Quote from: Dabs on February 19, 2017, 07:51:23 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 19, 2017, 04:59:28 PM

This is of course good council. However in this does not help those that did not do that.

Consider it as tuition; hope they learn their lesson for next time. You, of all people, having been around, should know this.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 19, 2017, 04:59:28 PM

To be honest I am shocked you are still touching any of this.

I don't think this is personal, but I also don't think you are honest, or shocked. I get a contract, I fulfill the terms. That's what escrows do.

The rest of your post has been addressed by others.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 19, 2017, 04:59:28 PM

I would expect you as and escrow and staff member to uphold this without question.

You've watched "The Transporter" ?

Quote

Rule Number 1: "Don't change the deal.", Rule Number 2: "No names", and Rule Number 3: "Never open the package."

When PV comes back, then those who left coins there can still use them there or withdraw them.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 19, 2017, 04:59:28 PM

I would be creating a huge scam topic in the main section about this and keeping it on the first page.

You are free to do so. It is good to warn people about possible scams. Just make sure you back up what you say, and you actually make sense, otherwise not too many will take it seriously.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 19, 2017, 04:59:28 PM

So let's here it right now will people with trapped vidz be able to hand over control of their accounts toward novus or not? yes or no

If you don't have the private key, you don't own the coins. That has been true since 2009.

Quote from: Seyar on February 19, 2017, 07:16:17 PM

the last question I'll explain why its so off.. lets say everybody contributes in the ICO with the same amount..
First round 30% is devided and 10 people contributed.. Means that 30% is devided over 10 people.
Second round only 2 people contribute, now this 20% will be devided over 2 person, which is more then the early investors got for their coins in the first round..

So the ICO is not for early investors beneficial its for people who want the take guesses and hope for the best.. Hence I think this round system with 30% and 20% is wrong and should be changed.. If there are way less people in the second round they will get more coins for less investment, but they were able to wait and sit back for way longer and are not the earliest people who helped the project.

If your example were to become true, then it would make sense for you to only participate in the second round, since you would get more. Everyone else will probably be thinking the same thing.

It is unlikely that your scenario, as you explain it, will happen that way. It is more likely that the first round will get 10 people, and the second round will get 20 people.

It does not effect me personally really... I just hate to see this kind of attitude.

IF PV is not this guy and IF he ever does return. I wonder what you will say if he get's doxed as the same person.

I agree on one thing. You are an escrow are given the terms you uphold the terms end of story as far as your responsibility goes.

However, knowing now at this point that PV or this guy if they are one and the same may never release the vidz people paid for and never got to withdraw even though there was no deadline is nothing other than a scam. You can not charge people for things and then not let them have them.

I am sorry but I think it is in bad taste to make light of this fact and call it a good lesson.

Why will this dev not accept the vidz people have paid HIM for in this new rendition of the original ICO if they had over the account details if they are only getting burned anyway??

I want to hear why not. This is asking to keep the money they paid HIM again for something he had partial responsibility for them to receive in the first place. There is strong argument to say his announcement and decision led to them not getting their coins in the first place.

I will be branding him a scammer for this because there is no good reason for him NOT to accept these accounts that he has been paid for already.

Are you saying he should not be made to accept these account details so he can reset these accounts to his own control and count them against this new version of the ICO? Yes or no.

Do you think he should do this in all fairness or not? I will await answer and explanation. If you think he is totally correct not to accept these frozen accounts as fair trade in for the new tokens in this ICO please explain why. Imagine if someone bought the ICO and just was away for a couple of weeks on holiday why should he come back and face this scenario? I mean it seems the only way to scam people and come back and ask for more money all over again. Is there any evidence at all this is not the very same scammer.

I don't say you have any power here except as and escrow to uphold the terms. However, I want to know your opinion on this matter and reasons behind it.

To me there is not 1 good reason that people should have to pay twice for the same thing.

PV returns unlocks the funds on the ico site = this dev gets to burn them
PV does not return they are lost forever anyway and the first PV ico was a scam.