It's interesting what you can find on the blockchain when you're just poking around.
Accidental Transfer
@minorityreport, an account that was created back in August of 2016, recently received 137,467.872 STEEM from @ashleigh, an account that was created through proof-of-work mining (back when that was still a possibility) in March of 2016.
Until the transfer, @minorityreport appeared to be powering down the 5 STEEM that was originally granted to the account in August.
Now, after some negotiation, it seems that the account has changed hands.
A New Account Enters The Fray
In this back and forth we see that a new account, @alpha, has now gotten involved, implying that the two accounts are connected.
Let's take a look at their humble beginnings. These accounts are very similar to each other:
Both of these accounts started in late-March, and on the exact same day selected @blocktrades as a proxy. While they may or may not be connected to @blocktrades, @ashleigh is included in @blocktrades withdrawal path. It seems, at a bare minimum, that @alpha and @ashleigh do share the same owner as they are interconnected, along with several other accounts, including: @aguilar, @kevphanis, @bavihm, @darah, @augusta, @aftergut, @adrian, @chana, @graavor, and @abdul.
The Rabbit Hole Deepens
This tangled web gets a little more interesting when you see that most of the accounts mentioned above have selected @minority-report (not to be confused with @minorityreport) as a proxy. In fact, @minority-report is a proxy for 25 accounts with a total of 3 posts between them. @minority-report has approved only two witnesses: @gtg and @blocktrades.
I will be researching this even deeper, as it seems (disclaimer: I don't know for certain) that @blocktrades has control of several accounts that are in turn in control of several other accounts that all have voted for @blocktrades as a witness. I don't know what connection @gtg has, as I haven't gone down that rabbit hole just yet, but I will be looking into that in more depth soon.
All of these accounts seem to constantly be moving funds between @poloniex, @bittrex, @openledger, and each other, so it is easy to see how @ashleigh might have sent funds to the wrong @minorityreport. Luckily for @minorityreport, that mistake seems to have turned into a more than $11,000 windfall.
Interested to hear community thoughts on this, and happy to hear any corrections if I have wrongly made assumptions.
Nothing to see here Jared...
Blocktrades operates an exchange, so many transfers are par for the course.
Early miners will all have many accounts because that is what was required to mine effectively in the early mining phase. Blocktrades was also an early miner.
We don't need any witch-hunts where none are required...
The witch-hunt genre is out of vogue and will only get you powerful enemies.
People should think twice before writing these types of posts that create suspicions where none is required simply out of ignorance.
Better still just make contact with the persons concerned and find out some facts before potentially calling out the crowds with torches and pitchforks.
I'm sure you mean well but this type of post is just going to get people inflamed.
Self upvoted purely for visibility.
That makes sense. That's why I was careful not to make any allegations. I wasnt so much concerned with the multiple accounts (I have a couple myself) as I was the implications of a witness using those accounts to pad their vote. It seems to me that a witness should be held to a higher standard (and thus a higher level of scrutiny). I agree that it seems there is not anything to this beyond an interesting mishap, but as for making powerful enemies, that shouldn't be a factor when we question some of the practices of our witnesses.
Everyone seems happy that money got back, more or less, to where it was supposed to be.
I'm more interested in what it might mean to have this large group of linked accounts, sending this much money back and forth. Always up for a good conspiracy theory.
STEEM On !!
Dave
Yes, the money being returned isn't nearly as interesting as the layer of accounts behind the mistake.
Let us know what you find in that regard
reading the comments, there is more attention being paid to the mistaken funds sent and recovered than the rabbit hole , which tells me that most don't realize how blockchain technology can make astounding revelations, the tech goes over the heads of so many
Yes, I was hoping to get some feedback from some of the users that have been around longer and understand the implications. What happens on the blockchain never goes away. It creates the ultimate public record
Which I should add also functions to keep publicly-elected witnesses accountable.
Also, I realize I am bombarding you with replies, but don't forget to upvote/resteem if you like the post! Thanks for reading!
Steemit seems to have a very strict "one account per user" stance, to avoid a plethora of shady techniques that could disrupt the balance and legitimacy of this entire concept. If you uncover something more tangible, I hope there is a way to rectify it, for the sake of the platform.
Not necessarily, the issue at hand is more that many of these accounts appear to be shell accounts that pad witness votes. More than one account is pretty common around here.
Wow, ok, thanks for the explanation. That is still a valid cause for concern! In other news, I attempted to create a secondary account that wouldn't be connected to my personal name for some other concepts I have in my head... I was unable to complete account creation after being approved and got the following error:
I have no abusive intentions. Is there a way around this?
The abuse referenced is moreso because of the STEEM that is given to each new account. Currently Steemit pays the cost, so this is to prevent users from creating new accounts just to game the system and take the STEEM. The ethical way to do this is to create an account and pay the creation fee yourself (currently 6 STEEM). I wrote a post on it. You can find that here.
Thanks for the info! Great post, as well.
Great to hear that the person who @ashleigh sent it to is willing to send it back. ;) Kudos to @minorityreport :D
Yes, it seems like the STEEM is going to end up back with its original owner
That's really a sign of relief. It's good to see that there are still people who are honest. <3
This post received a 1.1% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @jaredcwillis! For more information, click here!
Very suspect .. hmmm
This is deep.
It makes me want to know what priviledges and responsibilities witnesses have. I am curious to know how controlling multiple accounts on STEEMIT does more than create control of more "votes". Shiftng tokens between exchanges seems like possible arbitrage; no crime in that. Thank you for
sharing and continuing to share your findings, @jaredcwillis.
Peace and love.
Yes, I don't think the shifting tokens is anything more than trading or redistributing SP, but that is probably what led to the mistake. Thanks for reading!
Interesting finding. Nice research.
It would be interesting to know the implications of this.
A worthy mistake for the receiver :)
Yes, I think it worked out pretty well for them! Don't forget to upvote and resteem if you like the post! Thanks for reading
Hehehehe, Oh My Good wath a fail!!!!!
It certainly was an interesting mistake
Yess defently.
That nick was not for mee able to se a diffrent...
Resteeming because I'm always up for a good mystery.
I'm hoping to get more information soon
Better be more careful next time.
Interesting analysis. Ill check back to see what else you discover
Thanks for reading!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by jaredcwillis from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
You did some digging on this one! Great work.
Thank you sir!
Very interesting detective work. I'm looking forward to the next update.
Thanks @lexiconical, I'm hoping to have an update soon
Great sleuthing. I forget the blockchain has everything.
It can be kind of disconcerting, but it really is a good solution for governing small communities
Right - this may have gone down very differently had it not be so transparent. It definitely makes me militate toward being as forthright as possible in everything I do here.
Always a good policy
there will always be corruption in anything that involves a human...., common men, you should know we humans are the cause of everything that is wrong with the world. Nothing is corruption proof, nothing.
Please follow and up vote
It's interesting but I don't think there is any sinister motive behind it. There would not be any point in moving your funds around and voting for yourself since it is stake weighted it would be lots of extra hassle for no gain.
That makes sense, I figured there wasn't anything sinister, moreso I was concerned about questionable practices from a top witness.
Good post
thanks for posting , up voted .