Bitcoin Forum

So, hello again folks.  Anyone who looks through my recent post history will see that over the last few weeks I've disagreed with quickseller both over content and over how he addresses me (and others).  He not only got removed from my personal trust list but he also made my ignore list for a while.  Well, whaddya know, about 24 hours after he leaves the signature ad campaign I'm in, his alt, ACCTSeller appears and begins to troll me.  ACCTSeller trolls me for about 24 hours (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357263;sa=showPosts).  He starts by saying that the stuff I say sucks, I ask why he's trolling me and he goes on.

He finds, guess what, some negative feedback from the (in)famous tradefortress from about 2.5 years ago.  He posts in the ask tf thread trying to get help to dig up dirt on me.  I say to him in that thread, if you want to know more, there's a thread in meta from about 2.5 years ago.   Well, he finds it and here's where I think he's made a crucial mistake.  He switches back over to his account on default trust and repeats tradefortresses negative feedback about me.  So, of course, my campaign manager says to me "hey you have negative trust now, what happened".  I say, well, this dude is trolling me, regurgitating the lies of a known scammer in order to get me kicked off this campaign for some kind of personal vendetta.  Of course campaign manager says, well, I have no choice, default trust is default trust.

So, here I am (and I sorta figured this was coming because I've been challenging the tyranny of default trust in other threads https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0, I kinda knew that someone on default trust would eventually take it out on me; interestingly, I predicted that ACCTSeller would use his alt quickseller to neg-rep me for nothing, if he was ballsy enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11140144#msg11140144), asking you guys why Quickseller's rehashing of 3 year old lies from tradefortress has any bearing on my ability to use this forum today.  I guess one thing I can do is get some of the folks I have worked with over the past few years to speak up about how I've never done anything untrustworthy and was even very helpful.  But in the end, I don't think I'll have much recourse.  Probably history will vindicate me, as it did with tradefortress (his lies were never removed, but eventually he was removed; I supposed the same will happened eventually with Quickseller).

Maybe I can leave you all with this question: is Quickseller's usage of default trust for some kind of personal vendetta considered enough of an abuse to have him removed from default-trust?  How bout the fact that as of now he's essentially echoing the lies of someone who was removed from default trust for good reason?  Certainly someone who is uncritically echoing tradefortresses removed opinions shouldn't be on default trust anymore than tradefortress.

Not this again! I, and probably a lot of people are getting tired of these fights.
@quickseller How old are you? 5?
How about you drop the drama here. Now I ain't gonna take a side, because I wouldn't be surprised if I got negative trust as well. What you should have done is ignore his alt too, and just report the necro posts. There needs to be a line between disagreeing and distrusting someone. This makes me wonder if the staff (or whoever adds people) has correctly appointed members to the default trust list. There are a lot more mature and reliable members of the newer generation than someone who intentionally abuses trust due to a disagreement(s).
Don't you think so?

Trust isn't really moderated often. This is where it is a problem. People suffer the consequences.

How is this guy still on the trust list?


INB4 prove it: Plenty of circumstantial evidence.

https://i.imgur.com/8KK6PeC.gif

INB4 why new account: Because accounts that bring up sale of bitcointalk accounts are instantly banned.
If you quote this post, your post will be deleted too.

And yeah, people are laughing at us.

http://s8.postimg.org/d4hal92o5/Capture.png

Thanks for the support.  I'd like to think that this kinda of immaturity would get him removed from default-trust but I sorta doubt it.

"Posts per day online" [PPDO] is a nice indicator of what an account is doing or if its logging in, posting then logging out again. It also highlights how much listening they do alongside their talking, ie if they're just hear to preach about something. Looking at the gif, the PPDO of ACCTSeller is just 12, while the quickseller account is at 35 so that doesn't really make sense to be a shill.

for reference, the really obvious shills can reach 80-110, while generally spammy members can also be found as high as 60-70. Most temperate members will sit around 30-40.

>110 megashill / megaspammer
80-110 likely shill
60-70 spammer / 'main' shill account
30-40 normal people
<30 sensible people

I cannot say much about this fact, but I really doubt he will be removed from the defaultTrust list. Good luck with your fight, it will be really a difficult battle.

---

However  :-\ what is the purpose to leave a negative trust for a 'probable fact' of ~ 2 years ago? Maybe try to send him a PM and he will (maybe) remove it... who knows?

Where do we find that PPDO stat at? I am curious what category I fit into! I did the math manualy and I average 6.3 posts per day...not a spammer/shill then \o/

Thanks for the info about the index.  I think that the order of affairs here speaks volumes:
  1) the fact that I've had no interaction with ACCTSeller for many months (at least) and then the fact that as soon as Quickseller quits my campaign ACCTSeller appears in my thread and trolls me in every imaginable way
  2) no interaction with Quickseller during this trolling
  3) as soon as ACCTSeller necrobumps the old accusation from Tradefortress, the negrep from Quickseller appears within a few hours (with no interaction with me).

It's hard to interpret this in any other way.  What else does Quickseller gain from this except fulfillment of the personal vendetta which he seems to have taken against me (look through his history, you'll see him calling me an idiot, saying that I'm a spammer, etc).

The other thing I can say about this PPDO index is that in the case of ACCTSeller, the account seems to have been used for very little until recently when it was used for about 24 hours to troll me (it has now gone inactive again).  I don't know if this explains the PPDO numbers you point out (I'm a little slow and I haven't yet understood what those numbers mean).



Thanks for the support.  As you say, it's unlikely that anything will be done.  I can't imagine that Quickseller/ACCTSeller is going to respond to a PM request to remove the trust as it was clearly his goal to try to uncover something in my past that he could pass off as legitimate reason to get me kicked out of the signature ad campaign.  It's a shame that the trolls seem to have won this.  But I guess that time will tell (I've been around longer than Quickseller, I assume I will be around long after him).

Who is in the default trust list and whose negative feedback has been considered as valid? Quickseller or ACCTSeller or both? I don't see these 2 on my default trust list and mainly I have the list which was "Default" when I joined this forum. My list is:

theymos (1)
HostFat (1)
dooglus (2)
Maged (1)
dserrano5 (1)
OgNasty (1)
Tomatocage (1)
SaltySpitoon (1)
DeaDTerra (1)
BadBear (1)
philipma1957 (1)
escrow.ms (1)
OldScammerTag (2)
Vod (-1)
DefaultTrust (4)
Smack That Ace (1)

Is this only list counted or even those members are counted who have been specifically added by other users? Then probably the list would be much longer and never ending and in this case, mostly many members' trust would be considered valid.

Quickseller is (or was, if it's was, then that's a very recent change) on default trust.  ACCTSeller was the account that was actively trolling me, Quickseller account is the one used to get me kicked from the signature advert campaign I'm in.  Presumably because of the disagreements with Quickseller a few weeks ago (he called me an idiot, I called him a hothead).

I am not sure what the fact that you think I am alt of Quickseller has to do with anything, nor have I seen you present any proof of this being a fact.

I gave you a negative trust because I wanted to warn people that you are wanting to make it easier to scam others, even after they have been outed as scammers. This in itself is scammy behavior, but maybe doesn't make it necessary for you to have a "trade with extreme caution tag".

Regardless I do think you are a spammer/scammer and should be warned, especially when you are openly admit to behavior that violated the terms of of CoinChat, made an account that was intentionally confusing to make yourself look innocent and then withdrew funds that you never should have received in the first place.

Hello ACCTseller, thanks for joining the discussion.  It's really sorta weird that you found it worth your while to troll through 3 years of posts in order to rehash lies of tradefortress.  It's certainly not something I'd be very worried about, except that your more powerful alt swooped in to finish the job and get me kicked out of the campaign I was in (again, based on 2.5 year old unsubstantied lies from a known scammer).

What's more, I don't do any trading on here (never have, probably never will).  I mainly use the forum to explore technical questions related to the bitcoin protocol, wallet software, importing/exporting keys, etc.  I occasionally take jobs writing code and fixing up people's websites but again, your trolling perogative wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it weren't for your more-powerful alter-ego.  I like to take a little extra btc from signature ad campaigns and as you stated in my campaign thread, you wanted to see me kicked out (pretty sure this is because I offended you when I called out quickseller for being a hothead).

Anywhoo, thanks for helping me to exemplify the issues with the power of people on default trust to take out personal vendettas against people they haven't even traded with.  I'm doubtful that anything will be done about it, but I guess I can answer the guy on my other thread in meta with a more personal example now.

Once you're ready to log in as your more powerful alt then we can talk more about how you seem to think that tradefortress' year-old lies are relevant or substantiated or whatever you may argue.  Looking forward to it!

Not sure what you're suggesting, that he doesn't distribute his time uniformly across all of his accounts? Why would he?
Both accounts sell/sold bitcointalk accounts. To buy one, one needs to be a bitcointalk member already, so the notion of alt accounts is certainly not foreign to him. Why let the merchandise rot on the shelf? Would you really expect him not to post from those accounts, making them more valuable in the process?

The subs frequented and posting activity by time pretty much overlap. And of course, he doesn't deny the account is his alt.


Do you deny it?

Alright tspacepilot scammer, I am not sure why you opened this thread, especially without even a single PM (who is the hothead now?) asking about the trust.

I will reconsider the trust that I left you. I do however have a few questions that you need to explicitly and clearly answer in order for me to make an evaluation:
1 - Did you use a bot on CoinChat used to automatically make posts?
2 - Did you use the above bot with a username with "b0t" as part of it's handle?
3 - Did you receive anything in writing from anyone, ever, that informed you that you were banned from CoinChat?
4 - Did you receive anything in writing from anyone, ever, that informed you that any bot must have the term "bot" in it's handle?
5 - Did you withdraw funds from CoinChat that were "earned" with such bot?

If you dispute 1, 2 or 5 then why did you admit to them in this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all) thread, and if you dispute 3 or 4 then why did you not dispute these facts in the above thread?

Please do not claim that you purchased the account because just yesterday your post history indicates that you personally participated in the above thread and the OP here is written in a way that says the above thread makes a claim against you personally.

There is no statute of limitation on being a scammer, the fact that a scam happened a long time ago does not matter, the reason negative trust was given recently was because I only saw evidence (admission of guilt) of such a scam recently. Despite your paranoid claims, there is no personal vendetta.

All it took was a simple forum search, it took ~30 seconds, probably longer then it took to think about how to respond to your most recent reply on the ask TF thread to me.

You admitted to scamming TF and coinchat. It does not matter that TF is a scammer. If you scam anyone then you are a scammer. IDK why you are saying TF lied when you admitted to the material facts.

The obvious shill account is obvious. I also find it ironic that you created a shill account for the explicit reason to claim that I am a shill ::)

Why should I deny it. It is not my job to prove my innocence. If the OP wants to claim that I am an alt of someone then he can provide evidence. Once he gives that evidence he can explain how this matters to the dispute in hand and how it is against any rules

Lies of TF? You posted you *did* use *bots* to *earn* which is *against TOS*.

---

@redsn0w: At the time of that post, i.e. 2 years ago, TF was in default trust list and his negative feedback was shown as trusted. However, after he was removed, it went into untrusted feedback. Bumping this will only help users and I think this is appropriate.

Scumbag:
Unlike yourself, I'll publicly state that I'm in no way associated with OP.
All the circumstantial evidence points to Quickseller being your alt, from registration dates being 3 days apart to your writing stile to subs frequented to posting time.

TL;DR: yeah, both accounts are yours.

Alright, quicktemper, since you're god here I guess I have no recourse but to plead on my knees for mercy, which is---I'm pretty sure---exactly what you want.

I don't know why you think I'd pm you when you're clearly on a personal vendetta to get me kicked from my sig ad campaign is beyond me.  What would I say, "ok, quickseller, you are god, you have gotten me kicked, I plead for your mercy and forgiveness"?


Uh, with the permission and help of tradefortress, I believe I did.


I don't think so, I'm pretty sure I was testing the bot script with my own account, but jeezus, who can remember this.  If I recall correctly, I was trying to make a wikipedia lookup bot to run in the main chat and answer questions.  I don't know if you're old enough to remember coinchat, but there were many bots providing services.

Uh, no.  You can see in that thread that you necrod that I wasn't even sure who tradefortress was at the time, much less that he was the admin of coinchat, much less that he had anything to do with me.


Nope, again, this is ancient history, but if I recall correctly, I had asked "admin" on coinchat about rules for bots and he never got back to me.  Futhermore, I asked several questions about the bot api and he helped me out.   It's totally nuts for him to accuse me as he did (he made up numbers willy nilly, etc).  He was eventually outed for the person he is.


If I recall correctly, all the coins i withdrew were earned by myself chatting as myself.  I was playing with a bot, under the help of the admin, and not spamming.  Clearly TF says this is untrue, but he's a known scammer.  So, why on earth would you consider this something for you to look into other than your own personal vendetta?



@everybody else, is this how this is supposed to work.  Quickseller didn't like that I accused him of being a hothead and he knew how to use his power to take it out on me.  Now I have to pray to him for forgiveness and if quickselleracctsellerGod is merciful, I will be forgiven and allowed to continue to collect a little change for advertising on bitcointalk.  Is this how default trust is supposed to work?  A guy like me who doesn't do any trading has to pray to a guy with a known hot-temper to hope that he will forgive me and let me go back to getting a little advertising income.  Is this not a clear abuse of default-trust?

Manually calculate. Post count / time online in days (can see at the top of the page) = PPDO.



PPDO isn't affected by bursts of activity / posting because its an entire account's worth of trend setting. When someone views a page, they get 10 (or 15?) minutes of "online" status before the site declares them "offline" again. Those using shills account hop such that they log in, post, and go offline after the automated 10 / 15 minute period has passed.

And just to be clear, PPDO is something I created and its not some well known anti-shil/spaml metric. It does however do a pretty good job at spotting them / spammers and If Theymos ran the numbers against all accounts it would demonstrate some quite clear trends. However do kind in mind that there is also quite a lot of variation depending on the user's chosen subforums which PPDO does NOT take into account. Ie those discussing freely in off topic / speculation will likely have higher PPDO's than those discussing hardware. PPDO could be standardised further to subforum and the demographics in each, but its not data I have access to.

We could discuss this in a spinoff thread if people are interested, propose some variants to increase accuracy / usefulness. Sorry for the derail.

Here are some random PPDO's of the people in the thread:

tspacepilot 206
LaudaM 173
TerminatorXL 72
erikalui 71.4
redsn0w 60.7
Blazedout419 44.3
quickseller 34.7
dogie 16.3
ACCTseller 12.5

Wow, I'm in the megashill/megaspammer class.  Does this have anything to do with the fact that I clear all cookies/private data when I close my browser?  I only have one other account on bitcointalk and I almost never use it so I'm certainly not hopping back and forth between accounts.  This does seem like a bit of a derail, though.  I'd prefer to keep this focused on getting Quickseller/God removed from default-trust for this kind of abuse.

The muppetry here is hilarious. Both accounts hit the ground running, selling bitcointalk accounts *in the first post*.

A n00b can't have bitcointalk accounts to sell, which means both these accounts are alts of further account :D

Ok, TerminatorXL, I get it that you agree that these two are alts.  But this is distracting from the focus here.  Only one of these accounts is on default trust and that's the one that is abusing that power.

I have made my prayer to this God (albeit sarcastically).  I fully expect that this God will not accept my prayer (because he will see the unrepentant nature in my heart).

I'm sorta hoping instead that someone will convince this God that there are actually higher Gods who don't like him abusing the humans in this way.

Why don't you look back in your records and give more concrete answers. Feel free to take more then 5 and a half minutes between posts to check. Since it seems like you are denying all of the above except 1, you need to explain why you admitted to the above previously (and why you didn't deny receiving notifications previously).

Also TF had not yet scammed as of the time of the allegations so I wouldn't write off what he says immediately without thought. 

For the default trust list to be credible, those on it should be beyond reproach - the whole trust system is based on it.
Lying about using alt accounts is sufficient, in my eyes, for removal from default trust.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Quickseller/Acctseller are giving those negative trust to increase the demand for accounts , so they can sell their own stocked 100 of farmed accounts.

I hadn't really considered this but there is certainly a conflict of interest here which I hadn't given thought to previously.


Why don't you provide some sort of reason why you're interested in digging up old lies that tradefortress told about me?  Unless you admit it's just your bile against me because I disagreed with you and called you a hothead.  You really think you're doing the community some sort of service because you're making trouble for a guy who's got a 3 year trackrecord of zero trades with anyone and only one complaint from a known scammer?

Fun that you say that since TF had not scammed (or been caught scamming) that somehow makes his random accusations more compelling.  It's pretty clear what's going on here.  You're interested in seeing me grovel and you love the power position you're in.  Try to make a reasonable argument that you're up to anything else here and I'll consider rehashing tradefortresses lies about me.  Unless your trust ratings are based on blind acceptance of tradefortress' accusations, in which case you surely need to be removed from default trust because you are merely echoing the opinions of someone who was thusly removed.

I didn't take TF's word for it. I took your word for it. You admitted to running a bot, earning money from it even though doing so was against the TOS, intentionally hid the fact that you were using a bot while trying to maintain plausible deniability, and as a result you received money that was not due to you.

And yet... here we are.
I hate having to post with throwaway accounts, but

http://s27.postimg.org/f051yh837/Capture.png
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcointalk-staff-quietly-bans-people-speaking/

No joke.

are you the author of this article?

My account is not a throwaway account. Throwaway accounts do not have such attractive names ;)
And I am not against bitcointalk like you .

Wait, you don't even want to confirm or deny one of your alt accounts, and you expect me to disclose my identity?
lol.

Nope, that's not at all what I admitted to.  Still not interested in talking about why this is anyway relevant to anything?

God, please forgive me for my sins, tradefortress has said I have transgressed against him, you, God, have taken this as a sin against yourself.  Please forgive humble human me so that I can go back to my small, ant-like life.  I'm sorry I have offended your mightiness.  (But I still secretly hope that more powerful god will be swooping in to end your tyranny---I know it's a long shot, but even a pitiful non-blessed non-god like me can hope.)

EDIT: I think I can start to understand what TerminatorXL is at (I'm a little slow sometimes).  I can see that if I had posted my gripes about quickseller with an alt account instead of with my hero status account then he would have trolled my alt into oblivion but my main account would have been fine.  My main mistake here was disagreeing with a god in public using my main account.

Well since you clearly aren't capable of pursuing an adult conversation I am going to consider this matter closed.

Not that you should care about any negative trust anyway since by your own words you don't conduct any trades on here. Feel free to continue to post once every 5 minutes that you are logged on ;)

@tspacepilot: I wish I could help you in this matter but well I'm aint a reputable member here and I also have a PPDO of 71.4 which proves that I am even not sensible.  :(

I would only request you to say if you have used a BOT or NOT on CoinChat and God helps those who help themselves. If you have any argument that proves that you did nothing wrong, then the reputed members can help you. I guess you received the negative feedback not because you had an argument with the reputed member but because he found an OLD case against you. Try to resolve the matter  :)

It's clearly not surprising that you don't find my groveling acceptably convincing.  I would feel quite proud of your negative feedback if it didn't have an immediate impact on a bit of additional income that usually get on this forum by selling my signature space.  You have achieved your goal of removing my ability to pursue that kind of income.  But it's completely transparant that that was your goal in the first place.  Why else would you have spent 24 hours trolling me looking for some kind of dirt and then rehashing 3 year old lies from a known scammer (one of the people with the lowest trust ratings on here!).

The real question was never whether you would be in a forgiving mood (if you were, you wouldn't have started this in the first place).  The real question is whether you're going to have any repercussions to your own ability to abuse people after this embarrassing incident (echoing a known scammer's proofless accusations and using them as the basis for your negative feedback).

I am fairly certain you are the person who wrote the article that you posted. If I am correct then I know that you had previously been banned a number of times and even started a petition for theymos to unban you (that didn't work). If I am correct then you will likely get banned in the near future if you haven't been already and you would be evading your ban which shows that you have a disregard for the rules. I am thinking you are considering that you posted this article recently in scam accusations and your account was quickly nuked.

You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP or how having an alt account is against any rule. The fact remains that the OP scammed and there is no reason why the community should not be warned when they are potentially dealing with scammers.

Actually, that fact doesn't remain.  That's an unsubstantiated accusation from one of the people with the worst trust ratings in history that you dug up in order to troll me.  Where you made your mistake was switching to Quickseller taking the word of a known scammer as gold and using it to fulfil a personal vendetta against me to get me kicked out the campaign thread.

This kind of behavior is going to get you kicked off of default trust sooner or later.

EDIT: can anyone help me figure out if Quickseller is on default trust directly (level 1) or he's merely trusted by someone on default trust (level 2)?  I imagine that if it's the former then I'll have to talk to Theymos or one of the forum moderators (does anyone know who, exactly, I should approach?).  If it's the latter then pointing that person to this thread may be enough to get this straightened out.  It's seems pretty clear that using default trust as a way to carry out a personal vendetta using the accusations of a known scammer as evidence is not how default trust is intended to be used.

IMO, I don't think anyone should trust TF's word.  He was a liar and a scammer. 

Vod, any suggestions about how to fix this?  Quickseller is clearly intransigent.

I didn't trust TF's word, I read through this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all) and found that it was admitted that the OP cheated TF out of an unknown amount of Bitcoin. The amount is/was disputed however I think it is pretty clear that that the OP scammed. MZ quoted the relevant posts here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.msg11145458#msg11145458) although there are more posts that point to his guilt.

I don't trust TF and don't like putting pressure on people to help/repay him however a scammer is a scammer.

Then this is horrible. I don't know how I achieved this. I'm thinking back at the inputs.io days where one didn't get banned for spamming (I had no idea what I was doing).
Anyhow it's quite obvious that ACCTseller is the second account to quickseller who is on the default list according to me. I also see negative rating for tspacepilot.

Also there is something worse. One doesn't bring up things that happened so long ago for an apparent reason. Quickseller it looks to me like this was intentional. I mean it is pretty obvious.
If I was tspacepilot, I probably wouldn't even remember what happened back then.

I've checked. On the default trust list he is under BadBear.

>I am fairly certain you are the person who wrote the article that you posted.
Your opinions are of zero interest to me.

>you would be evading your ban which shows that you have a disregard for the rules.
Never claimed to be a law-abiding citizen, for all you know I'm just an incompetent brokeass hustler, like you.
That (other than making me a petty hustler), wouldn't change a thing, not as far as far as my posts are concerned. Those stand or fall by their content, not my username's reputation.

>You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP
Your alt getting tossed off the default trust will resolve this thread. Simple.

>how having an alt account is against any rule.
Having an alt is not against the rules. Having an alt and not owning it makes you a weaselly sleazebag, unfit for default trust.

This is a throwaway account. Threatening a disposable account with bans is a bit weak.
As is being afraid to admit (or try to deny) you're Qickseller's alt.

You may be right that a scammer is a scammer but anyone with an objective mind here will see the following very clearly:

1) that TF came up with some unsubstantiated accusations about me approximately 3 years ago and
2) the fact that I've got absolutely 0 other complaints from anyone since and
3) the fact that I'm not doing any trading things here (never have) and
4) the fact that you were running around calling me "an idiot" and
5) the fact that I personally disagreed with you in several threads here in Meta and elsewhere
6) the correlation between you're resignation from the signature ad campaign we were both in and the appearance of trolling alt ACCTSeller saying he was going to get me kicked out of my campaign
7) the appearance of your negative feedback on my account, successfully getting me kicked out of my campaign appearing within only a few hours of ACCTSeller's necro bump of the discussion of TF's false accusations
8) your intransigence in the face of everyone on here saying "wtf?  you're neg-repping a guy for ancient history accusations from a known scammer/liar"

All this adds up to exactly one obviously conclusion, you decided to get me removed from my campaign for personal reasons, ie, you didn't like that I called you out as a hothead and you found a way to get me back for it. 

1- you admitted to the substance of the claims therefore you scammed. It was not 3 years ago.

3- if you don't trade then you should not care about the trust system yet you try to get it changed ::)

8- most people who are questioning my rating are shills whose opinions have been ignored (if they make any fact based arguments then they will be taken into consideration).

All your other points don't matter because the negative was given because there was a claim that you scammed, I looked into the claim, did not find the person making the claim credible however you admitted to the allegations therefore you admitted to scamming.

Incorrect.  I have not admitted to the "substance of the claims".  I am not sure how you would know anything about my alleged use of coinchat over 2.5 years ago or how you think this is relevant to anything other than you finding a way to get me kicked out of my signature-ad campaign, which you have succeeded in (albeit temporarily).


Incorrect.  I have other reasons to care about the trust system.  I care about the community and the drama on the forum and far too many times I've been an observer on massive drama about the assymetrical relationship that the default trust status provides to those on it.  Surely this is part of your motivation in this smear campaign you're working on.


Funny, you now say that you don't believe tradefortress' accusations but that somehow you think I admitted to them.  I can see why you wouldn't want to have your neg-ratings be a mere echo of TF's known lies about me but backpedalling to this is just laughable.  Anyone who takes a moment to read through that thread (why would they unless they have an agenda to try to find some sort skeletons to dig up against me?) can see that I categorically and repeatedly deny the accusations.

I think you're backpedalling to this now because you realize that digging up an old TF accusation is just making you look bad and now you're trying to find a way to save face before you lose your position on default trust (and, consequently, your license to bully).

Well for clairification here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3270989#msg3270989) is where it was proven that you were in the wrong.


I know you won't admit to scamming because that is the kind of person that you are, you won't come clean when caught doing something you shouldn't be doing but instead try to find loopholes to weasel your way out of it. You take no personal responsibility for your actions.

You do not care about the community. You spend 5 minutes between posts which is a clear indication that you are a profilic spammer, I would be curious to know if there is any evidence of you using a bot to post on bitcointalk, especially considering how many posts you had previously made in a short amount of time.

Right, shills like LaudaM and Vod (so far).  Known shills ...

It's a good thing that you're not on a jury to decide proof or we'd all be pretty fucked.  What salty says here, which is reasonable, is questioning why I didn't deny that I withdrew something earned by a bot.  The plain fact of the matter is that as this accusation is nearly 3 years old, it's really hard to honestly say why I did or did not reply in a certain way that long ass time ago.  What I can say now, as I recall clearly, is that I was using coinchat for chatting (not by bot) and gambling (not by bot), I was experimenting to make a bot (with tradefortress' help, teaching me about the api), and that he accused me of all kinds of random things after that (making up number, making up usernames, etc).  How you think this adds up to "proof" is beyond me.

EDIT: hard to believe that I actually stooped to the level of trying to explain to you whatever bullshit TF was making up about me back then.  I haven't even reread through that old thread because I don't want to give you any further pleasure from it.  Feel free to keep on quoting it if you need to, everyone here can see that taking TF's side in an ancient false accusation isn't making you look trustworthy.
/EDIT

What's more, I love how the guy who consistently drops 150+ posts per week is accusing me of posting too much.

As far as what kind of person you are, I'm looking forward your explanation here:


Pretty clear to anyone observing this that you went on a mission to troll me with your alt and when you thought you'd found some relevent skeleton from 3 years ago you necro bumped it in order to have plausible deniablity that you your main account just "found" this feedback in the new posts in Meta and just happened to read through those pages of old old lies and accusations in order to decide that I was "proven" scammer and you are somehow doing the community a favor by neg-repping me.  In fact, it's pretty clear that you're doing yourself the favor of enjoying swinging your dick around because you wanted to find some way to get me kicked out of my campaign.  As I said, you've succeeded, but only temporarily---once BadBear gets online and looks at this I have a feeling I'm either going to see that negative trust disappear because you delete it or because you're not on default trust anymore.  I'm pretty sure that BadBear doesn't want someone like you taking his trust as a way to effect personal vendettas.

@tspacepilot: If you were experimenting with bots, why did you withdraw coins you got from the experiment? Using bot is against rules, so you shouldn't withdraw coins you got from bot-chat.

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

I honestly don't see how you guys can know anything about what happend on coinchat so many years ago.  I can barely remember myself other than that I had a good time and enjoyed the fun until admin/tradefortress banned me for "abuse" which I didn't do.  It's even weirder that you guys would put stock in some weird likes that tradefortress made up at the time.   Especially given that he's a known liar and theif and I've basically got a 3 year reputation with 0 issues except this one.  Now, as to why quickseller is going after me, it's clear (read upthread).

As to whether this kind of personal vendetta is allowed for people on default trust (he clearly had a mission to get me removed from the signature ad campaign i was in) that's a question for the mods.

MZ, I only ask you to put yourself into my shoes, actually maybe that's impossible because you seem to be very careful not to cross anyone powerful here. But imagine that one day you disagreed with quickseller, nex thing you know he will find some reason to say that you are now a scammer---spending all night looking through 1000s of posts to find some kind of thing to possibly misinterpret.  Now, how do you want others to react, to take the side of the powerful abusive person, or to realize that you've spent years on here doing nothing but chatting and talking and helping and learning about bitcoin and which of these should hold more weight.  Think about it.

Try to find one issue that anyone on here has with me beyond tradefortress (known scammer), quickseller and his clones (soon to be removed from power, certainly).  There are many people who I have disagreed with (ask Vod, for example), but for all except quickseller, they know the difference between disagreement and using your power to bully.   Even quickseller stayed up all night looking through 2000 posts from me over 3 years and the only thing he could find was lies by a known liar and theif.

MZ, just saw this so I'm replying.   This just underscores how little you know about the situation.  Coinchat was a site in which making bots was encouraged.  As I said in the thread, TF even helped me to make a bot.  There were all kinds of bots there which ran gambling games or other useful services.  I was new to coding and was learning as I went.  As far as I know, I did not withdraw coins made from "bot-chat" as you call it.  Why would you presume to know the rules of a site you obviously never visited (it closed nearly 2 years ago, as far as I know it went down with TF when he stole everyones bitcoins in the inputs.io scandal)?

Like I said before, I knew you weren't going to admit to scamming because that is the kind of person you are.

Secondly, you are strengthening your argument by saying this is from almost three years ago. This is a lie. The thread in question was created in September 2013, and considering that it is now April 2015, the activity in question was from just under 19 months ago, which is roughly 1.5 years ago.

To address your concern that you did not deny using a bot "3" (1.5) years ago and "cannot" recall why, the consensus was very clear that you had admitted to scamming TF and CoinChat and that you were in the wrong. 
It should also be noted that there was exactly one person backing you up (zackclark70 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=121108)) who did not seem to particularly like TF in the first place and was likely biased.

At this point, I am fairly certain that you scammed CoinChat out of some amount, and that like in September 2013 you are trying to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility. Except this time you are resorting to intimidation to get me to remove the negative.



See below. This is not the first time that you have claimed that negative trust against you was some kind of personal vendetta against you. Sure we have exchanged heated words in the past after you started trolling me, but I can assure you that the reason for the negative does not have anything to do with personal feelings.

(Note that in this post you admitted to withdrawing more then you should have.)
This one is somewhat unrelated, but still somewhat related. You are admitting that you are making a false allegation, therefore there is no reason why anything you claim someone else is doing should be trusted.

I don't get anything special in return for being in the default trust network, despite that this statement is clearly meant to be a threat. If BadBear decides that he wants to remove me from his trust list then that is his decision. I am not going to make a huge deal out of whatever decision he makes, although I don't think he will remove me for this.

I think it is fairly clear that you are a scammer, you are a spammer and that the trust rating is appropriate.

There are a good number of clearly shill accounts in this thread, including gamblebitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=384844) (who is a brand new account that happens to be taking your side),  TerminatorXL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507594) (who is an alt of CozyLife (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=354607) who was banned for making shit posts and has written articles about his position against the sale of accounts on a site with no editorial integrity [lol]). Additionally neither  LaudaM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872), nor erikalui (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=141005) is on my trust list and as a result their opinions are not considered without any facts/logical arguments to back them up. Vod (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747) simply said that I should not trust TF's word, which I do not. 

Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign  ;)

Again, it's just my opinion.

I also found your alt account, sed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139512) which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1 (https://archive.today/OFOHD), 2 (https://archive.today/DWtwl), 3 (https://archive.today/SQsKp), 4 (https://archive.today/W06Nb), 5 (https://archive.today/1bKPX), 6 (https://archive.today/EGpsG), 7 (https://archive.today/x7Ika)).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0) thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka  Mitchełł (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=113670) for selling advertisements, however here (https://archive.today/AKXx4) is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here (https://archive.today/EVBAQ) is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here (https://archive.today/O3uDq) is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.msg11144943#msg11144943) of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.

I don't think, I know that the two of you are the same person, I just want to see if you admit it (which I know you won't), or deny it, which you probably won't either because you are going to "exercise your right to remain silent" although I do have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the same person.

I am not backing down from my original claim, I am just pointing out that there is more to this thread then the negative that I left you.

I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.

It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful ;)

I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it.

I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right). 

---

I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban).

If you understood it then you'd be realizing that I have not admitted to any of TF's false accusations and you'd also realize that history has vindicated me on that point (uh, have you looked at TF's trust rating recently?  Were you around back when inputs.io was around?  I'm not so sure that you were.)

If you understood it truly then you'd realize how bad you look by siding with unsubstatiated allegations by a known liar.


Lol, I'm going to ask you expclitly if you are an alt of ACCTSeller.  Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidince that suggests that you are the same person as him.  It would also likely be considered to be scamming this forum if you are using your alt to dig up dirt on people and then necrobumping those threads so that you can attack them on default trust with your other account (it is also frowned up on by the forum administration and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust).

Amazing the way you switch into this, god-like, I am the judge of the people tone of voice.  Guess what dude, I'm not on trial by you and I'm not going to answer to any of your ridiculous trolling bullshit.  You are clearly some kind of insane power-hungry madman on a vengance mission from hell.  And god knows what for (because I called you a hothead? boy was I right!).

If you had any sense of sanity you'd realize that:

a) you and I have never had any trading or any interactions together which would give you any sort of reason to negatively or positivily or neutrally trust me.
b) your insane vendetta makes you look crazy

I suppose tomorrow we'll hearing about how I am actually a child of satan, out to destory bitcoin and therefore the forums must be warned.  That is, we can ask ourselves, where will you go next?  Siding with a known scammer has failed an made you look untrustworthy.  Random accusations of alt/shill don't seem to be holding any water.  What's next?


Really this whole thing would be totally hillarious if it wasn't that the trolls have one here (I still hold out hope that this is only temporary).  A guy with a power complex and too much time on his hands makes it his mission to get a guy banned from a signature ad campaign because I called him a hothead and sided againse him on a number of debates, and it turns out because he's in a power position, he's basically won.  He can sit back here and carp up unsubstantiated complaint after unsubstantiated complaint, he can invent them, he can take them from known liars, it doesn't matter.  He sits back and says in a deified voice "doest thou deny the charges that quickseller brings against thee?"  And when I sat "WTF are you talking about?!"  he says "Thou hast not answered the charges, my judgement STANDS!"

The main hope here is basically that you won't be getting away with this for long.  You've shown your true colors and folks like you who spend their time swinging their dicks around trying to hurt people who have never done any wrong and never even had any complaints against them (yes, except for one complaint from tradefortress, but uh, we know how that story ended) aren't going to be in power for long.

This is not going to happen. BadBear trusts him and has defended him in the past (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11081945#msg11081945). This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company which was caught by BadBear (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1021240.msg11055166#msg11055166).

Escrow for a scam company ? he is willing to become the escrow for the signature campaign to protect the participants of the campaign of not getting paid. This has happened before , so I think that that he being an escrow is the right thing to do

The company account was already tagged by BadBear. Without escrow they were not going to get any members. Quickseller being the escrow allowed some to join and display the signature and potentially get some customers in.

The knee-jerk reaction here is to side with OP, simply because the actions of Quickseller/ACCTSeller are shady.
But Quickseller's questionable ethics and being (likely) driven by vindictiveness do nothing to invalidate his claims re. OP scamming TF, those are factual, and could easily be verified here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0

TradeFortress himself (most likely) being a scammer is neither here nor there - thieves get robbed too. And 2+2 still equals 4, even when said by a liar.

I have read and reread all this and I found it necessary to post here. See this account with the -trust. I'm fairy sure that if I asked Quickseller to remove it he would, because he does know that I am not the person that he thought I was.  I do have another account Tidus1097 that I use because its a full member account hence is why I don't use this one. I made a open thread of it in meta as well. My account was stolen in February due to my incompetence to secure my account. I do not deny that. But over these last 2 months, I have engaged with Quicksellers services mainly because I want him to know that I am indeed the person I say I am and am NOT Morenia/Thegambler or Candystripes. I chose his service because I know he will go through the history on bct and find out any inconsistancies (sorry I'm not using spell check for 1 word) with whoever I'm trading with. When someone uses Quicksellers service 1, they can be sure he will not scam them. 2, Just out of his own accord, he will check out both the accounts history and if he finds anything he will make sure the world knows. Glad he does this, because you never know who your actually dealing with, especially if your new and don't spend alot of time on the forum.

Quickseller is a easy person to get along with. Sure I've cussed him, fought with him, felt like doing the same thing blasting him away in Meta, but what's that gonna solve? Nothing. I felt I had to prove myself to him and will continue to do so because the community hold him to a higher standard (default trust) Now, 3/4 are saying well your just sucking his dick to get on his good side, well that's about 1/4 right. 1. He helps the community with the whore's that want to scam you. 2. You can guarentee that he will not cheat you or will not let you be cheated. 3. He may be a prick, but I'm a prick to. That just people for ya. Live with it.

You want Quickseller to remove the negative feedback, talk to him. Be reasonable. Don't belittle him. Do the same thing you would do to a bank officer when applying for a loan. He is a reasonable person in my opinion. All I had to do was reasonably talk with him. Since then, I've had nothing but good things to say about him. Now for the ones that don't agree with Quickseller. That's your opinion. Just like a asshole, everyone has one. This is just mine. Hate me, blast me with neg's, don't matter. I'll still stand up for Quickseller because I know what he does here and will do for me if I need it in a escrow. Will I use other escrows? Sure why not? I like getting to know the community and want them to get to know me as well. But when you try to "take down" someone that does this for the community, your doing the community a negative in my thoughts because he has done more for this Bitcointalk community than 3/4 of the people in this thread has combined. Once you do as much as he has, you will probably have some of the same thoughts as well. I think that's why he has the attitude he has. When u deal with liars and thieves all day, its hard to justify one from the other at times. I'm in no way saying he did that here, I have not studied the evidence that's been presented nor asked the questions that would resolve it for me. On that note, I end this quote, so blast away crybabies. I did that and it got me nowhere.

While I agree that QS has acted questionably and hotheadedly in the past (I called him out for it in that very thread you reference) in this situation he's gone even farther.  Apparantly he did have some contact with worshipper_-_ and yes it seems the neg rep on worshipper_-_ was basically because he didn't like the loss of income when the deal fell apart, in my case we've never had any dealings.  Instead, he's gone on a 2 day trollfest of me and eventually all he could come up with were unsubstantiated accusations from TF (known liar).


Right, we know that Quickseller has necrobumped this old thread of lies in order to find a reasons to smear me.  And he also goes and cutnspastes everythign from the thread which disagrees with me into this thread in order to make it look "proven".  You folks seem to be forgetting that if TF got the benefit of the doubt at that time it was because he was on default trust holding 1000s of people's bitcoins and I was a noobie saying "hay, what happened?"  The fact: I didn't not scam anyone and I did not admit to scamming anyone and to say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Futheremore, history has done the real proving here:  TF has a trust rating ove like -500 now and I have exactly 3 neg reps, one from TF, one from Quickseller (echoing TF) and one from his alt ACCTSeller during his trollfest.



Ok, I have to admit I don't understand the point of your story. You say he would remove the negative feedback if you asked him because he does now know that you are the person that he didn't know that you were?  The only think I got from this paragraph is that you appreciate his thoroughness.

BTW, are there actually any examples of quickseller removing negative feedback under any circumstances?  I've seen Vod do it often, I don't think I've ever seen QS do it.


Again, your writing seems conflicted you say he's easy to get along with and that you've cussed him and that he's a prick and that you're a prick too?  And you seem to be admitting that the main way to get along with him is to "suck his dick", which certainly seems to be the case---as far as I can tell, he doesn't tolerate disagreement or any suggestion that he might be wrong on anything anywhere.  (See the above thread I linked to above where I asked him if he had intended to sign a bitcoin message from an escrow address rather than using his PGP key; he flipped out and called me an idiot, said i know nothing, that i'm inexperienced and cetera; it was over the top as I simply thought that he had made an oversight and was trying to help).


This is nuts.  Dude has gone on a 2 day trollfest on me using two different accounts and you suggest that if I say nice things then he'll apologize and go away?  I seriously doubt that.  He wants me to grovel and plead with him and say "quickseller you are the deserved god of this forum because you find everything soooo fast" but clearly that is not going to help end his power-craze or this abuse.  Why on earth would I defend myself to this guy regarding trumped up charged from ancient history which have absolutely nothing to do with quickseller or anyone else of the modern era?  How is it not incredibly clear that 3 years of no issues with anyone speaks waaaay louder than the cries of a debunked scammer? 



Right, blasting away at the powerful is indeed like pissing in the wind, or so they say.  But surely anyone reading through this can see the vindinctive trolling that's going on here and once the mods get a chance to weigh in, I'm pretty sure the reign of quickterror will be ending.

Well you may think that the OP has been around since late 2013 with no issues, however as you can see, he refuses to admit to scamming TF even after evidence has been presented to the contrary. As you saw on the 2013 thread, he tried to weasel his way out of him being labeled a scammer despite the fact that he clearly did steal. Now he is even going as far as saying that he did not admit to using the bot to illegally receive bitcoin previously when it is clear that he did. If he did scam someone and they did not take very careful notes and document everything perfectly then the OP would simply deny the claims and it would look frivolous. When people act like this, there is a significantly higher reason to call them out (and warn people) about any past transgressions he has done in the past as he has likely learned his lesson as to how to not act if he doesn't want to get caught.

---

---

I see little reason to avoid withholding this proof that sed is an alt of the OP since the OP is refusing to deny the fact sed is not controlled/owned by him.

I do not use this account anymore not even for sig campaign. That's why I posted with this account and not with the account I use now so nobody would think he just posted so he would get sig camp credit. No its not like that at all. He has a neutral one the account that I use and am perfectly fine with it. If anybody wants to research as to why its there, more than happy to help with related threads. I felt like you before to, madder than fuk, cussing Quickseller with every last breath. But that got nowhere. Conversation and openness is the key to getting this resolved. Thats how I feel you should approach it. If Quickseller feels that you could be withholding info to cover yourself, you should be as open as possible about it to get his resolved. The truth will set you free.

Quickseller, you've been posting with a chatbot and collecting pay for that, correct?


No. Why would it matter where you cheated?
It's not that I'm saying you're some nasty miscreant, mind you, or that Quickseller did the right thing. If we stop focusing on details & zoom out tho, things worked out for the best: you both have brought attention to the failings of default trust, monetized posting, and, most certainly, to buying and selling of forum accounts.

And hey, now that you're not being paid for your sig, there's one less ad I have to look at, and probably less spam to scroll through :)
BTW, you do own/post with other accounts, don't you?

@Neonecrox13: All that conversation and openness has got you... what? You've still got that bright red trust from Quickseller, and now, it appears, you're hoping that sucking up to him would get it removed.
Just buy another account, bro, they're cheap.

Come to JesusQuickseller speech, eh?  Cute.  Or maybe not so cute but whatever.

Here's the sum of what I can see so far:

1)  QS has dug up a he-said-she-said from years ago between a known scammer and me.
2)  QS is taking the unsubstantiated allegations of this scammer against me as "proof".
3)  Realizing how lame this makes him look, he's now searching around for alt accounts in order to (...not sure exactly?)


We of course have to ask the motivation for (1).  The best I can come up with is the fact that I called him a hothead and told him he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him.  He may have other motivations, but thy aren't apparent.  It's clear that whatever he is up to isn't for the "good of the community".  The best current explanation is a vindictive grudge coupled with a power complex.

On (2), QS should try to answer the logic of this: if the other people in the forum who questioned me in that old-ass thread thought I was a "proven" scammer, why didn't they leave negative feedback of their own?  SaltySpitoon is a global moderator, and was at the time (iirc), if, for the good of the community, I was to be marked for life, why didn't SS go ahead an take care of it right there.  Anyone who actually takes the time to troll through that thread from before time will realize that it is a he-said-she-said between two people and in retrospect, only one of them is known to have caused issues.

On (3), the best I can come up with is that he's running scared that his original attack is going to fall through.  This like some kind of cold-war with a power-hungry tyrant.  He moved too quick(seller)ly, he thought he found a legitimate problem that he could use to defame an anonymous guy on the internet who he didn't like but what he actually found was a debunked scammer pitching a fit.  Now, having sided himself with the scammer he's trying to pull out some other attack which is not really adding up to anything (as far as I can tell, he's accusing me of having an alt---is this at all ironic from a guy who sells accounts?  or is it me?).

If quickseller weren't so blinded by his own arrogance he would see the adjectives people in this thread have been applying to his behavior:  "petty", "unwarranted", "suspicious", "intentional", "vindictive", "doesn't add up".

QS is clearly the kind of person who sees the world in three classes: those above him, himself, and those below him.  I've seen this kind of person many times in real life.  The people above them, they suck up to them and act on their best behavior.  This is the only way to understand how someone like him got onto default-trust.  The people below them, they treat like shit and stomp on them.  These people usually only get so far in life, but there's nothing really to do other than to let time+theworld sort it out (alot like what I had to do when TF falsely accused me about 2 or so years ago).

That's the summary of what's transpired.  Here's the future:  QS has dug himself into this hole and he's not backing down or backing out.  More or less, the only recourse here for me is for the person who has provided trust to QS (BadBear, the bigger god) to take a look at this and decide whether this is the kind of behavior he was looking for when he put QS into his trust list (Imma wager it's not, but we'll see).  It's unfortunate that the mods who *are* here aren't able to fix this while BB is away, but the situation is what it is.

For the good of everyone, I'm closing this thread.  I don't see any reason to keep this flame war going.  I'll still be around the boards, posting in my usual sections, chatting bout gambling and learning how to take apart and put back together various pieces of cryptography and protocols and cetera.  Thanks to everyone who chimed in.  BB will be back in a little over a week and then I've got a pretty good feeling you guys won't have to look at any sad warning text when you see my walnuts.  For more about how these sorts of issues might be avoided in the first place, see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0 (wow, didin't I have some kinda precience when I started that thread about a day or two before the QS trollfest on me began?!).

Dropping this in the record here because it's relevent to removing any doubt about the connection between QS/ACCTSeller.  Since he has now gone ahead and admitted they are both his accounts then you can see very easily how he uses his low-importance account to troll me and dig up dirt so that his main account can "find it" via the low-importance account's necrobump and then use it against me.

Also, isn't using multiple accounts to re-neg the same person yet another form of trust abuse just in and of itself?