
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:14:00 - [259]
 

Edited by: Angus McSpork on 24/11/2009 07:16:47
Originally by: SencneS


I guess it's always me looking at it from the point of view I have done nothing wrong, nothing to hide, and believe I have conducted myself in an honorable way. Anyone that doesn't want their alts exposed in my opinions is a short list of reasons why.

1) They have scammed with the alt.
2) They do questionable business with an alt.
3) They are part of alliances with conflict of interests and both alliances don't check API to make sure they are not spys (rare but I guess it could happen)
4) They want to remain anonymous so they can troll the forums every so often.

Well, 1- I've never done, 2- I could careless if people knew I ninja salvages, I do sometimes. 3-No alliances here, besides I think it's a stretch considering the paranoia of some alliances 4- Hell I troll on this character.

I guess it's all about enlightenment, eventually people will be enlightened enough to realize that anonymity will only take you so far, to get the extra step you need to become transparent, or at least behave in a transparent nature.


How about

5) It is none of your business what I do on my other characters or what my wallet balance is or what my personal standings are or any other thing the limited API can show you?

I've did nothing wrong either yet I will not simply roll over and bare my entire game life over to you. You guys can't even trust your own directors with your primary function (you know manage money) yet 9000 accounts are just supposed to hand over their APIs no questions asked so you can manage their ingame information?

Hell, you guys (ebank) can't even give a straight answer as to what you'll do with the information (some says to verify that the account hasn't been banned, others say it is to verify that a known ebank defrauder isn't on the account and Ray insists he wasn't joking about keeping track of people's standings). When asked how you would keep the information the API provides locked down the answer was basically "well, security is *really* hard, golly gee".

There have been quite a few well thought out less intrusive methods to accomplish what your claimed goals are. However it is still scamtasticly "We're requiring all sorts of absurd things in the hopes of simply driving away our customers so we can steal their ISK".

I did have to laugh when even the BoD weren't willing to share their APIs the way they are DEMANDING their customers do.

Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
/me is worried she will lose all the ~50.000 ISK she has deposited with EBANK Crying or Very sad

I have two accounts with EBANK created by different characters, say A and B.

A and B have transferred money between each other (and have probably given EBANK the same email address, but I cannot check that atm).

A and B have been on different EVE accounts.

A has been biomassed. B is still active.

Does this mean I do RMT?


Apparently the Directors at ebank thinks almost ALL of their customers are scammers, deadbeats or illegally RMT'ing.

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:24:00 - [260]
 

Sencnes,

I can tell you my reason, should you be intrested

you continuously change requirements. First you state you will only take char and corp names, but then later on you post you will take standings as well. Having had over 2 months to prepare this statement i fail to see why it could have been an oversight.
btw I did not see it listed on your site as part of the information you take, you may want to amend that.

but as to my reason. You, as ebank, broke your word (repeatedly) and now yo ask me to trust you with more than you already have from me.
Sorry but I cannot. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." is pretty much a motto I live by.

oh and I take back that I hope ebank gets from this what they want, I am curious what you will think of next to boost your effective income beyond that measly 2.5% you are scoring currently.
I understand you do want to call your tour at ebank a success, ray. And I understand you are not looking forward to spending 12 years with them. Nice rewrite of your origial mission statement though, insteady of offering all your clients their money back only ensuring that your remaining clients get their isk back.

jna
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.11.24 08:25:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way.

Now look at it from the EBANK Customer's perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way.

Problem: Unwilling to return customer ISK?
Solution: Demand, for reasons varied, rambling, useless, unclear and totally exploitable, people's limited API keys to verify and store their alts, lightly salted with a self-stated inability to guarantee the security of said API information. When customers rightly go 'wtf?' extend this programme to include personal standings.

And the next time you run out of money due to internal fraud, scams, abuse or just plain old-fashioned loan defaults, what's the next step? Demand full API keys, in the knowledge that another X customers will forfeit their money to continue propping things up?

Originally by: SencneS
Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. [snip] ...surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive.

And that verification system would have stopped the 4 ex-directors of EBANK abusing, scamming and defrauding their customers how, exactly?

Anyone who deals in data should really understand that a partial picture of the "truth" - an EBANK limited-API-key 'verification' - is actually much, much more dangerous to EBANK (and others) than the current situation.

Anyways, where do I 'opt-out' of this hilarious experiment in trolling your customer base, whilst not having my failure to participate label me as an RMTer on some visionary, Utopian 'verification' system?

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:39:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement.

What do you want to know?

I did the data-gathering from our database and resolved the issues with GMs.

As for the "incredible audit tool", we have a system that visualizes ISK movement. While tellers are able to see the email and most recent IP and headers, that's that's about the extent of what tellers can see.

Login history is done manually. And doing a cross-check across the whole database is done manually.

Other than that, I fixed things when they broke, which happened quite often due to the API being fairly buggy.

Quote:
any RMT account that has been banned and reversed transactions has been already caught by the software.

No RMT is caught by software, but human caution.

Quote:
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,

I dealt with RMT, yes. I didn't track money but when a teller raised the red flag, where I'd step in and pull all relevant data and present it to the teller and work with them to make sense of it all.


Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:42:00 - [263]
 

Quote:

If any IPO, Bond, Fund, etc changed the terms of the agreement then they would be forever branded a scammer by MD. There is no difference between that and these new changes.



AFAIK the "regular" IPO / bonds etc. are tied to the proponent's name. In this case we have an institution going beyond those governing it.

EBANK <> its directors, in fact most of the various bad apples are gone.


Another factor is that on scammed bonds / IPOs the proponent tends to disappear and the money with him.
In the case of EBANK there has been some heads replacement and the money looks not immediately lost beyond return.


Quote:

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How would that identify alts to us?



How do you believe that a true scammer / launderer would not use alts off different accounts? It's like the 101 of scamming.
What will the API key do for that?

Quote:

How about we get Fitz VonHeise to verify account activity.



Could I see an audit off him or something?


Quote:

Liberty's overall point is correct, despite the nauseating ideological overtones. However, this issue is long-dead.



I see it in a simple light: the cows have left the corral already.

Now, there's a space cow boy (pun intended!) that offers to bring some cows back and on his own terms.

Being this an unconsensual PvP game with allowed scamming and whatever, his terms are like "I will do it like this or you can GTFO".

End of ideology and high philosophy.


Quote:

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.



Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:

1) Start EvE and leave it open.
2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist".
3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out.
It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.

Quote:

You want to be called a saint, Block, TS, and You should return those funds to the account and call it good, that way everyones dividends are effected for a positive change.



It'd not be being a saint, but a proper deal honor.


Quote:

Come to think of it. 8 pages of frustrated "customers" in one single day. Do some of them have a real life?



Maybe 1% are customers, 99% no life trolls. Or bored at work.


Quote:

If you think you can’t open a new bank, then why you think is better to force EBANK onto its customers?



If only people would read my posts. At the first pages I already detailed what people keep repeating right now (ie how convenient is to have people choose not to validate).
In another thread I also explained why they want to force EBANK Razz


LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:46:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha


Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:

1) Start EvE and leave it open.
2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist".
3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out.
It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.



That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.

It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.

jna
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:57:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha


Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:

1) Start EvE and leave it open.
2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist".
3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out.
It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.



That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.

It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.


Personally, I find logging into Eve and sending 0.1 isk to the EBANK deposit account simpler than logging into the Eve website account management section, getting my API keys, logging into the EBANK site, pasting them into your interface etc. etc.

Why isn't a deposit good enough? Ignore the spurious 'defaulted loan account character linkage' line, which (as already shown numerous times) doesn't hold water.

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:00:00 - [266]
 

To those who are considering sacrificing large amounts of isk due to not wanting to provide their API, why not counter EBANK's demands by creating a new account and moving your character to that one then releasing the API.

It is by no means a good process and shouldn't have to happen at all but if it comes down to losing billions of isk surely this is the best option?

As far as I can determine you would be looking at a $20 transfer fee along with the cost of a GTC (assuming you don't have another account without confidential data on it).

I don't agree at all with the way EBANK is doing things, just wanted to throw this out there as a viable alternative to losing all your funds.

Sencnes another reason why people may not want to provide their API is if they have an alt or second main on the account in say an industrial corporation. With KIA having been proven to be the cause of probably 30%-50% of the collapse of EBANK, do people really want to allow KIA members who also work at EBANK the ability to see this kind of information? What if say Leneera has a second character with a BoB hidden industrial corporation on the account and SentryRaven takes the information to use against them?

I am not saying this will happen, but someone in this position would surely show concern that it's possible after the failures thus far that have occured with any remaining ebank staff from the previous era.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:07:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: jna


Why isn't a deposit good enough? Ignore the spurious 'defaulted loan account character linkage' line, which (as already shown numerous times) doesn't hold water.

I disagree that it has been shown as not holding water. People write it off because "smart scammers has their alts on other accounts", but you realize that people who default loans aren't scammers, nor all that smart often. They aren't Riethe or anybody like that.

It's a barrier to entry for people who have defaulted loans. Fine, it might not yield any results at all. But simply not doing it on that account seems irresponsible.

That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:12:00 - [268]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 24/11/2009 10:18:03
Quote:

That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.



I am sure that you see by yourself that "it's more work" is not a responsible answer when it's yours institution who caused customers damage.


Quote:

It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that



Let's put up a poll about which of the two alternatives would be more popular and accepted?


I mean, if the API was a safe 100% mean to discern scammers off "legit" guys, it'd be a bitter medicine.
But it's not 100% safe and people will publish (they did already) ways to spoof / bypass it.

Result: legit customers annoyance to the extreme, breach in their perceived privacy while those who have something to hide will just send you an immaculate API born off character transfer or were just smart enough to keep accounts separate in the beginning.

Quote:

That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.



Who are you to judge your customers ethics or skeletons in the closet? It's not like EBANK has a terse and transparent fame itself.

Also, I can imagine people having issues handing their API keys when EBANK representatives have 0.0 corps tags or could have alts involved in competing 0.0 alliances.
What prevents them from i.e. pass information along so that their corp mates start suicide ganking the usually NPC corp "MyHiSecHaulerAlt" called alt of some depositor, in order to disrupt their corp supply chain?

jna
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:19:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista

That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.


It is intrusive, and that argument doesn't wash either - by your (SencneS') own admission 4 old directors of the bank "scammed, abused and defrauded EBANK in some way". It's a question of who you trust with your data on your current wallet balance; your complete skillset, skillpoints, skill in training and skills in queue; your clone grade; your current implants; your personal standings with individuals, corps and alliances; your roles in the Corp, your hangar access rights; the corp divisions, the corp wallet names etc etc. And EBANK's institutional track record with the trust issue isn't exactly covered in glory.

You can't guarantee the security of the data, so who are your tellers going to be? Which alliances are they in? What purposes are they going to use this data for? What gaming implications does that have for me?

I can't answer that question, but neither can you. And therein lies the issue.


Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:53:00 - [270]
 

Edited by: Ji Sama on 24/11/2009 10:54:22
My problem is because its mandatory in regards to the API.
You have changed horses midstream.
I understand why you are doing it, i just disagree with you in doing it.
You can keep the ISK i have in your accounts, the whole 600K, all of them, take it i say!

OMFG; I was invaded by a engrish spelling demon!


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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