Add new transaction type "unspent" to allow burned coins to be retreived. #195
Comments
ghost
changed the title
|
So how can we tell which addresses are bad addresses? |
|
Coranos' title refers to "burned coins" while I think of them as "locked" or lost. My Neo is sitting on the block chain. ...I can document how they got there. The list of losses above, is very minor, when compared to this same concept across all crypto currencies. What does the Crypto community feel should or can be done, with unclaimed and unusable crypto on the block chain(s)? What can be done for the good of all? If we keep asking the questions, the right ones will get answered. It takes about 10 years for a concept to catch on and become popular. In the early 80s the personal computer became popular. In the early 90s the concept of "plug -n-play" came into use, sure made the computer user experience easier, and created widespread popularity. |
|
There is no need to determine if an address is "bad" or not, the question is not relevant, as I will illustrate below. It will sound very strange, I just hope you understand and agree with me. Every contract transaction that has not been spent, and is not an "unspend" transaction can be acted on by "unspend". So, for example, this transaction could be "unspent" How could AQVh2pG732YvtNaxEGkQUei3YA4cvo7d2i secure his NEO from an "unspend"? for example, this transaction cannot be "unspent": AXSoNQEKjmqPBNPg5cNrHyWivfjok3Vj9D sent 11,198 NEO to themselves. Even if you did "unspend" that transaction, the NEO would go from AXSoNQEKjmqPBNPg5cNrHyWivfjok3Vj9D to itself, and then be unavailable for another "unspend". This is similar to the way the NANOS coin handles their block lattice (which is where I got the idea), they require two transactions, a "Send" and a "Receive". This would require everyone's wallets to automatically "spend" any new inputs, to prevent an "unspend". That's the tradeoff, you can have reversible transactions, but need people to log into their wallets to receive funds. You could add a 90 day timeout period if you wanted to, in order to give ample time for people to check their balance. |
|
It can be implemented as a smart contract very easily. |
|
I'm aware that NEP tokens can be reversed. This is about NEO, which cannot be reversed. Also, numero41, patience. This is the first time in the history of the world that we have a chance to do something like this. The chance to do something great. Don't let your passion overcome your reason. Emotion, yet peace. |
|
Getting a reversible token, so the average person who is not technical can be safe from typos and random hardware faults. As of right now, a single wrong keystroke can cost you .. everything. Or keep the private key in a file on your computer, which can also cost you everything if you get a virus. Nobody in my extended family is going to use crypto as a method of payment if it's that brittle. They don't type that well. (This is true, when asked about crypto over the holidays, my advice was to stay out) |
|
Thanks DL, I saw it earlier today. Please keep the conversation to NEO, as this is the NEO github. There are many companies involved in this problem, but we can only fix it if we focus on each individually. I don't want this incident closed because we kept getting off track, like the last one. |
erikzhang
added
the
Enhancement
|
I have the same problem, basically a missing MEW wallet whilst using the nano ledger s, I correctly went into MEW through the nano, sent tokens amounting to roughly 2000 dollars and now the nano is not showing the address and I obviously have no access to the private key, I’ve received 1 email from nano support in a week and I’d very much like to retrieve my coins as they are quite a large portion of my portfolio. I’ve sought advice for this issue but had no luck retrieving them yet what’s our course of action dies anyone have any ideas how to get these tokens bank? |
|
Good day, I am Indeed one of the early victims of this issue and glad all attempts are being made to fix it. In August when Neo released the 0.03 wallet version and the announcement was made about how to earn gas, I transferred a total of about 319 NEOs to my wallet address. Before this I transferred 2 Neo to test it and earned gas for 2 days. The wallet froze at some point, I logged out and lo and behold I could not access the wallet again, till date it’s still inaccessible. That is roughly about $26K of today’s worth. As an early investor in NEO, this experience has been heartbroken till date. After several attempts contact COZ from August till c October that have not been any solution. I still see the Noe on neotracker and it’s still unspent, sitting there. Apparently, when I tried to log back in, it had created another key. I have all the proof from the exchanges I transferred to and fro. Can this new feature help in any way please? I’m desperate to have my coins back. |
|
Were you using the Ledger Nano to make those transactions? About this new feature, Coranos knows much more about it than me as he implemented it, but I can surely say that it'll avoid this in the future, but won't reverse the previous "corrupted" transactions |
|
Hi, Thanks for your response, ledger Nano had not been released then. I was using the 0.03 version of the desktop wallet. It was after the issues that COZ released a quick update to the wallet but I’ve been unable to retrieve my coins till date. Infact the only access to the wallet was using private key. It was after we complained (it happened to a few of us back then) that an improvement was made to the wallet to include other routes e.g. passphrase , passwords of accessing it. It happened in August 2017, my coins are still there untouched so this is no scam or anything of such. I have all the proof of ownership as I moved them from exchanges and can provide any necessary information. |
|
We all have all proofs and necessary informations you mention, but it won't help you in any way. For now we never had any information that could let us hope for a way to gain access again to the wallets. This crypto world has no regulations yet, and for now not anyone (wallet developers, Ledger, exchanges, etc) can be taken as responsible for any loss if you can't prove that you didn't make a user error. The only way for any of us to have any kind of help/hearing, is to be able to reproduce the "bug", so that the source of it can be identified. Once it'll be identified, actions can be taken to find who's responsibility it is, and how to get leverage to have a compensation. But once again, I would avoid kind of hope if I were you (I lost about the same amount as you did), which doesn't prevent you from continue to search, raise awareness, and seek for tech people that could give a try to find what happened in exchange for a compensation (like 20% of the funds) |
|
For me it is only logical that for lost coins, they can burn those coins using smart contract and subsequently mint new ones as replacement to the address they were sent from or can be reclaimed by the legitimate owner if proofs are available. What are the specifics of the features Coranos is working on? |
|
If your private key doesn't derive the correct public key anymore, you can't prove you're the owner, that was my point. What kind of proof are you talking about? Transactions records from your exchange account history + blockchain explorer txids? That's not enough! Let me give you an example : Then you have an argument with this friend, and want your money back, but he wouldn't give it back. In that case, you could still come here (or any kind of support), and claim you made some transactions from some exchanges to your wallet, but that unfortunately you lost access to it (like it happened to all of us). That's all the perversity of what happened to us... |
|
Nobody is currently working on this feature request. They don't seem to care, regardless of how much proof there is. I do not know how to get them to care, as I have tried all I could. |
|
@numero The case you mentioned is an outlier. There’s some level of proof if one can confirm that your stuck coins emanated from an exchange account you own, that is often times near accurate that you owned the coins. The case you eluded to is exceptional. @Coranos, is this feature possible technically at all? Where they burn the stuck coins and mint another in replacement for you as long as you can proof you own them. Since it’s open source, can any developer build this feature and have COZ commission it. If I’m not mistaken, the total value of lost coins/ stuck coins should be nearing $1m mark if not more. |
|
The feature is technically possible. As said above, it's actually very easy to do as a smart contract. However you would need to convince NEO to run the modified code on their consensus nodes, or there's no point. I do not think it is possible to convince NEO to run the modified code on their consensus nodes. Their original whitepaper mentioned the feature (reversible transactions), but it is currently absent from the whitepaper and the code. I didn't save a copy of the whitepaper, and the link is dead, so I have no proof. |
|
"There’s some level of proof if one can confirm that your stuck coins emanated from an exchange account you own, that is often times near accurate that you owned the coins." I want as much as you to get my coins back! Can you give me ONE example where someone "proved" its ownership to a wallet using this argument? |
|
''Their original whitepaper mentioned the feature (reversible transactions), but it is currently absent from the whitepaper and the code. I didn't save a copy of the whitepaper, and the link is dead, so I have no proof.'' I kid you not. There were about a few of us affected, we saw the feature in the white paper as well. I think one of the guys saved it, it was on the Antshares, then on Neo when it was rebranded. After our complaints, they removed that section and replaced the whitepaper. They specifically stated that transactions as such could be reversed. |
|
@numero41 i agree with you, proofing ownership from a wallet is hard, but if you can prove it on an exchange that is easy. The transaction IDs are recorded, the wallet address where it emanated from are also there and i'm sure support in exchanges will be able to help as well. |
|
You know, that was the first thing I told myself, 4 months ago when it happened to me, that I had all the necessary informations and that no one could contest it, I have my exchanges accounts, which I am the only one to access for sure, the txids, everything that shows that I for sure did made the transactions this exact day, at this exact time, with those exact amounts, etc. Then I was told almost immediately from everywhere (in answer to my first posts) that I wouldn't get anything looking in that direction, so I didn't event contacted the exchanges about that. Anyway, as the transactions can't be reversed, the only way to get our money back is to find some part that has to be taken as responsible for the loss, and willing to give the same amount in compensation for a malfunction, right? On your side, did you make any try about it? |
|
@coranos What additional venues would be good to pursue a campaign to push for this? Imagine how the whole crypto community would be with this as a standard feature. |
|
@erikzhang would be the only one I know who would be able to implement Unspend transactions. Most times I mention reversible transactions, people are hostile to the idea. "Caveat Emptor" as they say. |
|
We are looking for something between "Caveat Emptor" and "Plug and Play" I do not understand the reason for hostility. fix my oops; ...Seems like a reasonable feature. |
|
Im sorry, but if it has been lost, is lost .... otherwise, it would break the main principle of a blockchain |
|
Good point... ...re Block Chain Not lost... ...Just unavailable (Can be seen by block chain viewer) Just like natural resources on a new frontier. How do we mine that? Imagine how much value is setting on all the various block chains. |
|
So whats the next step? 419 NEO Sent to AcWyPgfSVovTnE5rG6w3KNMCcoipjuDBxP |
|
Coranos,
You mentioned that there are about 20 known transactions that would fall
under the "wrong address" or "locked out" classification. I guess with my
situation, it would be about 21. :P
As such, do you think it would be a good idea to start to aggregate an
official list somewhere, so that we could send to the developers to
potentially petition and rectify the situation before the final migration
to 3.0?
If so, I suggest that an official committee should be appointed by the
developers to examine and approve each of the 21 transactions individually,
including detailed examination of transaction ID's, sender/recipient
addresses traced to sender/ recipient (i.e. an exchange backed by full-on
KYC docs or even physical hardware device).
Of course, this would be a time consuming process, so every petitioner must
be willing to fork over a portion of their stranded wallet amount to
compensate the committee and developrs for their time to do this (say
5-10%). I think those of us who have legitimately been locked out of our
accounts would be willing to do this. At this point , the value would
probably be at least 500-1000 NEO that could be awarded to a committee for
approving about 20 transactions. Wouldn't be a bad paycheck for not too
much work?
As Erik said, each petitioner should also stake an additional amount that
would be kept by the committee if the petitioner was found to be
fraudulent. These amounts could also be timelocked for a period (say one
year) to give the community time to process the transaction and make sure
the petitioner doesn't just run off.
I realize that doing this action could open a bag of worms, but as coranos
mentioned, it is all too easy to make a costly mistake that could
jeopardize years' worth of savings. NEO wants to be the digital asset chain
for the world, and we are all actively supporting NEO in achieving this
mission. But if such a large loss can happen so easily and without hope of
remedy, how would that goal ever be achieved?
Perhaps such a review process should only be done during large events (like
a chain upgrade), which happens every few years or so. I think the benefit
of implementing such a program would far outstrip the costs, from time,
financial, and community trust perspectives.
What do you guys think of these ideas?
Cheers and thanks for listening,
R
…On Thursday, April 29, 2021, coranos ***@***.***> wrote:
Since they are making a new chain for 3.0, it could be implemented then as
part of the conversion.
Otherwise only by changing the code to allow it. NEO is centralized, so
you could allow an unspent only if all validators agree on the tx, and hard
code a list of the ~20 transactions that are allowed to be unspent.
But it sounds like the devs don't want to do it. So we just have to wait
for another chain to do it.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#195 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATKUVZMWO6222FTMRSYHCZ3TLF37XANCNFSM4EVUFB2A>
.
|
|
The list of addresses, emails, and details is in the google doc in the original comment. I think the actual number was 14, making yours 15. Perhaps a few others, as I've been contacted on reddit periodically about it. Without buy-in from the dev team I see this as a lost cause. If the dev team doesn't see this as a problem, they aren't going to fix it. As a developer, I invest time rather than money. |
|
FYI,
Beefy finance and pancake bunny had a similar issue, they are both on the binance smart chain. The developers worked together to burn the lost tokens and reissued new tokens to users
… On 30 Apr 2021, at 16:13, coranos ***@***.***> wrote:
The list of addresses, emails, and details is in the google doc in the original comment.
I think the actual number was 14, making yours 15. Perhaps a few others, as I've been contacted on reddit periodically about it.
Without buy-in from the dev team I see this as a lost cause. If the dev team doesn't see this as a problem, they aren't going to fix it. I invest time rather than money. As far as I can see, NEO isn't really worth my time. So I would look for another coin that does support time locked transactions, as that one will become dominant if we ever get mass adoption.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
So how would all the nice people watching this thread know why it was closed? |
This is an issue of 5 years old, and is targeted on neo legend. If someone still face similar issue, they can open a new one. |
|
It should be opened ? Does anyone have an update on this function ? On 12 Nov 2023, at 09:14, Shargon ***@***.***> wrote:
Reopened #195.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@neo-project/core , this is ridiculous, if you want a good reason to close a 5 years old issue, i also want a good reason to keep it open, for 5 years you dont handle it, no solution, no recent discussion, yet you wont close it? So, what is the good reason to keep a 5 year old issue that no one follows for years to open? |
Normally I would agree, but this issue is connected with the shutdown of the Legacy network. If we decide to do something about it, it won't happen till then. So for this one, maybe it's best to keep it open to avoid forgetting about it. It has a long history and quite a significant amount of money associated with it for some users. |
trust me, keep it here for even 30 years, it will still be this way as this is not the place for such issues, NF and NGD instead. But i respect others opinions, if you all think 5 years old issues are ok, i am cool with them. |
|
It's all about communication:
Just imagine:
|
@roman-khimov, i can not agree with you more. to be honest, I have not disagree with you on anything yet, but i think we are talking about different things here. For an ordinary issue, yes, we should process them normally with agreement and a solid reason. But here, we are dealing issues that are even older than 90% of the blockchain projects and for three years no one follows........these are not ordinary issues,,,,,, these are issues that no one cares. Some one opened an issue requesting for a feature, then for 3 years no one cares, now you tell me you are still considering implementing them? |
|
@Liaojinghui bitcoin/bitcoin#2039 they win us, If a issue is closed it must be closed with a reason. Also, I think that this issue is an important one |
|
I believe they added some functionality to N3 that allows you to send a transaction, and as a part of the transaction have a timeout, so the issue won't occur again in N3 if you send the correct transaction parameters. I'm unable to verify this with the documentation, so really I don't know the state of it. |
LOL, you win me. I'll call you next time. |
|
Can these issues be raised with the Neo team again to see if they can do something about it?It’s a lot of money involved, our hardwork and pain. We should not close it, if we can nominate one person to spearhead the discussion, we might have a headway On 12 Nov 2023, at 13:58, Jimmy ***@***.***> wrote:
@Liaojinghui bitcoin/bitcoin#2039 they win us, If a issue is closed it must be closed with a reason. Also, I think that this issue is an important one
LOL, you win me. I'll call you next time.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
@kryptob github is not the right place for such request, coredev team have no power to answer such demands. If you really want things like this being fixed, you should either send an email to NGD or NF or directly ask for help in discord. |
|
I agree if we can raise this with NEO teamIts a lot of money just sitting somewhere in the air
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, November 12, 2023, 9:33 AM, Jimmy ***@***.***> wrote:
Can these issues be raised with the Neo team again to see if they can do something about it?It’s a lot of money involved, our hardwork and pain. We should not close it, if we can nominate one person to spearhead the discussion, we might have a headway On 12 Nov 2023, at 13:58,
@kryptob github is not the right place for such request, coredev team have no power to answer such demands. If you really want things like this being fixed, you should either send an email to NGD or NF or directly ask for help in discord.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
My 2 cents:
|
|
https://docs.neo.org/docs/en-us/basic/concept/transaction.html They added a validUntilBlock to the tx for N3, so the error will not occur again, and IMO the issue is fixed in N3. So the question remains: will the victims bemade whole? Or is that beyond the scope of this issue? If it is beyond the scope, then the issue should be closed. |
|
I think that we can close it and open a new one about how to recover funds that was sent to a dead address |
|
There is quite some amount of Neo Legacy specifics there, true. But #195 (comment) is still relevant for any network. |
No transactions from the last X years. |
I think that it's not part of the core developers responsibility to provide reimbursements, even in case of bugs.
Let's create a new issue then and add it to the backlog. This discussion has become too big, and it's hard to follow up. |
|
If we think that the issue is still relevant and can theoretically be solved (hi, @shargon), then sorry, but I love old issues with all of the context and messages. New ones don't add any value. And if the issue is there and it's open, then technically it's in the backlog already. |
But we are not deleting it. It will be here forever. |
|
https://github.com/neo-project/neo/milestone/2 + #2905 Milestone + issue Release, rinse, repeat. |
CoZ asked for enhancements, soI'd like to present an enhancement worth roughly $150,000.
This transaction type would be identical in execution to a Contract transaction, signed by the sender, with one exception: The amount in the output would be subtracted from the destination address, rather than added to it. This would allow for people to reclaim coins sent to a "bad" address, but would not allow people to reverse transaction arbitrarily.
As you know, in order to claim gas you must "spend" NEO, send them to yourself.
Any transactions that have been "spent" would be ineligible for "unspend".
If a user wishes to prevent their coins from being "unspent" from under them, they either claim gas, or send them to themselves, confirming that their address is valid.
this can be added as a default task in all wallets, which will also lead to smaller transaction sizes as you don't ever have more than one unspent tx per address.
Why is it worth $150,000?
There is currently $150,000 USD of NEO in burned accounts due to a ledger usb bug that displayed the wrong "spend" address.
AU3DGUrwAMF3rbc8mW8BrtWRsbBdBH5V4q: 1,947 NEO
ALKfPGkaMVyVQjbv3Qa5bb6fWEURHmFr4S: 13 NEO
ASHq4jJRgVTX2auvbDhAu8g4JQk2srV36D: 108 NEO
AGAmSMhDkoJ2Wr7T4PeRHEf52eJJjzFfTK: 10 NEO
2078 NEO, $145,226 USD
CityOfZion/neon-wallet#524
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1afBgZ5yvr6FHN1CBl2bSlJIEfbpNtHukQSqW731gXmE/edit#gid=1139885301
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: