Add new transaction type "unspent" to allow burned coins to be retreived.

[ghost]

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

https://github.com/CityOfZion/neon-wallet/issues/524

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1afBgZ5yvr6FHN1CBl2bSlJIEfbpNtHukQSqW731gXmE/edit#gid=1139885301

[shargon]

@coranos your idea is very good, seems more reasonable for me

[EdgeDLT]

I agree with @coranos that it should only be possible for the withdrawal to go back to the address it was sent from. It avoids a lot of the murkier implications and possibilities of such a mechanism.

[vncoelho]

Makes sense, @erikzhang, @igormcoelho and @coranos.

Maybe it can be a mix with that template drafted by Erik. 1 - After X years locked someone can claim; 2 - After Y years passed the 1) the funds might be go back to the address it was sent from; 3 - A security fund with, at least, half of the amount being claimed should be locked during the process. "If someone provides a signature to prove that he is the owner of the address, then the user who sent the withdrawal transaction is a malicious user" and will lose the locked coins.

[kryptob]

This makes sense. I am in a similar situation. Moved from exchange to a wallet, buggy wallet by Neo when it was released back then, now unable to access the funds, it’s been locked for almost 2 years and I have proof of ownership. Transaction history from the exchange et al.

On 10 Apr 2019, at 14:36, Vitor Nazário Coelho notifications@github.com wrote:

Makes sense, @erikzhang, @igormcoelho and @coranos.

Maybe it can be a mix with that template drafted by Erik. 1 - After X years locked someone can claim; 2 - After Y years passed the 1) the funds might be go back to the address it was sent from; 3 - A security fund with, at least, half of the amount being claimed should be locked during the process. "If someone provides a signature to prove that he is the owner of the address, then the user who sent the withdrawal transaction is a malicious user" and will lose the locked coins.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[vncoelho]

@kryptob, The core of the idea is not really related to a proof of ownership. The latter is not an easy task to be handled in a decentralized manner.

We thought about a "counter-proof of ownership" that could penalize the guy asking for a found inadequately. Since the fund would be moved one step back I believe it would be a less prejudicial strategy and would avoid some cases where people claim funds in order to get "unpent" money. However, such cases could still exist if the last owner tracked that the receiver did not use the fund. On the other hand, with such penalization it could be also a risk to him.

[ghost]

how's this for a refinement:

0 - Preconditions.

• any address with a (gas claim, invocation transaction, or outbound transaction) cannot be the target of an 'unsend' transaction. This is most of the addresses in the blockchain, as gas claiming is part of the ecosystem.
• any address with only inbound transactions can be the target of an 'unsend' transaction.

1 - After X years locked someone can claim; 2 - Claiming requires posting a bond. 10% of the locked bans. 3A - After Y years passed the 2) the funds and the bond go back to the address the locked funds was sent from. 3B - claiming gas claims the bond as well.

3A is 'happy path' where all funds get unlocked and sent one step back. 3B is 'so sorry' where the malicious user loses his bond, and the owner of the locked address gets the bond.

[RavenXce]

If is lost, is lost... 🔒

Agreed. This imposes a perpetual (or extremely long) "finality game" on all transactions which implies clients must monitor the chain and has implications on NEO's use as a form of SoV. Root chain should be simple.

[ghost]

NEO has a built in way to kill the finality game: Claim gas. If you can claim gas on a transaction, the key is known. So any bonds posted to a address with a gas claim tx in it's history are liquidated. I'll update my comment for this case.

[RavenXce]

Claiming gas is actually incident to finalizing the game. What spends it is the self-send transaction. However, this breaks properties of cold wallets, as the private key has to be used to finalize each txn. As I said, this breaks the ease-of-use of NEO as a SoV as compared to bitcoin, claim gas function does not change that.

[ghost]

It's pretty trivial to click 'claim gas' or self-send the transaction to lock it in. This could even be built into the wallets as a default function. If your argument is coin-burn should be supported as part of SOV, i do not have a counterargument as cold-wallet and coin-burn appear identical in the blockchain.

[RavenXce]

Yes. It still is a "gotcha" though - where users trying to generate a completely air-gapped paper wallet would still have to "initialize" it online first with some initial txns.

I did consider coin-burn, but it may not be relevant depending on which direction NEO 3 goes. Atm most assets that are burnt are NEP-5.

I can think of other edge cases this still breaks, such as long duration time-lock smart contracts - if accepted, the refinement would probably have to include SC as unbondable as well (not sure how hard to calculate this).

[ghost]

Long term smart contracts have an invocation tx, so not eligible for unsend.

Completely air gapped paper wallets and coin burns are the only use case that I can think of which look identical to an 'oops'. Even in that case, it is fairly trivial to prevent a nefarious unsend with an intermediate hot wallet and some education.

Instead of sending from Binance => Cold Paper wallet. Send Binance => Hot Wallet => Cold Paper Wallet. Worst case it goes to Hot Wallet, and you have a year before you have to fix it, by making a second cold wallet. It's also never good practice to send to a completely air gapped paper wallet without any sort of fitness test because math is hard and one digit off is a coin burn.

[RavenXce]

Long term smart contracts have an invocation tx, so not eligible for unsend.

I don't get it? You can do an invocation txn with any address as the target script hash. The invocation simply fails.

[ghost]

Ah, I misremembered how SC's work in NEO. I thought you had to publish the SC to an address, and then invoke it.

[RavenXce]

Yea, there's probably a way to exclude SCs, but invocation txs don't work so I glossed over it. I haven't thought of what the most efficient to do that is, as I mentioned.

It's also never good practice to send to a completely air gapped paper wallet without any sort of fitness test because math is hard and one digit off is a coin burn.

That's true. But that doesn't change the point about how this complicates the node software and intrinsically changes how the chain works (e.g. the ecosystem now needs to educate the user about it - Ledger Live would need to tell users to send a txn first after receiving the first one instead of closing the window. There is a stark difference between your funds probably arrived at this address you probably control versus your funds are definitely gone after 5 years).

The proposal seems like it could work, but the added complexity is why I feel this is probably not worth it.

[ghost]

I wasn't aware NEO was on ledger live, I thought it required a third party app.

I don't think we will see mass adoption if regular people can lose their funds permanently from a typo. Which is where Erik needs to make the decision on which is more important:

• Easier mass adoption, by avoiding a known blockchain pitfall.
• Avoiding a moderate increase in complexity.

[RavenXce]

Ledger Live was just an example of a wallet has a consistent interface with many blockchains and interacts with a hardware wallet.

I wasn't aware NEO was on ledger live, I thought it required a third party app.

I don't think we will see mass adoption if regular people can lose their funds permanently from a typo. Which is where Erik needs to make the decision on which is more important:

• Easier mass adoption, by avoiding a known blockchain pitfall.
• Avoiding a moderate increase in complexity.

The NEO address format has a checksum to it, so wallets and any sending interface can guard against typos. I assumed this was just to recover certain set of funds sent to lost private keys. In which case I can think of simpler altruistic solutions.

The basis of the dilemma is correct though. I hope I've brought up enough points on the cons of implementing this!

[EdgeDLT]

I don't think we will see mass adoption if regular people can lose their funds permanently from a typo.

This is better as an argument for digital identity and the abstraction away from private keys.

Absolute finality is something unique that NEO lays sole claim to in this industry. Perhaps it is better not to disturb those foundations and just better prepare ourselves for users.

Would it be possible to organize a smart contract, prior to the migration to NEO 3.0, that can return such cases as a one-time deal? In the future, if UTXO's are abolished, this entire conversation becomes pointless anyway.

[igormcoelho]

@erikzhang perhaps we should unspend all these "unspent" tokens (never sent to itself) during Neo 3.0 migration, what do you think?

[igormcoelho]

I'm proposing a "new NEP-7" that will make these situations nearly impossible to happen for the future: https://github.com/neo-project/proposals/issues/89

[ghost]

Given that there's 5 transactions total (check google doc for neo transactions, most are eth) I think the most practical solution is to unspend the transactions as part of the 3.0 migration.

[shargon]

In the future, if UTXO's are abolished, this entire conversation becomes pointless anyway.

Totally agree, any idea?

[kryptob]

ALL, i am repeating this initial issue i raised back in April 2018. It's on this chain. Will Neo 3.0 provide insight to resolving this?

''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.''

I assume Noe can work with Exchanges / Exchange wallets where funds were moved from to verify ownership. Most exchanges now have KYC processes to verify users, and there are confirmation emails from exchanges to confirm when funds were sent to these locked wallets.

[robliou]

I have thought about a solution to this problem before.

If the private key of an address is lost, it means that no one can transfer the token from this address. So if the token on an address has not been transferred for a period of time (for example, one year), then we can think of the address as the "possible loss of private key" address.

For a "possible loss of private key" address, the user can send a transaction to request the withdrawal of all assets in the address, but must pledge the same amount of assets in the transaction.

If, for a period of time (for example, 5 years), no one has objected to the application with the correct signature, the assets can be transferred by the new owner. And previously pledged assets can be returned.

But if someone provides a signature to prove that he is the owner of the address, then the user who sent the withdrawal transaction is a malicious user. Then the assets pledged by the malicious user will be confiscated (Or directly forced to reward the user who provide the correct signature).

Hi friends, I just wanted to check in and see if we are any closer to designing a solution to help those who may have lost access to their NEO, whether due to losing their private keys, sending to wrong addresses, etc? Especially in light of the NEO 3 mainnet migration occuring soon?

Some background on me- I heard about and started buying NEO back in October 2017. I had bought a Ledger Nano S in August 2017 and was using that to store my NEO. In March 2018, I sold everything and got out. Fast forward to late 2020- after moving a few times and getting married, I start buying NEO again. In February 2021, I find my Ledger Nano S and once again, put all of my NEO on there. I assume I still have my seed phrase lying around somewhere. However, 2 weeks ago, my Ledger reboot automatically, and the contents were wiped. I looked everywhere for my seed phrase, but couldn't find it.

The total # of NEO sitting in my wallet is over 1300.

As such, I'm wondering if there are there any plans to help deal with this issue? I saw some pretty good ideas above, including what Erik suggested (see quoted section). Also, I believe @RavenXce stated that there may be more altruistic, simpler ways to address this. I know we want finality for NEO, but if some coin burns do need to take place, would it be possible to do this before the final migration to NEO3?

In case you are wondering, I have all proofs of all transactions from my exchange to my public wallet address, where the NEO is stored. In fact, since I haven't upgraded the firmware, my Ledger Nano S still has a firmware bug whereby the flash memory is not cleared, meaning you can probably even see the address where the NEO came from, which is linked to my exchange wallet.

If anyone is able to help me, I'm willing to donate a portion of my NEO (say 10%) to help solve the problem and to compensate for peoples' time. Please let me know, thanks...

Best Regards,

Rob

@erikzhang @igormcoelho @coranos

[kryptob]

My Neo is still in my address which I lost, I also have all the proof to back this up from all the exchanges I transferred from. It will be great if a solution can be done to fix this.

On 29 Apr 2021, at 15:19, flashrob01 @.***> wrote:

 I have thought about a solution to this problem before.

If the private key of an address is lost, it means that no one can transfer the token from this address. So if the token on an address has not been transferred for a period of time (for example, one year), then we can think of the address as the "possible loss of private key" address.

For a "possible loss of private key" address, the user can send a transaction to request the withdrawal of all assets in the address, but must pledge the same amount of assets in the transaction.

If, for a period of time (for example, 5 years), no one has objected to the application with the correct signature, the assets can be transferred by the new owner. And previously pledged assets can be returned.

But if someone provides a signature to prove that he is the owner of the address, then the user who sent the withdrawal transaction is a malicious user. Then the assets pledged by the malicious user will be confiscated (Or directly forced to reward the user who provide the correct signature).

Hi friends, I just wanted to check in and see if we are any closer to designing a solution to help those who may have lost access to their NEO, whether due to losing their private keys, sending to wrong addresses, etc? Especially in light of the NEO 3 mainnet migration occuring soon?

Some background on me- I heard about and started buying NEO back in October 2017. I had bought a Ledger Nano S in August 2017 and was using that to store my NEO. In March 2018, I sold everything and got out. Fast forward to late 2020- after moving a few times and getting married, I start buying NEO again. In February 2021, I find my Ledger Nano S and once again, put all of my NEO on there. I assume I still have my seed phrase lying around somewhere. However, 2 weeks ago, my Ledger reboot automatically, and the contents were wiped. I looked everywhere for my seed phrase, but couldn't find it.

The total # of NEO sitting in my wallet is over 1300.

As such, I'm wondering if there are there any plans to help deal with this issue? I saw some pretty good ideas above, including what Erik suggested (see quoted section). Also, I believe @RavenXce stated that there may be more altruistic, simpler ways to address this. I know we want finality for NEO, but if some coin burns do need to take place, would it be possible to do this before the final migration to NEO3?

In case you are wondering, I have all proofs of all transactions from my exchange to my public wallet address, where the NEO is stored. In fact, since I haven't upgraded the firmware, my Ledger Nano S still has a firmware bug whereby the flash memory is not cleared, meaning you can probably even see the address where the NEO came from, which is linked to my exchange wallet.

If anyone is able to help me, I'm willing to donate a portion of my NEO (say 10%) to help solve the problem and to compensate for peoples' time. Please let me know, thanks...

Best Regards,

Rob

@erikzhang @igormcoelho @coranos

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[grishatataru]

Im willing to give 50% if we can find a solution

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, April 29, 2021, 8:26 AM, kryptob @.***> wrote:

My Neo is still in my address which I lost, I also have all the proof to back this up from all the exchanges I transferred from. It will be great if a solution can be done to fix this.

On 29 Apr 2021, at 15:19, flashrob01 @.***> wrote:

 I have thought about a solution to this problem before.

If the private key of an address is lost, it means that no one can transfer the token from this address. So if the token on an address has not been transferred for a period of time (for example, one year), then we can think of the address as the "possible loss of private key" address.

For a "possible loss of private key" address, the user can send a transaction to request the withdrawal of all assets in the address, but must pledge the same amount of assets in the transaction.

If, for a period of time (for example, 5 years), no one has objected to the application with the correct signature, the assets can be transferred by the new owner. And previously pledged assets can be returned.

But if someone provides a signature to prove that he is the owner of the address, then the user who sent the withdrawal transaction is a malicious user. Then the assets pledged by the malicious user will be confiscated (Or directly forced to reward the user who provide the correct signature).

Hi friends, I just wanted to check in and see if we are any closer to designing a solution to help those who may have lost access to their NEO, whether due to losing their private keys, sending to wrong addresses, etc? Especially in light of the NEO 3 mainnet migration occuring soon?

Some background on me- I heard about and started buying NEO back in October 2017. I had bought a Ledger Nano S in August 2017 and was using that to store my NEO. In March 2018, I sold everything and got out. Fast forward to late 2020- after moving a few times and getting married, I start buying NEO again. In February 2021, I find my Ledger Nano S and once again, put all of my NEO on there. I assume I still have my seed phrase lying around somewhere. However, 2 weeks ago, my Ledger reboot automatically, and the contents were wiped. I looked everywhere for my seed phrase, but couldn't find it.

The total # of NEO sitting in my wallet is over 1300.

As such, I'm wondering if there are there any plans to help deal with this issue? I saw some pretty good ideas above, including what Erik suggested (see quoted section). Also, I believe @RavenXce stated that there may be more altruistic, simpler ways to address this. I know we want finality for NEO, but if some coin burns do need to take place, would it be possible to do this before the final migration to NEO3?

In case you are wondering, I have all proofs of all transactions from my exchange to my public wallet address, where the NEO is stored. In fact, since I haven't upgraded the firmware, my Ledger Nano S still has a firmware bug whereby the flash memory is not cleared, meaning you can probably even see the address where the NEO came from, which is linked to my exchange wallet.

If anyone is able to help me, I'm willing to donate a portion of my NEO (say 10%) to help solve the problem and to compensate for peoples' time. Please let me know, thanks...

Best Regards,

Rob

@erikzhang @igormcoelho @coranos

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[shargon]

I understand the tragedy of lost coins, but the unique proof that can proof that you are the owner of one wallet is the private key, any other move it's based on trust.

With the migration it could be possible, but I think that the damage could be worst than the benefict, we could lost trust in our blockchain. We can convert the migration in a fork, and honestly I don't like it.

[EdgeDLT]

Agree @shargon, I don't think there's anything we can do for addresses where someone lost the private key. But maybe we can do something about these unspent situations.

Imagine for example if you could claim the NEO that you sent to another address which remain unspent. If that address has not completed migration by the end of Neo2's life (i.e. this NEO would be lost anyway) the sender/claimant will be able to claim it on N3 and recover their funds.

[kryptob]

it can be addressed to the community at large, i don't think trust will be impacted, if anything it will be improved as all of us affected were a few back then, it was the same issue around the same period, so this is ringfenced.  My only mistake was saving the incorrect private key as i did not know the Neo wallet then (version 0.0.7 ) had been downloaded.  It can be tracked back to Binance exchange, where i bought Neo, and Binance has all my KYC details including passports and ID.  That alone is trust that i own the transactions on the centralised exchange and also the coin .  Please help, it's a lot of coins that may be lost till eternity.   On Thursday, 29 April 2021, 16:02:30 BST, Shargon @.***> wrote:

I understand the tragedy of lost coins, but the unique proof that can proof that you are the owner of one wallet is the private key, any other move it's based on trust.

With the migration it could be possible, but I think that the damage could be worst than the benefict, we could lost trust in our blockchain. We can convert the migration in a fork, and honestly I don't like it.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[ghost]

This is the equivalent to adding a time lock to every transaction, which is a standard part of DeFi and atomic swaps.

I don't think adding a time lock to ~20 transactions as part of the 2.0 to 3.0 conversion would cause people to lose trust in the blockchain.

I actually think it would increase trust. As soon as Tesla started accepting bitcoin they had several transactions that went into limbo because the tx was sent outside the 30 minute window and their payment processor ignored the transaction. Adding a default time lock to transactions prevents this from happening.

I have many such examples. Send to an exchange under the min deposit limit. Sent to wrong address because exchange changed address. Sent to ledger where ledger fixes a bug and the derivation path changes.

NEO could be ahead of the game if they add timelocks as an option to every transaction.

[kryptob]

Can the time lock be applied retrospectively?

On 29 Apr 2021, at 16:14, coranos @.***> wrote:

 This is the equivalent to adding a time lock to every transaction, which is a standard part of DeFi and atomic swaps.

I don't think adding a time lock to ~20 transactions as part of the 2.0 to 3.0 conversion would cause people to lose trust in the blockchain.

I actually think it would increase trust. As soon as Tesla started accepting bitcoin they had several transactions that went into limbo because the tx was sent outside the 30 minute window and their payment processor ignored the transaction. Adding a default time lock to transactions prevents this from happening.

I have many such examples. Send to an exchange under the min deposit limit. Sent to wrong address because exchange changed address. Sent to ledger where ledger fixes a bug and the derivation path changes.

NEO could be ahead of the game if they add timelocks as a default to the transactions.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[ghost]

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.

[robliou]

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 https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/195#issuecomment-829340848, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATKUVZMWO6222FTMRSYHCZ3TLF37XANCNFSM4EVUFB2A .

[ghost]

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. 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.

[kryptob]

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.

[roman-khimov]

So how would all the nice people watching this thread know why it was closed?

[Jim8y]

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.

[kryptob]

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: @.***>

[Jim8y]

@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?

[EdgeDLT]

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.

[Jim8y]

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.

[roman-khimov]

It's all about communication:

• if the issue is closed, there has to be a reason for this
• we better have some agreement over this reason and closure itself

Just imagine:

• me going over the list and closing 50% of the issues with no comments
• some people coming here in a year or two with a question of "hey, why it was closed?"

[Jim8y]

It's all about communication:

• if the issue is closed, there has to be a reason for this
• we better have some agreement over this reason and closure itself

Just imagine:

• me going over the list and closing 50% of the issues with no comments
• some people coming here in a year or two with a question of "hey, why it was closed?"

@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?

[shargon]

@Liaojinghui https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/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

[ghost]

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.

[Jim8y]

@Liaojinghui https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/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.

[kryptob]

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: @.***>

[Jim8y]

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.

[grishatataru]

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: @.***>

[lock9]

My 2 cents:

• [x] Backlog
• [ ] Close it
• [ ] I'm not sure