Quote from: hugeblack on Today at 11:48:46 AM

Quote from: examplens on Today at 11:23:51 AM

I don't see a problem if the funds from the escrow were used to settle the user, regardless of the fact that it was initially planned for the review campaign. Which, by the way, was finished a long time ago. The problem is that it is difficult to prove how much someone had/tried to withdraw because there is no irrefutable evidence for that. All they have is a letter of guarantee or notes, but that can very easily be forged, which will certainly be tempting to scammers.
Also, after the withdrawal request, the balance going to be 0, so in the event that the escrow gets direct access to the private key, it will not be able to determine the owner and amount of funds with certainty.

The last time I used WWM was after adding the concept of notes public key, so I don't remember the details of withdrawal, but I think that sending a note private key to minerjones would solve the problem because it was the only way to prove user ownership.

If nothing has changed since I last used WhirlWind, I believe there are two possible scenarios here that need to be addressed:

1. Users with remaining funds on their notes: To verify this, a potential solution would be to share the private key of the note with a trusted forum member who can verify its contents. This action should be taken promptly while the WhirlWind site is still accessible.

2. Users who requested withdrawals, either in full or partially, from their WhirlWind note to a private wallet: In this scenario, the available balance on the note would either be decreased by the withdrawn amount or down to zero. To prove an unsuccessful withdrawal, affected users should provide a signed message (letter of guarantee) generated by the WhirlWind during the withdrawal request. By comparing the information within the signed message with blockchain transactions, it should be possible to verify the status of the withdrawal and the amount owed.