I'm sorry, Astro. It just doesn't add up. As I told you in our Agora conversation, I am watching and waiting. And you know first hand what kind of honest customer I am. Dig....I placed my first order with Astro and the escrow is gone, but I got my product and it's good. So I sent him half the payment to split the loss. I have principals and integrity, and if DefCON repays us all what we lost, I might consider coming back. But not until. It just doesn't add up. Everything had to be aligned just perfectly to pull this off. It HAD to be an inside job. I'm not saying it was even DPR2 or DefCON, but it had to be an inside job. It doesn't take months to get dispute support up and running. It makes no sense to allow the numbers of users that resulted in server overload unless you are only in it for the short con. It makes no sense to open an escrow market without support in place, unless you are in it for the short con. It makes no sense that nearly all the BTC, including DefCON's own commissions were all in hot storage. I had funds in my wallet. Why would they be in hot storage? Were they going to use my coin to pay off escrow for other users??? How does that work? Too many convenient coincidences to be considered innocent. And DefCON was working for free for the past 6 months, risking life and limb, but too heroic to take his commission. Come on. Really? I'm too old for fairy tales. So provide the proof and the replacement funds, and this will be one hell of a story to tell my grandkids. Until then, I live in a really real world where 1+2=3, no matter how much of Blue Viking's acid I dropped. Def's been sticking to the story about transaction malleability, but dig this post from AGORA admin Agora himself, the top dog, who has closed registration and has nothing to gain from any mass exodus that his servers can't handle:
"Many services have recently had a lot of problems with Transaction Malleability.
We confirm that the problem exists and we consider it a minor design flaw in the Bitcoin protocol and/or common implementations. Without going into too much detail, definitions or arguments about how much of a flaw it is or whose fault it is, our perception is simply that Bitcoin has a Transaction Malleability issue which requires that software dealing with Bitcoin be written in a specific way that must deal with it, and that requirement is not entirely straightforward.
Our software is designed with, above all, the security goal in mind. After investigating the issue we now confirm that currently we know of no way in which Transaction Malleability could be used to steal coins from Agora.
Judging by our technical knowledge we would say that it is easy to understand how software using Bitcoin can be written in such way that it could be DoS-attacked by means of Transaction Malleability, and that this seems to be the case with some of the Bitcoin exchanges.
On the other hand we would also like to state that, from our technical perspective, it is very hard to imagine how one should design software in a way that it would be susceptible to coin theft by means of Transaction Malleability. In order to do that one must almost design it with that specific goal in mind (being susceptible to coin theft)."
Read that a few times.
Oh, and DefCON's original post being accidentally deleted? Come on, folks. Don't you think there's a few too many "accidents" happening around here already? Take the red pill, please.
