17 June 2019
B
14:16
BLOC8
What did u mean when you wrote "randomly generated"?
S
14:21
Spl3en
I'm talking about that :
14:22
14:22
look at the names of the folders inside the source code
14:23
"git", "project", *49*
14:23
and if you look at others scores, that number seems to be incremented
14:23
The source code of that SCORE is pointless - it's useless
B
14:24
BLOC8
Thanks we will check this out. Have you pointed it out to ICON?
S
14:26
Spl3en
I've already talked about this issue to them, yes
B
14:27
BLOC8
Same with the evidence we provided, still in Challenge. Eagerly awaiting pay day tomorrow to see if scammers get paid.
S
14:28
Spl3en
I'll another message about the cheaters
B
14:29
BLOC8
Personally what I have a problem with is that ICON doesn't even acknowledge the emails we send but they have a "massive" team.
S
14:30
Spl3en
Not so much regarding communication
14:30
They definitely don't answer to all emails
14:30
Better contact them directly
14:31
I mean, that was a LOT worst last year, they're still improving
B
14:31
BLOC8
ICON was warned of the scammers before last pay day but they still paid out so not optimistic this week will be any different.
S
14:36
Spl3en
With evidences, we can ban them
14:37
I've sent a message about it to the NA team, they usually listen and forward the reports to the KR team
B
14:38
BLOC8
All the scammers I saw were from KR.
S
14:38
Spl3en
I'll do something : download all the registred SCOREs and make a detailed report about the SCOREs which follow the /Git/project/xx pattern that is a clear evidence that a same team has developped these SCOREs
14:42
In reply to this message
Yeah, I noticed some of them were writting KR comments in the source code too
B
14:44
BLOC8
Thanks. I just noticed the two SCORE's that sent tokens between themselves stopped processing tx's 2 days ago. Not sure if ICON banned them or if they realised they had been rumbled.
S
14:44
Spl3en
No, they haven't been banned according to the spreadsheet
B
14:45
BLOC8
I know ss still includes them but ICON could have emailed them and not updated the ss.
S
14:46
Spl3en
Yeah, right
S
14:46
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 15.06.2019 03:41:57
Hey Spl3en, just wanted to let you know that we are going to be enforcing more strict policy around not usable frontend/replication of smart contracts
S
14:47
Spl3en
That was Satursday. So they're still working on it.
B
14:49
BLOC8
I read that as "moving forward" but we are too busy to work back through the earlier applications 😀
S
14:53
Spl3en
I'll do that for them then.
14:54
I'm doing some pattern analysis between SCOREs right now, should be very easy to disqualify obvious cheaters
B
14:57
BLOC8
It was the patterns that first highlighted to me how big the problem is.
15:11
Serious question, what does blockchain provide to gaming community?
S
15:15
Spl3en
I detected 131/292 SCOREs that follow a common pattern.
15:16
In reply to this message
Many things, but let's talk about it later
B
15:16
BLOC8
Cool.
15:17
In reply to this message
I said to someone recently that it was more than half.
15:18
Presumably u r factoring in the rules that would always give a significant pattern?
15:20
SCORE code or SCORE TX's?
S
15:23
Spl3en
Code
B
15:24
BLOC8
TX patterns would surely take scammers to more than 50% then.
S
15:25
Spl3en
I don't think they will ban at a tx level
15:25
They're kinda protecting the scammers as they're happy with the number of transactions
B
15:26
BLOC8
What even tx betwen SCORE's?
S
15:26
Spl3en
Not forbidden
B
15:26
BLOC8
That is the clearest scam there is as teams don't know each other.
S
15:26
Spl3en
But that's something interesting
15:26
You're right
15:27
I'll see what the team answers, if I need more evidence I'll look at the txs
B
15:27
BLOC8
Not forbidden but identifies the scammers as clear as day.
S
15:27
Spl3en
Definitely
B
15:28
BLOC8
OK I could lend u some ICX to help u out but u would pay it back, these scammers haven't.
15:29
I'll let u get back to work now, thanks for your help.
S
15:30
Spl3en
Right, thanks for discussing this issue too
S
16:24
Spl3en
For transparency purposes, here are the messages I sent to some members of the team.
S
16:24
Spl3en
S
Spl3en 17.06.2019 14:27:07
According to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nc5jUI5q1P-VX3W36TpyC4G2ZjF3aSqLGFZwd50fd7k/edit#gid=0, I can see there are still many projects that should be banned for obvious multi accounts that aren't flagged as such
16:24
S
Spl3en 17.06.2019 15:23:09
Here's a report regarding SCORE cheaters. Please forward it to the team.

Here's a list of all SCORE files submitted to the challenge :
- https://pastebin.com/VuuC08VY

Here's a list of all SCORE files that contains the obvious "/Git/Project" pattern (must be banned ASAP) :
- https://pastebin.com/8Y9rmAKk

Here's a list of all SCORE files that follow a common implementation pattern: 5 or 6 methods, 2 externals methods, 0 payable method (should be monitored carefully, *very* suspectful)
- https://pastebin.com/3LwPG1jZ

Result:
- Out of 292 SCOREs submitted, 114 are suspectful
-> 48 SCOREs need to be banned ASAP
-> 66 SCOREs need to be reviewed carefully

Appendix :
- List of SCOREs sorted by Lines of Codes : https://pastebin.com/1VfMtK21 => 178/259 haven't more than 40 lines of code - how are they supposed to implement anything useful ?
16:24
S
Spl3en 17.06.2019 15:46:21
It took me about 20 minutes to find these cheaters and write this report. So far, the ICON team detected 23 SCOREs, and none of them are about the obvious "/git/project" files. Out of the 23 detected, 16 of them are in my "suspicious" list.
https://pastebin.com/SeMMe66e
16:24
S
Spl3en 17.06.2019 16:15:41
This is only a very basic detection at a source code level, and there are many proofs at a transaction level (same wallets sending transactions to shared SCOREs) that detect many other SCOREs too.
16:24
I must admit that the "/git/project" SCOREs are very concerning to me.
That basically means an organized team produced 50 SCOREs. Not 49 or 51, but exactly 50. Also, in a shared repository, as the "git" folder name suggests.
They are not simple cheaters - and that make these things very suspicious to me.
16:24
Would the ICON team accept to publish the website URL associated with the SCORE address so the community can participate to the event, but also find the cheaters ?
B
16:28
BLOC8
Excellent work. Yes scammers are organised but stupid.
S
17:06
Spl3en
Or they don't fear to be banned.
B
17:12
BLOC8
Inside job or a local University? ICON also has IP patterns etc. Shows weakness by the team.
S
17:49
Spl3en
I don't want to jump on conclusions, but I smell something fishy
17:49
If they ban them, it's all good, I don't mind anything else
B
17:55
BLOC8
Starting to look bad for ICON.
S
18:02
Spl3en
No, not really
18:02
It's nothing new that only few developers are interested in developing on ICON right now
18:03
Overall, the whole blockchain space lack of good developers willing to learn new langages and workspaces
18:04
With the TX Challenge, the ICON team wanted a stress test more than a developper contest
18:05
IMHO, they tried to advertise the stress test as a way to gather some developpers to ICON, and that worked a little bit
18:06
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the traffic is originated from them, directly or indirectly, and not from external developpers
B
18:06
BLOC8
It's not just what ICON wants. I know devs that are disappointed with them and will take their projects to other blockchains.
S
18:07
Spl3en
Really ? This isn't good at all then.
B
18:08
BLOC8
In reply to this message
OMG. When I first started trying to contact the elusive Ricky Dodds my q to him was why only 12 teams interested.
S
18:10
Spl3en
Yeah, that's no surprise that not much developpers are interested in ICON. Look at the ICON Dev channel, it's not very busy and there are only few people really active.
But I'm not pessimistic, the end goal of the TX Challenge is to stress test the network and it is arguably a success (minus the tracker issues but that's an interesting issue)
18:12
Let's wait and see what ICON answers to the reports
B
18:14
BLOC8
OK
S
18:16
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 11.06.2019 22:09:06
Hey Spl3en, so I talked to Korea team about your concerns, and it seems while they understand your concerns, it seems like one of the key objectives was to really stress test our network - we don't like the fact that a lot of tx seem to be spam tx, but we feel that it is achieving one of our key objectives here. We were also aware that some spam tx may happen to get tx reward, but didn't expect this much of spam tx unfortunately. Also to encourage developers who are building meanigful services on ICON, we do reserve 50K ICX for 6 final winners, which is at least 5X more reward than pure tx reward, so we would also like to incentive builders to build meaningful services on ICON. Hopefully, we will have more developer focused events happening going forward, and since we have stress tested our network with tx challenge, we feel that future events will be a lot more dedicated towards building meaningful services on ICON.
S
18:16
Spl3en
One of the messages sent by Daeki last week about that issue - that sums up pretty well their position
B
18:20
BLOC8
50K is far less than 300K taken by 1 person.
18:29
DL seems to struggle with basic maths.
S
18:37
Spl3en
Not going to happen
18:37
The winners are selected according to other criterias than the transactions count
S
18:38
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 11.06.2019 23:13:21
Judges, we are finalizing and evaluation criteria will be public soon as well, but it will most likely be a combination of creativity + utility + use of blockchain + popularity + usability
S
18:42
Spl3en
That's also what the announcement says
18:43
The rewards from the transactions rewards are supposed to be capped to 10k ICX per team if their SCORE runs during the whole contest
18:44
It's not too late to monitor and prevent the cheaters from earning most of the rewards
B
18:47
BLOC8
You and DL r missing the point. I am a scammer running half the SCORE's so I get 300K ICX. You have a great app and get 50K ICX as a "winner" but the scammer is the real winner.
S
18:51
Spl3en
Ah, right
18:51
Yeah, if a single scammer succeeds to run 30x SCOREs during the whole challenge, then that's right
18:52
But I agree with you and I already reported it to the team, that it was easier to be a scammer than a developper with this challenge
18:52
I'm not going to make their life so easy though :)
B
18:53
BLOC8
That is why I published the biggest scam TX.
18:54
We have both done enough to make ICON aware of the issue and it's now up to them.
S
18:54
Spl3en
Yup
B
18:56
BLOC8
I will do nothing more until I see the ICX transfers tomorrow.
S
18:57
Spl3en
Have you got the transaction hash from the previous transaction rewards from last week ? I'd like to monitor who have been rewarded and who have not
B
18:59
BLOC8
I have a large proportion and I'll dig them out for you later.
S
19:00
Spl3en
Right, thanks
19:01
Why telling me that though?
B
19:02
BLOC8
Telling you what? I have the hashes not the ICX.
S
19:03
Spl3en
Right I was confused with the wording, I'm not aware of how the rewards have been distributed so far as I'm not participating
B
19:06
BLOC8
Hashes are for 200 ICX as each day is separate. Think they all came from 1 or 2 ICON addresses. Not at my PC. You still think I'm a scammer. BLOC8 and Spl3en could have been an awesome team.
S
19:07
Spl3en
Better have 2 winning good teams that 1 awesome team imho
19:10
And yeah that's right, I'm still suspicious towards you 😊 I'm still waiting for your contribution to the ICON ecosystem. I would have loved seeing something else than an IRC2 token for your participation to the contest to be honest
B
19:10
BLOC8
BLOC8 rushed their SCORE because we were worried we would miss the 250 team cut off. Turns out we were first to submit and be rejected. Ultimately being one of the twelve teams at the start of the reward phase.
S
19:11
Spl3en
That's a shame
19:11
You can still update your SCORE though
19:12
That being said, I appreciate a lot your help in the ICON Dev channel and P-Rep channel 👍
B
19:12
BLOC8
We know but ICON were useless when they reviewed us and we will not update the SCORE during the challenge.
S
19:12
Spl3en
What do you mean, ICON were useless when they reviewed you ?
19:12
What were you expecting ?
B
19:14
BLOC8
Personally I was up all night on final review day. ICON "not good enough, not valid, ah ok we understand now yes accepted.
19:15
We have pages that are only visible to registered users and we had to expose them for ICON to understand the system.
S
19:16
Spl3en
I see
B
19:16
BLOC8
We are more interested in saving lives than improving the ICON ecosystem.
S
19:16
Spl3en
That's a bit disappointing, I agree, considering how easy they seem to accept the cheaters
19:16
In reply to this message
Good point - I'm biaised as a developer :)
B
19:17
BLOC8
In reply to this message
Precisely.
19:17
In reply to this message
That's why we wanted you on our team.
19:19
You should apply on the BLOC8 site and then you can see the full KISS system.
19:23
In reply to this message
We have been helping a few teams from dev group for much of the day so we are doing our bit. Also we are not huge bag holders and therefore say it as we see it.
S
19:31
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Right, I will.
B
19:40
BLOC8
You should have used a valid hx?
S
19:41
Spl3en
That wouldn't make much sense as I'm not willing to use them
19:42
I can see your work at https://transfer.bloc8.app/ and https://protect.bloc8.app/ though
B
19:44
BLOC8
Without a valid hx you don't get to see your wallet being topped up automatically. We are not going to impress a coder of your ability though.
S
19:44
Spl3en
It's totally fine, I can see your work without using it
19:45
I can see you've been helped a lot by the ICON dice and the ICONex Connect code :)
B
19:46
BLOC8
We have one more secret feature but we are saving that for now.
S
19:46
Spl3en
That's nice 👍
B
19:46
BLOC8
In reply to this message
Very much so.
S
19:46
Spl3en
I like secret features 😊
B
19:46
BLOC8
It will not impress you.
S
19:48
Spl3en
It's fine, as long as it has usefulness
B
19:48
BLOC8
We were also contacted by a crypto news site recently and they liked the BLOC8 initiative. Article should be published soon.
19:49
It will help our exposure but it's not crypto geeks that we are looking to help.
S
19:50
Spl3en
Yeah, definitely
19:50
By the way, https://protect.bloc8.app/, sending a private key over the network is definitely not something you should do
19:51
The ICON JS SDK allows you to sign and send transactions locally
B
19:54
BLOC8
PK is clearly covered in our Q&A. Our secret also covers this area. Life is more important than losing a few BLOC8 tokens. Think real world vulnerable individuals that don't have latest smartphones and PC's. Think internet cafe and friends phone / PC.
S
19:55
Spl3en
Ah that's right, my bad
19:55
That could still be done from a private key without sending it over the network though
B
19:57
BLOC8
We are not a team the size of ICON but neither are we the single individual you think we are 😃 we can only do so much.
19:58
We spend quite a bit of time contacting the police, government and vulnerable groups.
S
19:59
Spl3en
I'm only pointing out a potential security issue. Private keys shouldn't be transfered over the network, you should use the private key to sign the transaction on the browser-side, then broadcast the signed transaction to the network
20:00
That way, you don't compromise anything regarding confidentiality of the private key
20:01
Life is more important than losing few BLOC8 tokens, right. But the purpose of using a blockchain is only valid if you use it correctly, otherwise there is no interest in using a blockchain
B
20:03
BLOC8
At some stage we will add browser side PK but it's not a priority for us at the moment. Android 4.0 support for chrome extension took priority.
S
20:05
Spl3en
Alright. Keep up the good work, if you need any technical help, please let me know. I may not be in the team, but I can still help
B
20:06
BLOC8
Appreciate that.
B
20:27
BLOC8
S
20:28
Spl3en
Great, thanks, I'll try to find out interesting things
18 June 2019
S
00:46
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 18.06.2019 00:38:28
Hey Spl3en, thanks for reaching out!
00:46
Regarding "/Git/Project" pattern submission
00:46
I believe we have reached out to all the submissions, but I believe everyone has responded with different tone/content describing that it was actually an informal blockchain club members doing the project together
00:46
At which point, it is hard to determin if they are same people - since everyone had different e-mail address as well. Let me know if you have a good idea in determining how to figure out whether they are same people
S
01:24
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 18.06.2019 00:41:14
In regards to "a common implementation pattern:5 or 6 methods, 2 externals methods, 0 payable method "(should be monitored carefully, *very* suspectful) - can you elaborate more about why you find them susicious?
01:24
I think the dashboard, which has the website URL and the SCORE address should go live anytime soon
01:24
and overall, I think we will be reaching out to all the submissions without reasonable front end to continue to update their frontend - otherwise, their tx reward may not be distributed
01:24
With new submissions, I think you can see that the standard has gone up and a lot more of them are getting rejected
S
02:45
Spl3en
I won't forward you my messages to Daeki (TLDR: this is bullshit, I'm also going to create a "blockchain club"), here's the follow up of his answers
S
02:45
Spl3en
DL
Daeki Lee 18.06.2019 02:37:41
Spl3en, I agree and I think that is why we were suspicious, which led to reaching out to them personally. However, we are thinking of launching educational program such as https://mlh.io/ to introduce workshops on how to build on ICON and most of these workshops will entail having an instructoe leading a set of students to follow them exactly step by step, so while the chance is very slim, I would say that there is a possibility that what they are saying may be true
02:45
I think we are all open ears and want to try different approaches to verify if they are truly duplicates - I think the git folder names are pretty good evidence, but since we didn't do KYC with the submission, there isn't quite a good way to exactly verify, so if you have any good ideas, please do let us know.
02:45
I definitely don't want this to be happening and we are doing everything possible to make things better and are open to suggestions, but we need more constructive feedback on how to verify they are duplicates.
02:45
I think we are trying to warn those with poor front end that they may not be getting tx reward in the future
02:45
In regards to "a common implementation pattern:5 or 6 methods, 2 externals methods, 0 payable method "(should be monitored carefully, *very* suspectful) - can you elaborate more about why you find them susicious? I'm assuming this is different from 50 duplicates situation?
02:45
Overall, we are trying hard to make it as fair as possible 🙁 but i think it is harder than we imagnined without doing KYC with each submission
02:45
maybe something we will consider for our next challenge
S
02:45
Spl3en
So you know everything.
B
03:37
BLOC8
Thanks for the update.
03:46
I suspected scammers would say "blockchain club" or similar and that is why I mentioned University yesterday.
B
04:38
BLOC8
Skipping KYC was a big mistake for a competition that was obviously going to be gamed.
B
10:38
BLOC8
I have found some of "50" with the same "\Git\Project" path but do you have the list available.
B
11:08
BLOC8
Thanks
B
13:52
BLOC8
At 9.45 am Seoul time today ICON sent out a test email which at the time I thought was a P-Rep test. Looking at the challenge spreadsheet it's now obvious they are checking for scammers via email test. Bit too late but email reads:
13:53
"This message was sent to confirm that your mail is working properly.

You do not need to reply."
S
14:12
Spl3en
👍 Good to know!
B
14:13
BLOC8
Email address needs to match domain address.
14:21
Good news, another email:
14:21
Greeting from the ICON Team.

"We notice that ICON TX reward payment will be delayed. Due to rapid increase transaction, the verification process is longer than we expected.
As a result, TX and registration reward will be paid 19 June (KST).

We apology for the delay and will pay it ASAP

Thanks for your dedication and patience.

Hyperconnect the World
ICON Team"
S
15:12
Spl3en
Yeah, they're doing some checks.
15:14
It amazes me how much time it took them to realize handing out free ICX to random people who spam the network may not be the best idea without a strict verification process, after having spending 50%+ of the transaction rewards.
B
15:16
BLOC8
Even a basic verification would have worked, they did nothing. Also looking at the sites the should not be included in the challenge as they do not include details of how the SCORE works. ICON were quite funny with us about this requirement.
S
15:16
Spl3en
Yeah... WTF.
B
15:18
BLOC8
I asked DL about docker via DM and he said he didn't know who is responsible for docker in ICON. He couldn't be bothered to go find out either. Retard.
S
15:19
Spl3en
I would argue he has no obligation to answer you, and may have instructions to prevent people from contacting the devs directly
15:20
I have some contacts with the dev team but that is something I use with a lot of parsimony. They're not a dev support team
15:21
What kind of question would you have ?
15:21
I know they're definitely not interested in providing support on their docker, as they consider them as not official
B
15:24
BLOC8
It's not support, it's an update. We have sent the 3 GitHub pull requests to add BLOC8 token to Android, iOS and Chrome extension. They need to update tracker docker and maybe others to include our token. Tracker should have url link to our site like other tokens.
15:25
I rarely use docker so I don't know if they have a "pull" feature.
S
15:25
Spl3en
In reply to this message
For the record, IGA waited for multiple months to add their token in some repositories - and it's still not added on iconex chrome : https://github.com/icon-project/iconex_chrome_extension/pull/16
15:25
There is no official policy that says ICON is in the obligation to add any token AFAIK.
15:26
I think it's in your responsability to provide a manual how to add a custom token on ICONex instead
B
15:27
BLOC8
It's just common decency and I have tokens listed with big teams like Binance Trust.
15:27
In reply to this message
Not so.
S
15:28
Spl3en
The ICON team do things in their own way apparently
15:28
I can see your token listed here https://tracker.icon.foundation/tokens
B
15:29
BLOC8
But no url to site like some tokens.
S
15:29
Spl3en
Which one ?
15:29
Oh right I see
B
15:30
BLOC8
More I see more I worry about ICON.
S
15:30
Spl3en
"Support & request to add the token homepage URLtracker@icon.foundation"
15:30
That's all you can do AFAIK
B
15:30
BLOC8
Thanks.
S
15:31
Spl3en
Everything is definitely not perfectly handled
15:31
But they hear the feedback and take note generally, as long as it is reasonable
B
15:32
BLOC8
Some of this is basic stuff.
S
15:32
Spl3en
That depends of the point of view
B
15:42
BLOC8
URLtracker@icon.foundation bouncing back with account does not exist.
S
15:42
Spl3en
Sorry, my copy/paste was wrong : tracker@icon.foundation
19 June 2019
B
08:24
BLOC8
On with DL at the moment about the scammer. Has DL contact you in the last 24 hours? He is asking me for proof of the scam by the "blockchain club". I have asked for instructors details but DL is worried about privacy issues. They gave up their right to privacy when the used a GitHub rep to submit 50 apps. Also told him if he is worried about privacy just tell the scammer that the site(s) have been reviewed and that basically they are trash. Any other ideas to out the scammer? Don't suppose whois will give any details for the domains.
B
08:44
BLOC8
Notice scammer used https://www.freenom.com/en/index.html?lang=en to register all the domains even though they are supposed to be .tk .ml and .ga
S
10:52
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Yeah I have gave up finding similarities in the dApp infrastructure or code as it doesn't seem to convince them.
I have asked them to browse the mainnet endpoint logs and find out what IPs are querying the suspected SCOREs. I bet the scammer uses a single IP for querying all his contracts millions of times.
10:54
I want the ICON team to admit that even if these "50 people" supposedly exist, they are acting as a team, and not individuals, and should receive the reward only once
B
11:05
BLOC8
I also told him the group should be considered a single entity i.e. 1 application permitted.
B
11:25
BLOC8
In reply to this message
113 / 114 times.
B
13:32
BLOC8
ICON has paid the rewards in the last hour. Quick glance suggests scammers were paid in full. Around 250K ICX rewards in total for all teams for the 7 days ending last Sunday.
13:45
Checked a few addresses and the scammer didn't send tx yesterday. That is because he is running so many SCORE's and ICON were a day late topping him up. Anyone running a single SCORE can easily pick up enough ICX for an extra day before they receive their reward. Disgusting.
20 June 2019
B
07:16
BLOC8
In reply to this message
THIS is the shocking rumour that is circulating. DL sent me lots of messages last night and I made him aware of the rumours. He thinks it is "very rude" that devs are suggesting ICON is involved in the scam without any evidence. Several devs sent me DM's asking for the details of the rumour. My answer to all of them was "Sorry we can't elaborate at this stage". However the evidence is mounting that ICON is involved in the scam. More details to follow when we have gathered more evidence and we will then convey our findings to the community.
S
11:06
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Huh, it is only a hypothesis, right? Please don't go too much into witch hunting mode. You can find any evidence backing your theory if you don't focus on reality, that's how flat earther are born.
I think the reality is there is no evidence mounting, it's only your feelings.
B
11:08
BLOC8
Evidence will be provided to the community and they will be the judge.
S
11:08
Spl3en
But it is indeed very rude to accuse someone without any proof.
B
11:09
BLOC8
It's not rude to convey what others are saying about you.
S
11:09
Spl3en
In reply to this message
I'm really unsure how you are going to find any evidence backing up that theory
B
11:10
BLOC8
Enough said.
S
11:10
Spl3en
?
B
11:10
BLOC8
We are waiting for feedback from DL.
S
11:11
Spl3en
About what? the KYC?
B
11:12
BLOC8
The scam in general.
S
11:16
Spl3en
Right
B
13:52
BLOC8
Part of an email to Ricky Dodds in a reply to an email he sent me, dated 9 June before ANY tx rewards were paid out. "In recent days the team count has gone over 90. However from our basic blockchain forensic investigation it appears some teams have applied numerous times. This is clearly against the rules and we urge ICON to scrutinise the applications and blockchain activity before awarding any ICX tokens to teams that need to be disqualified."
13:54
We have sent the email extract to DL and asked him to contact us. The decent thing now is for ICON to add approx 300K to the TX part of the challenge. Either for their negligence or something far worse. I know you are close to ICON but we value your thoughts on the above proposal.
S
14:01
Spl3en
In reply to this message
No, there is absolutely no point in adding any more rewards to the tx challenge, considering how much it is flawed. That would only make things worse
14:02
The challenge structure hasn't been designed carefully enough - they took note and will improve the next challenges to prevent this from happening
B
14:07
BLOC8
Thanks for your feedback but BLOC8 disagrees. We know your personal goal is a 50K prize, our is not and we have been robbed.
S
14:11
Spl3en
Robbed ? ICON don't owe you anything
14:11
I mean, I know it impacts your reward but you should already be grateful to earn that much without much efforts
14:13
Getting paid thousands of ICX for flooding a SCORE contract is generous enough in my opinion. In my opinion, such reward is absurd
14:13
(that's why I don't participate to such "challenge" and prefer the real one)
14:16
And also, this is the game. I really hate the cheaters but they've played the challenge. You could have cheated too, but you didn't. I believe cheating is also part of the game, the issue is the rules, not the cheaters. If you don't want cheaters anymore, you need to stop the challenge, because the challenge itself is flawed, not ICON.
S
14:40
Spl3en
Also, just my opinion, but that would make your points more credible and less formal if you referenced yourself as "I" instead of "Bloc8". That sounds like craig wright referencing to himself as Satoshi, that sounds fake and weird. Just my 2 cents
B
15:14
BLOC8
BLOC8 is in this as a team. I dispute your comments and it was a "TX Challenge" we took part in. Hence we are processing TX. We are never going to agree on this so we don't need to discuss this further but again thanks for your thoughts.
S
18:38
Spl3en
Oh well Ruben, as you please. I still haven't seen anyone else than you claiming being part of the bloc8 team, nor bloc8 showing any activity from multiple sources. So I'll keep referencing bloc8 as a single person if you don't mind.
18:39
Anyway, at least we share a common goal about catching the cheaters, that's something good
B
18:46
BLOC8
You are so wrong man.
18:48
When we publish our findings we will mention your insistence that we are one person.
18:50
You must be new to crypto if you think it's wise to make it easy to be attacked by nut jobs and hackers. MY name is not Ruben. Yes Ruben is a member of BLOC8.
18:52
I find it very offensive actually and thought you were better than that.
S
19:43
Spl3en
How my insistence about that is even slightly related to anything related to "your findings" about the tx challenge ?*
19:44
Whatever your name man, I don't care what persona you're building, I'm just saying I've been talking to only one person since the begginning of our whole conversation
19:45
So that would be nice we could have a discussion from me to you, and not from me to some "team" that I don't even know who they are and what they do
19:46
I mean otherwise, I'm going to ask you to call me "ICONation" from now
19:47
that doesn't make any sense and it's just confusing for everybody
B
19:47
BLOC8
Repeat after me BLOC8 is not a one man band.
S
19:48
Spl3en
Why is that such an important thing to you ? Why do you care so much ?
19:49
Is my opinion so valuable to you ? I'm only saying that my current situation with bloc8 is a single person so far. That's all I know, and I'm not going to claim something I don't know
B
19:50
BLOC8
In reply to this message
This.
S
19:50
Spl3en
I may be wrong - and it's fine if it is, I'll be proven wrong
B
19:51
BLOC8
Until you acknowledge you are wrong we are done.
S
19:51
Spl3en
Until then, I'm just saying other people from bloc8 looks irrelevant to me as I don't have any clue of their existence
19:52
Bloc8 is not a one man band - happy ? Now, can we stop refering to ourselves as groups and discuss from person to person ?
19:53
As we've not involved anyone else of our respective groups in our discussion so far?
B
19:53
BLOC8
I know you don't think that but we can be one to one.
S
19:54
Spl3en
Yeah then, that would be great if you could be more explicit when saying things such as "bloc8 thinks", as it doesn't give me any information - bloc8 as a team isn't something I know
19:55
My point is, if that's something I feel, you can bet that it is something other feels too. I'm just trying to help, if you don't care, then alright
B
19:55
BLOC8
I had a life as an editor and I, I, I is very vulgar.
S
19:56
Spl3en
Right. It's not vulgar to me, so please use I
B
19:58
BLOC8
But do remember this has been discussed with Ruben so it's we but we will use the term I to please you.
S
19:59
Spl3en
Right
B
19:59
BLOC8
In reply to this message
I I I think we have different priorities.
S
19:59
Spl3en
I would feel more comfortable with knowing who I talk with, Ruben or you, but ok
20:00
In reply to this message
Oh, right.
B
20:00
BLOC8
Ruben has his own social media accounts as do I.
20:01
As I wrote in the dev tg I will publish the findings and let the community decide who the scammer is.
S
20:02
Spl3en
Sure, that should be interesting
B
20:03
BLOC8
Your ties to icon suggest it's not something you would want to do. If you remember when we first made contact I told you there were too many scammers in crypto (and you said I was a scammer).
20:04
I come from real finance where things are generally done professionally, fiat scam excluded.
S
20:05
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Why isn't it something I wouldn't want ? If your proofs are solid, then please inform us
20:05
I'm definitely not supporting any scammy attitude
20:06
I can definitely understand lake of vision regarding cheating in competition though.
20:07
I've participated in many challenges - computer security is a competition field. That shit happens, because organizing a competition may not be as easy as it seems to be
20:07
And no, I'm not a noob in crypto :)
B
20:08
BLOC8
I know you are not new to crypto. You have visited some of the s3 sites, right.
S
20:10
Spl3en
What I'm trying to tell you is, mistakes can happen - constructive feedback is very valuable in that case, let's say to ICON what they could have done better. If you find any proof that shows clearly a scam coming from the ICON team directly, please publish it. But so far, I personally haven't found anything tangible that supports this theory
20:11
That is something possible - I'm not denying it - but let's consider the other possibilities too
B
20:11
BLOC8
S3 sites?
S
20:12
Spl3en
The amazon websites ? What's the matter ?
B
20:12
BLOC8
Ok and when people build sites they go through a similar process each time, right.
S
20:13
Spl3en
I don't think that, but what's your point please ?
B
20:14
BLOC8
scammer s3's didn't map http to the correct domains, right?
S
20:14
Spl3en
I'm not sure what you mean
B
20:15
BLOC8
Do you ever do web design.
S
20:15
Spl3en
Yeah, I do occasionally
B
20:16
BLOC8
So you get aws and then set up http and https to point from http://givemeicxmoney.s3-website.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com to http://givemeicxmoney.ml right?
S
20:17
Spl3en
Ah, so that's what you were refering to about .ml domains etc
20:18
I haven't looked at DNS records at all
B
20:18
BLOC8
But who else uses these s3's?
S
20:18
Spl3en
But I'm not seeing anything wrong with using the amazon s3 url
20:18
Who else ? Millions of people ?
B
20:18
BLOC8
Forget ml ga etc not relevant.
S
20:19
Spl3en
Amazon S3 looks quite generic to me
B
20:20
BLOC8
I can see this is going to be painful. How often have you seen a url not set up as https and with all this northeast stuff in the domain?
20:21
Frequently ?
20:22
What's your point please ?
S
20:23
Spl3en
Ah, I see
B
20:24
BLOC8
I know you will say it's not proof. It's a list of things.
20:24
Who uses GitHub
20:24
Who wants lost of tx?
20:25
Why so few teams joined tx and then suddenly an explosion.
20:25
Why scams site approved by icon
S
20:25
Spl3en
I agree with that
20:25
But let's not jump to conclusions
B
20:26
BLOC8
Real sites had problems getting listed but not the ones created by ICON.
S
20:26
Spl3en
I don't see any of it as an evidence - only something that profits both to cheaters and ICON
B
20:26
BLOC8
Yes let's jump to conclusions.
S
20:26
Spl3en
That's how injustices are made
B
20:26
BLOC8
In reply to this message
This evidence too.
S
20:27
Spl3en
Yeah, that's a theory I hate, but so far I didn't find anything to support that theory
20:28
I don't see how it is an evidence
B
20:28
BLOC8
It's case building and we will publish as is.
S
20:28
Spl3en
Okay 😊 That's funny
20:29
Just a question - do you know what is my relation with ICON ?
B
20:29
BLOC8
You said you have no relation with them.
S
20:30
Spl3en
Yes, indeed. How a feeling from a community member is related to the "case building" exactly ?
B
20:31
BLOC8
Because you are the best regarded individual in the community.
S
20:32
Spl3en
That's your opinion
20:32
What case building are you doing exactly ?
20:34
Honestly, it looks like you're trying to do something I don't like - such as doing "building case" about my opinion and write some narrative around it, whereas the only thing I said was I had suspicions about the ICON team being involved in the cheating - which is legitimate if you look at what happened, as all of this is suspcious, we agree here.
But I'm not accusing ICON of actually doing it
20:35
I just said it was a possibility that I can't deny - I share these concern with whoever want to hear it, including with ICON too
20:36
Is that a satisfying answer to your case building ?
B
20:40
BLOC8
We will be asking ICON to hand over their server logs to an independent 3rd party etc. It's up to them if they want to play ball.
S
20:40
Spl3en
I already know their answer, and you know it too
20:41
As a company, you cannot let any people from the Internet accusing you from troubling your business, that's common sense
20:45
I'm kinda sad this issue is going to end in a conspirationist reddit post
20:47
The only thing that will happen is ICON will be scared of doing other challenges, and in the end nobody will learn anything from this situation
B
20:47
BLOC8
Me too, shame ICON were useless and ignored me / us, whatever. Oh yes that's another item on the list. Ignore him as it's our own scam.
S
20:48
Spl3en
That's something that wouldn't happen if you 1) ask properly, 2) give them time to answer
20:49
They haven't ignored me at all personally, so I guess your argument here is not valid
B
20:49
BLOC8
9th June!!!!
S
20:50
Spl3en
Right, so I think we can wait for more
20:50
Some postmortem is definitely needed
B
20:51
BLOC8
We will let the community know when the article is published.
S
20:51
Spl3en
This is entirely your right, I'm just saying it won't do anything good
20:52
And I'm not protecting ICON - I'm saying objectively, the situation won't go anywhere
B
20:52
BLOC8
It's a Brits sense of fair play and doing the right thing. You wouldn't understand.
S
20:53
Spl3en
The situation could be handled with a report of what went wrong and how that could have been solved
20:53
Let people do their own conclusions
20:53
And let space for ICON to answer too
20:53
That's how you could make the situation better
B
20:54
BLOC8
IMHO ICON were disrespectful to the community and we gave them a chance to remedy the situation. They were not the least bit interested. This is their garage project and don't have to answer to anyone.
S
20:58
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Okay. It is your opinion. I'm pretty sure people with more insight at ICON about what actually happened have a different one
B
20:58
BLOC8
In reply to this message
You should be an editor as that is the form it will take. It went like this....... This is our evidence .....
S
20:59
Spl3en
Sorry but I feel like your evidence are going to be oriented towards blaming ICON, and not relating the facts
21:00
I mean, I'm unsure if it will be objective
B
21:00
BLOC8
That's a good editors job.
21:01
You were dead against doing the decent thing and adding 250K ICX back into the pot. If you want to ask them to reconsider that's up to you.
S
21:02
Spl3en
Then please do - I 100% support such report with constructive criticism, as I think both ICON and us will admit things could have been handled more properly.
21:02
In reply to this message
Dead against the current situation
21:03
If we discuss the conditions of the challenge, such as passing a strict and conform KYC for everybody and forbid generated transactions, then I'd love your suggestion
21:04
But in the current conditions, adding 250k would only give more ICX to the cheaters
B
21:04
BLOC8
Did you check the logs for today?
S
21:04
Spl3en
The logs? Probably not
B
21:05
BLOC8
TX
21:06
Scammers (ICON for me) didn't send tx against most of the SCORE's today. It's bloody simple the sites are shite, we suspect you have multiple SCORE's, you are banned and obviously will not get any ICX next week.
S
21:09
Spl3en
It sounds logical to me that scammers (ICON or not) stopped sending tx after getting banned? What am I not understanding please?
B
21:10
BLOC8
Good coder, no common sense. You say adding 250K doesn't help. Cheaters are removed and you are wrong that sites like BLOC8 are scam sites. It is a tx challenge.
S
21:13
Spl3en
But what prevents cheaters from coming back ?
B
21:14
BLOC8
KYC
S
21:14
Spl3en
Then you agree with me that the conditions of the challenge needs to be revisited
21:16
In reply to this message
I didn't say you were scam sites - I said you were generating transactions - you basically denied it, as your 200k fans from facebook are subscribing everyday. That's all the suspicion I have about you, otherwise I appreciate your participation to the TX challenge
21:17
I also admitted that I was under the wrong assumption that generated transactions weren't allowed
21:17
Or maybe that's Ruben I said that to? I don't know
B
21:18
BLOC8
Good now you now what the challenge was. ICON started KYC a few days ago when they realised this was going to blow up. Do you not follow the tx spreahseet?
21:19
That is why 250K was a simple fix to a very bad situation all of ICON's making which ever way you look at it.
S
21:20
Spl3en
I don't know if KYC is enforced for everybody, or only for people suspected of cheating
B
21:20
BLOC8
Email checks are done for everyone even our team that was approved weeks ago. I told you that.
S
21:21
Spl3en
I didn't understand that, I remember the mail you received but I was under the impression that only cheater team was checked
21:21
That's great then
B
21:22
BLOC8
So do you want to ask them to spend 2 minutes thinking about the 250K?
21:22
I don't care any more.
S
21:22
Spl3en
I have an interesting idea
21:22
Let's add 250k to the final reward!
21:22
Of course you won't agree.
B
21:23
BLOC8
As I said you are stupid.
S
21:23
Spl3en
I'm just trying to highlight your biases
B
21:23
BLOC8
YOU have the bias coder man.
21:24
ICON gave away tx ICX not final award ICX.
21:24
Yes or no?
21:25
In reply to this message
This.
S
21:27
Spl3en
Yes, but that would also make sense rewarding the participants according to their efforts - we all have biaises
21:27
As I said though, the final reward is great but not my main motivation. I'm not entirely here for the money
B
21:28
BLOC8
No need for any changes, just run the bloody challenge correctly and ack your stupdity by adding 250K ICX.
21:29
I know you are not here for the money but I was deeply offended by your "join the scammers" remark. Get real.
21:30
Yes or no, do you want to ask them, your choice?
S
21:33
Spl3en
In reply to this message
Sorry then, that was poorly worded I agree. I shouldn't have said that. For your understanding, I come from a field where cheating may be allowed in competition, as cheating should only be possible in exploitable situations - exploiting is the whole point of computer security competitions. But that isn't fair here and I didn't realize it could be offensive
21:34
In reply to this message
Yes I will, but I don't see the point as you've already did it
21:35
I'm not supporting this decision, so I'm not personally going to voice my opinion about such request - I will definitely forward your request if you think they ignore you though
B
21:36
BLOC8
Doesn't matter don't ask them they had their chance. Thanks for everything.
S
21:39
Spl3en
And you had your chance to make the whole situation better too. Constructive feedback and proper communication should be the way, not aggressive accusations and threats. Such thing should be the last resort, and I think there's plenty of other solutions in order to make everybody satisfied with the situation
21:40
If you want to start some drama, please do, but you're only going to end a better situation for you too. You have that chance and you don't take it too
B
21:42
BLOC8
We told them some devs think they are the scammers. Brtis say it as it is no bullshit.
21:42
We didn't make any threats.
21:44
I will let you have the final word here but I know what I will publish.
S
21:56
Spl3en
"will" ? You're already posting about our discussion here anyway, but please go on
21:57
In reply to this message
Okay, it's up to you. Good luck