Bitcoin Forum

I see you're a newbie, newbies can't post in certain sections till their activity is up (I think)
click the corner New Topic to make a new thread.

So Quickseller real name is Chase Curtis  ???

Looking another exciting scene..

Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.

I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though.  

Okay I know I told you that I am ACCTSeller so there is no point in denying that lol. It is a pretty well known fact anyway.

You used a copy of your last site haha.

Either way, sorry for calling out your scam so soon after you started it. Better luck next time

I've never publicly stated we are the same person, the only people that made the claim publicly were trying to cause me problems so I wanted to make them look like an idiot. Plenty of people are aware though.

I'm not sure what the point of this is if that site really isn't yours ;)

I guess we were trying to reel eachother in, with it working for neither of us lol. I am fairly sure that you would have tried sending me malware with promises of Ev positive gambling strategy which is mathematically impossible if you are using a provably fair gambling site.

Like I said, I'm sorry you weren't able to scam more from your new site prior to calling it out as an obvious scam.

you may have not said it is positive EV however that is the only way you can reliably make money on a dice site, otherwise with as much as you have claimed to have gambled you would have almost certainly have lost money, not be up 25 btc as you claim. The only other "explanation" is either gamblers fallacy or you somehow were cheating.

You have a history of sending out malware so I only assumed that your ultimate plan was to send malware.

---

well for those of us who don't routinely devolop/use/run ponzi sites, some of us don't know where to look to find how much they claim to have invested in their site. Plus I think it is fair to say that the sites numbers are BS which is something you have a history of.

You gave tspacepilot negative trust using both Quickseller and ACCTSeller for saying that ACCTSeller was your account. Does that qualify as trust abuse? Are you planning to apologize?

I also don't see the point of publishing the chat logs considering I have denied nothing lol. But whatever floats your boat.

no it does not. One negative was given from ACCTSeller because the infraction was not something that qualified for a trade with caution tag, however once I found additional information that showed he scammed I decided that his scam qualified to be severe enough that he should have a trade with caution tag.

This is ironic too, Quickseller recently neg trusted my account , when clearly I bought it through an auction , and provided all proof. The original owner dumped the account after taking a loan. Even then QUickseller didn't remove the trust, despite me providing all the trust.

With him doing all these things to catch scams and acting like a scammer himself, could be too much power given if he intends to run a scam in real, and he can simply give it as an excuse, that he was trying to catch a scammer and was not actually looking to scam.

Isn't this the Australian ponzi runner kid? I forget his name. Like most of what he says, his claims to have a DefaultTrusted account are hot air, all of his accounts were really crappy IIRC.

It's sad how all these kids from HackForums are coming over to BTCTalk. RIP.

I wouldn't be surprised if thats the actual case. I recently saw Quickseller negative rep another account pagalwana,, who also defaulted on a loan , and after a scam accusation negative repped the account.
But after the person who loaned him the amount contacted QUickseller to sell it, probably for the escrow fees, Quickseller agreed to remove the negative trust and escrowed the sale for the seller.

I haven't offered the same deal or to pay him some money for it, probably why he wouldn't remove it, despite providing all the proof, and the negative trust given by him a month later after I bought the account.

Yea because you would just send funds to the site then mix the coins and re deposit the same coins.  Or considering how much you have stolen in the past you could have just deposited your own funds into the site from various addresses.

I never said that you sent me malware but you have sent several gambling sites malware in the past, there was proof posted in your scam accusation against fair proof (who you also sent malware to).

yes it is the Australian HYIP scammer. He is moreia aka spoodermen aka many other accounts (I am aware of ~10 accounts, but he claims to have ~15).

He has scammed for 10+ btc multiple times.

He has said that he got the default trust account "accidentally" so newly added accounts are being looked into. At this point I am starting to think the claim of a default trust account is a red herring however it was told to me in a way that was not confrontational.

Sorry I have a little question for asking you guys.
If I vote who will do it? By the way I think QuickSeller is trusted escrow from scam Ponzi signature campaign he can send fund to participants after OP scamed.

Alright buddy whatever you say. Good luck with your next scam.

Yes literally the iPad screenshot you just posted shows an iPad with the timezone set to Australia, you've left evidence that identifies you all over the internet and everytime you post you seem to continually provide additional evidence.

All of the BTC you got from scamming wouldn't even cover a retainer for a good lawyer if you were ever arrested. You're young and ignorant of how the world works.

Right. I sold trust for the $1 minimum amount I get from acting as escrow. /s

I hope you realize just how moronic that sounds buddy.

he does make a lot of mistakes and anytime he tries to start a new scam it is pretty obvious.

No thats not my argument. My argument was , that just like the account Pagalwana, my account was bought after someone defaulted on a loan, and it was auctioned by Ume(who I started the scam accusation against). 2 months later you gave it a negative trust, to which I provided you all the proof of everything.
But you never listened or replied or even cared about it.

The same thing happened with the account pagalwana, and irfanpak contacted you for the account sale. You readily agreed with him to sell his account and removed your negative trust.

I am now in a losing situation on both ends, as I bought the account from Ume, and it was also me who started the scam accusation against him from my original account. And because of your negative trust on this account, Ume got to know who was the buyer for this account, and will not agree to refund me the money. 

1- asking you to start a ponzi was to build trust to find your default trust account that you claimed to have
2- the reason/purpose that people have alts is that they are not known to be the same person. Most alts (I assume) are not public.
3- it is not my fault that people wanted to buy what I was selling from multiple accounts. It is a free market.
4- untrue and BS
5- backing out of escrow is scammy behavior. It would be incorrect to not have neg'ed him
5- the only people who claim trust abuse are scammers. I don't abuse the trust system.

You are/were targeting the Russians on here lol. This is a huge market as a lot of people on here have Bitcoin (who would have guessed) and are greedy morons who are more then willing to throw away their money into Ponzis.

Edit: by your own admission, the reason you opened this thread is because you couldn't real me into joining the side of scammers so don't you think trying to get me removed from default trust kind of is a moot point? You think I should be removed because I wouldn't turn scammer?

Sorry to say but Quickseller, you have been lying all this time by saying you don't own the ACCTSeller account all this while and I believed that may be that other account is owned by another person. You being a reputed member here, it looks bad for you to lie. Especially because you work as an escrow, a honest and trustworthy person.

If you can lie for such a small and irrelevant fact as having an alternate account is allowed, how can you expect others to trust you? You can work as an escrow for members here and then calmly deny that you don't know them if they have dealt with you only in PMs.

I am not saying you are not trustworthy. Definitely you are if Badbear and other members are saying but now you sound like a Liar. It's wrong and now whatever you say might only seem to be lies. Sorry.

I'm sorry where did I say that ACCTSeller is not my alt?

You never admitted to it and asked people to prove. You should have openly said that yes, I am an alt and it's not against the rules. You chose to hide it. Having an alt is nothing wrong. It feels weird when you try to hide such a small fact. In this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0 it appeared as if two people were talking.


I have no issues with you as the OP also had used a bot and in this case as well the OP isn't trustworthy but since you are, it dint look good for you to not admit this fact. I have nothing against you but what I felt, I wrote.

Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. The reason why people have alts in the first place is so each account is not associated with the other, and there is no problem with that as long as one of them does not scam which neither of them did.

I don't think it is unfair to ask that someone who is trying to cause trouble for me frivolously to be asked to prove any claim they make against me.

And here we have case in point why both should be.

1- No. Your ponzi scammed within 24 hours of the signature campaign starting and I promptly had participants take down their signatures once I learned it scammed. If anything then your site got a lot less advertising then it otherwise would have and protected participants from getting scammed in the process.
2- That account was not hacked
3- That is not non-transparent (yes I know it is a double negative). I think I am starting to get a feeling as to where you got this information from. ;)
4- I don't follow your logic but I am going to say no. It is a free market, and I have never cited any of my other accounts' prices when negotiating on a sale price.

If you say so. Although you did not get any information out of me, and you did not get any information/evidence against me.

You also target bitcointalk investor based games section as well.

Since none of my accounts are scammer accounts, it is no one's business what my other accounts are. A good number of people do know about my other account(s) however that does not mean that I am going to tell someone who is trying to cause trouble for me

Having alt accounts enables people to freely express what they think without fear of any potential negative retribution to their "main" account.   

I express myself freely and I have nothing but positive feedback from trusted members.  :)

I have no alts.

Just to add, I don't know if this allegation is true or not, and while I dislike this practice, it was determined that bidding on your own auctions with alts in order to inflate the price is allowed on the forums:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238474.msg2544470#msg2544470

So thats kind of a mute point. You can do this if you want to. According to theymos we should always assume people on this forum are doing this, which is partly why the practice isn't banned.

Yeah, I'm using an alt account now. The forum is already pseudonymous, so not sure what an extra level of obfuscation is meant to achieve.

Having an alt IRL identity would also enable people to freely express what they think without fearing potential retribution. It also enables them to be lying, thieving scumbags, and that's why fake IDs are illegal IRL.

I'm pretty sure other people sell accounts here, pretty sure Quickseller wasn't the first account seller either, in fact I believe I know who the first was and I do not believe it was Quickseller. In addition, I'm not sure if you visit the marketplace section, but if you do, you might see an account for sale... or 10.... maybe 50. The freemarket, it works!

You don't generally express unpopular views.

I am fairly certain this is not your viewpoint, however if you were to say that escrow is a waste of time for small transactions, then you would probably be labeled as someone who enables scammers, or a scammer yourself. If you were to say this through a shill account (and make an argument for such) then the shill account would receive such label but you would also get to make your statement.

Another example is people who live in countries whose governments do not like their people being critical of them. If you happened to live in one of those countries then you would not be able to freely criticize your government because your identity is generally know, however if you created an alt account to speak negatively about your government then you would not fear any kind of retribution from your government.  

Maybe that was because both accounts were reputable and were able to deliver without issue. Even if one of them was not selling accounts then I still would have been able to command high prices because what I sold was not the result of a bunch of spam posts or posts in the giveaway section.

Prior to my arrival into the market, account sellers would often have problems with what they sold or would pull an exit scam, anyone that was new to the market would have the label for that possibility to happen to them, however I was able to earn the removal of that possibility

Wonder how that one would'a played out if he wasn't buddies with Theymos ::)  Good thing Garr didn't screw the rubes who invested in his mining farm & vanish into the woodwork, or folks might talk.

Acting as escrow for a signature campaign is the opposite of "aiding and abetting" them. They are unlikely to pay their participants anything if the funds are not escrowed, Quickseller is preventing a number of people from being scammed by doing this. Furthermore, numerous trustworthy members have escrowed signature campaigns for scams, such as Dooglus and Mitchell with dicebitcoin.


BadBear was already aware of this issue when he added him to his trust list, and he seems to have strong evidence the account was not hacked:



Your proof of a "scam attempt" is that he didn't provide a bitcoin signed message saying that he controls the funds in the address, only a PGP signed message stating that the funds in this address will be used to pay for the campaign. This distinction is irrelevant, since he could still decide to not pay out the funds even if he signed the address. Signing the address itself does no more to ensure that he pays out funds than the PGP message does, you still need to trust the escrow to pay out. I don't know how you could possibly think this would warrant a removal from default trust, this follows the practices of all other trusted escrows on the forum.


Please provide some evidence of this. I'm sure we would all love to see it. Also, BadBear was obviously aware of the fact that he had multiple accounts when he added him to his trust list, so once again, it is pretty much a moot point.

Instead of continuing this slander, why don't you PM BadBear if you feel so sure that you are right?

I'm sure he's not the first to lie, cheat, or steal ether. Doesn't make what he does good, merely unoriginal.
Re. "free market, it works": clearly not this time :-\

@MadZ: And suddenly...

http://www.jeremynoeljohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/white-knight.jpg

Point to one time on this forum that I have lied, cheated or stole from someone. I guarantee that you cannot find one.

You may be against the sale of accounts, however it does prevent scams - although the explanation is off topic

Haha, maybe you don't know that much about TG, but if you did, you would know he has no credibility and quite a few personal reasons to go after QS.

Wow! You destroyed all Blazr's and MadZ's arguments with a such well thought and complete analysis, it's not worth discussing anymore.

But seriously this thread has completely lost its track several posts ago. It's clear what happened and now we can take our own conclusions.
OP please just lock it now, all the arguments are just going in circles.

Not sure what you're getting riled up about. I've defended you by pointing out that you haven't invented lying, cheating, or theft :-\
You don't really think of yourself as the root of all evil, do you?

I think you have implied that I was doing all of those things on here which I have not.

Moreia - you turn 30 years old this year. You seriously need to stop with this HYIP scamming BS. I would not be surprised if multiple government agencies are looking for you based on the number of times that you have stolen large amounts of money from people. You are going to slip up sooner or later and when you do, you will most likely end up in jail, probably for a long time.

I don't like you and you don't like me, however be smart and take my advice, it will be good for you

His credibility is not an issue here, though it's nice that he got Qickseller to own his sock. Clearly a case of a bad person doing good.
See how well things work out? I mean, gives me the sort of epiphany that usually requires powerful recreational chemistry.
This really is the best of all possible worlds :)

I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.

Also I have never used any account to support my own position. Even in threads when both accounts posted, I would only post to defend that account.

hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

Never in your life ???
I remember you asking me yesterday to prove that ACCTseller was your sock. And look, the very next day, with no effort from me whatsoever... *poof*! No more need for proof :)

>I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.
The difference being I've made no claims at being someone who belongs on some cheesy trust list, of being honest, or even of being a decent human being. I'm using an alt account to prove, by example, of just how ridiculous and intrinsically flawed this sort of thing is.

>Also I have never used any account to support my own position.
You've left negative trust from at least 2 of your accounts to whateverhisnickis. If that's not supporting yourself with your alts, what is?

@r3wt: ever since I've discovered right-click->search with Google, comments like yours have lost a certain ...what's the word i'm looking for?

I'm suprised that you were able to identify Quickseller as an alt. Most people haven't noticed the pattern yet. btw, my comment was meant for someone else who may or may not be perusing this thread.

Oh, sorry. Not trying to play interweb sleuth, assumed this was clear to everyone. His asking me to prove it kind'a piqued my interest, that's all.
I mean, who could pass on a double-dog dare?

Chuck Norris only needs a single dog dare, and even that isn't always required.

It was pretty easy for me to tell when in near perfect synchrony QS disappeared from my sig-ad campaign, AS appeared and began trolling me, AS trolled me all night until he found an old accusation of Tradefortress, QS magically reappared and used it as a reason to get me kicked from the ad campaign---which was his stated goal (as ACCTSeller).

Are you starting to understand what "Default Trust" means?

I know there some subtlety to your comment which I'm supposed to get.  But I'm rather slow so I don't get it, can you spell it out for me?

An enemy of the agenda of the Default Trust, is an enemy of the forum.

Hmm, well, I don't know I'm an "enemy of the agenda of Default Trust".  It seems to me that Default trust is a collection of people who probably don't have a very clear and collective "agenda".  However, I am certainly against someone leading a mudslinging campaign against me for personal vendetta.  The fact that that person is on default trust is certainly even more bothersome --- but I'm pretty confident that this is going to be resolved in a few days when Badbear is back in town and QS finally has to account for his actions.

Of course the fact that there's a time-lapse here means that in a very real sense QS is costing me income that I would have earned though advertising.  We'll see if he's interested in paying back the money his smear campaign is costing, I think that'd be right and fair but I'd be surprised if he goes for it.  Since I'm not on default trust it won't matter to him that I wouldn't be removing the negative reputation unless he paid back the BTC he has cost me due to his actions.

It seems as though you have created this thread simply to state Quickseller has alt accounts. Creating an "honest" ponzi would be in fact quite profitable. Supported by the fact that the owners could be held accountable in reality if things were to go South. Even if not, it would still be quite profitable.

I never said that you were a teen, although you do have the maturity of one. I have it on good authority that is your age. IDK if you take my advice but don't complaint to me when you end up in jail.

You are a lot worse at covering your tracks then you think you are.

Any secret that I have on here is nothing more then for my own privacy and would not make me look bad in any way on here.

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing wrong with having an alt account and it is against no rule. Having an alt account did not assist in any kind of scam, any kind of lie or in any kind of cheating.
You still have not pointed out any transgression that I have done.
As I mentioned previously in one of the other threads, the first negative was left by ACCTSeller was because of something I felt was untrustworthy (trying to significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result), and was appropriate that the community be warned, but was not appropriate  for him to have a "warning:trade with extreme caution" tag. Once I found out that he had scammed, I left the more harsh negative rating from this account as anyone who has actually scammed (and not repaid what they stole) should have a "trade with extreme caution" tag.

Actually there's a big difference between "having scammed" (not my case) and "having been accused of scamming" (which is my case, and yours as well).  So I dunno if you've ever scammed, but I can see that although you've been accused, you don't have to wear a scammer tag.  Cool.

But of course everyone knows exactly why you went after me.  You weren't happy with the fact that I argued with you and called you out for your temper.  You made a promise that you were gonna get me banned from my signature campaign.  And then went through with it.  Everyone on here knows tha I don't trade and that the only reason for your feedback on me is that you have a personal agenda against me.  If it wasn't the case, then you'd have to explain why you would have any interest at all in me, much less in what a known scammer said about me in the past.

Seems there is a connection between the following.

Dogie
Quickseller

Funny how Wardick as well as others are immediately coming to their aid across a variety of threads. Interesting, how recently their interest has turned to these 2 accounts out of left field. It is almost if they are magnetically drawn to the threads with those two names right?

I wonder why someone would see the connection between Dogie / Quickseller and need to defend just those to two accounts given the wide range of other accusations that get made in the these forums Wardick seems overly enthusiastic in very recent time to these two accounts being challenged by the community about their ethical behavior.

I think someone is clearly "biased" towards defending certain accounts. I wonder what motivates such accounts?

I would question the validity of this account being independently controlled by an individual other than Dogie or Quickseller.

Ouch.

Well that certainly is interesting.

What does Dogie have to do with the Quickseller account? That be my next question.


@TheGambler

Currently there is a strong strong undercurrent of covering of threads with these accounts all backing Dogie and Quickseller. Given that there is certainly more digging that should be done into who the hell this Quickseller really is and what sort of trust should be given someone who uses multiple accounts to boost sales and run up prices. Unethical and why would anyone ESCROW with someone you don't know their real name and some sort of identification or IRL meeting. Most of these long con scams in hardware revolve around any number of people being anonymous and shilling the shit out of the hardware.

You start seeing patterns in these accounts all gravitating towards covering each others asses it begs the question is it one person not 4 or 5?

Ask your source about Dogie and his relationship to Quickseller he might know.

You just need to look at the posting hours of each account to see that this is an absurd claim.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020;sa=statPanel
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=85316;sa=statPanel
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=87869;sa=statPanel

Just read their posts and you can tell they're written by different people. Come on, even though you don't like QS, you can't tell me you actually believe this. Also, though the distributions look similar, one is shifted by a few hours, which is statistically significant when the distribution is of over 1000 posts.

Excuse me! Mind your words. I am not talking about you who is using a bot but about that other user https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

I don'e care about you or any other member and I don't need to be in anyone's good books here. You fight your own battle as I am least bothered about a person who uses abusive language.

I am educated enough to be independent rather than to use abusive language for anyone or praise someone when it isn't necessary.

You used what software and sample size to do that collocation analysis? Are you trained to make that assessment? Does your assessment include the possibility an account is shared? It really begins to look more like a coven when none of these accounts seem interested In an open dialog about the issues raised initially or call for the thread to be locked. Seems some accounts are more prone to that sort of tact ONLY in a couple of threads centered on Dogie and Quickseller. Nothing to see here move along just isn't going to cut it.

Collocation analysis cannot be used to differentiate different identities like that it is only useful for finding a lead but it does not prove two individuals are the same person. In fact I have not ever heard it used for this purpose, normally you would expect stylometic analysis to be used as collocation wouldn't work here due to a lack of context-neutral speach (we're all talking about Bitcoin).

IIRC Quickseller has sold items from his account and those items were shipped from east coast US, Dogie is in the UK according to your sig. This explains why the stats pages are off by a few hours, the timezone gap.

Thanks for the background info. That should help narrow down things a bit. Easier to dig up info on Eastern US based people who are likely to trend towards team Allcock.

Also thanks for history/ terminology lesson. Appreciated.

That is a very bold and hypothetical thing for you to say. I simply found two threads the one with Dogie because it has been posted in for quite awhile and I haven't made a comment in it, and this one. Most people could say this is a much more interesting thread than 99% of current meta threads at the moment. I honestly don't have time to read through a mini novel of texts right now so I am going to hold off on stating further opinions of the matter.

This is an argument I don't get. The account was already marked by BadBear. If they couldn't get an escrow they wouldn't have been able to get the participants. Quickseller could've given another rating on top of BadBear's and made the campaign dead. Instead he became escrow which allowed them to get users and had the signature displayed across forum. It was lucky that they folded so soon, otherwise this signature campaign would've caused more damage.

Protecting those participants doesn't make sense. They should've been marked for supporting a scam company, like devthedev had done earlier. Getting a reputed escrow added a certain amount of legitimacy to the campaign. To the ordinary participant, since Quickseller was with the campaign, they figured they are not doing anything wrong either.


This is not the best example as dicebitcoin didn't look to be scamming initially. A better example is Tomatocage, becoming the escrow for the account trade of KingofSports. In that he was directly helping a scammer earn some money. This is something which is accepted here for some reason and doesn't make sense to me.

Sure I have, though not in the last two sentences
Hang tight, I'll restate my accusations, and even bring up a few more :)


You asked for an instance of your multiple accounts working in consort to "support [your] own position."
I have given you an example of you leaving multiple negative ratings, from two accounts that you control, to tspacepilot. Whatever your rationale, it is a clear case of using multiple accounts to "support [your] own position."

Now on to what you're being accused of.
You're accused of being unfit to be on the default trust. One of the multiple reasons for this is your artless use of multiple accounts with which, to use your phrasing, you "significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result."

True, you're the only person on the default trust to abuse it, you're far from unique in that respect. What makes you noteworthy is the exceeding ineptitude with which you proceed to go about it.
In short, your lack of savoy faire - the social graces required of all but the lowliest of street hustlers, combined with unwillingness to follow the advice of your betters, makes you an embarrassment to those of us associated with these august fora.

"So where are these new examples of my duchebaggery," I almost hear you ask. "You promised!!"
Allow me to direct your attention to the PM in which you ask me to start a new thread on tspacepilot:
I have taken the time to explain that doing so would only annoy the less quarrelsome members of this community, and that everyone's best interests would be best served by letting the matter drop. You thought you knew better and... here you are, embroiled in the same aspy drama that's an embarrassment not merely to everyone involved, but to every passer by :(

I'd like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that this is the Meta section, the Supreme Court of these boards, so to speak, where extant law is put to the test and consigned to the flames when found lacking. What has brought us here, sirs and madams, under these most unseemly circumstances?
Idiotic forum policies condoning account peddling and pay-to-spam advertising.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

LOL what? Did you read what I said? You are going between talking with a good amount of logic and talking like a crazy person (no offense).

Im sorry bae, but if you seriously start to listen to what this guy says then you will find absolutely nothing on me lol. He will give you a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that not only make zero sense but even if true would not be wrong. There is actually a good chance that you would like me after talking to that guy........and we can't have that ;) haha

Sure. I've read what you said & replied. That was the logical part. Feel free to address it. Or not.

The batshit crazy part was meant to lampoon the general buffoonery of this thread - sleazebags accusing their fellow sleazebags of being sleazebags, with citations, parenthetical notes, and occasional referencing of various wikis.
...as the rest of us look on, facepalm, and, occasionally, point fingers and giggle.

If my stifled laughter and occasional finger-pointing appear to make light of the grave issues at play here, that was not my intent.
The Anons accounts whose fates hang in the balance herein deserve all due solemnity and respect. Occasionally.

The biggest mic drop in these forum in years. Well said.

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

I tried to get moreia (the OP) into thinking I wanted to start a ponzi with him in order to build trust with him so he would give up the identity of his alleged default trust account. I was not able to build up enough trust :/

so, you've gained the trust now?

No. Moreia did not fall for it. This should have been fairly evident in the post you quoted

1. QuickSeller = AcctSeller
2. QuickSeller is using default trust to lead a smear campaign against OP, under the premise of the OP's suspected involvement in a ponzi scheme.
3. OP is pissing in the wind.
4. bool DefaultTrust = withUs || againstUs;

I see. Not sure why I wasn't able to see that from the original post.


I like this answer the most  :P

@TheGambler

You are the one who is scamming everyone on the forum. Why should we trust you instead of Quickseller, who is a trusted member of the forum. You have started serveral Ponzis(I guess) and scammed serveral people. Quickseller prevent these scams.
Dont overreact and try to post shit around this forum. You are only pissing against the wind, so the piss still gets into your face.
We should all be respectful for our scam busters on our forum, like Quickseller. I know he is sometimes too fast giving out trust ratings when he sees something fishy, but thats because he is cautious and care about the people who might get scammed. The poll will not help. Only the people that got the scam busted is arguing against Quickseller. He deserves to be on the defaulttrust, any engaging forum members that have an intention to help out other members should get on there.

TheGambler, please stop posting shit on this forum. You only post anything that has to do with scam.
Also, everybody that has a brain might notice that ACCTseller might be Quickseller. Whats so bad about it? Everyone can have alts, as long as the alt isnt a scammer account its ok.

I respect Quickseller, we should have more members that is engaging like him on our forum. Trusted and loyal members belong here, and not scammers like you ;)

OP's credibility is irrelevant - his initial claim is not in dispute, FAIK. Quickseller tried to start a ponzi with OP. After OP rejected Quickseller's proposition & started this thread, Qickseller explained away his ponzi proposal by claiming he was trying to entrap OP.

Other than entrapment being grossly unethical, Quickseller's excuse falls squarely into the "yeah, right" category.

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

It was actually a ponzi game not a ponzi scam. A ponzi game, in theory can be a non-scam and there were many people advocating that people running ponzi games not be given negative trust because they can, in theory be "fair" (I was not one of these people). A ponzi scam on the other hand is simply something that is designed to build up credibility over a long enough time so that it can attract large amounts of money and eventually run away with investors' money (it also continuously will pay out older participants with new participants' money). Even if the entrapment claim/defense was not true, the facts being presented would not make me any less trustworthy (although one could argue that my judgment was poor by attempting to run a legit game with a well known scammer).

In order for something to be considered entrapment, the person committing the crime/scam would need to otherwise not commit such crime/scam if they were not influenced by the person attempting to entrap them. IIRC, the OP has scammed with either 5 or 6 HYIP schemes, none of which were ran at the same time, and it appears that he is about to add another one to his list. I believe well over half of these were done prior to me initially contacting him about running a potential ponzi game.

The fact of the matter is that the OP is a serial scammer, he has not scammed once and is forever tagged for one indiscretion, but rather has scammed several times and most likely intends to continue to scam. The thing about default trust accounts is that if a scammer is smart, they will not use them to scam directly, but rather will use them to give positive trust to his alts in order to give them additional credibility/trust throughout the community. Once their alts have enough trust, they scam and the default trust account can simply claim ignorance of the pending scam. This is why it is so important to find the OP default trust account (if it really exists) as he will likely use it to give additional credibility to his scams.

So let's see... Buying/selling forum account, manipulating the trust system by using multiple accounts, propositioning users to start ponzis. An upstanding citizen & a pillar of this community is you.


A textbook case of entrapment. You've propositioned OP to start a ponzi. Just like a cop coming up to you & proposing the two of you rob a bank - entrapment.
Your having prior bank robberies to your name won't change a thing :-\

Well the fact that the OP ran ponzi scams after I contacted him without my assistance would show that he was planning on scamming in the future. Additional evidence would be that the OP was in the middle of a HYIP scam when I contacted him.

Furthermore I was not asking him to scam, I was asking him to start a ponzi game, which as I previously mentioned, several people have argued that can be ran honestly.

The point of my proposition was not to get him to try to scam, it was to try to find his additional alts

A clear-cut case of entrapment. Knowing that OP may have ran ponzis before, is currently running a ponzi, or that he may otherwise be a total scumbag changes nothing.
Of course, had anyone propositioned you to start a ponzi, my guess is you wouldn't buy the "I just wanted to out your alts, for the common good!" excuse.
The excuse becomes particularly weak once your dealings in forum accounts & trust manipulation are considered :-\

No I am not. And I am not somehow persobally connected with Quickseller. I have never sold my account and am not in control of Quickseller.
I can confirm that too by signing with an old bitcoin address

Quickseller is clearly not Quickseller's original account. His first post is an offer to sell accounts, which, you'll agree, is an improbable thing for a real n00b to do.

There's nothing to suggest that you are not Quickseller's original account, so not sure what a signed message would prove :-\

The thing is Quickseller registered before I had registered. I could impossible be Quicksellers first account.

I repeat that I was not trying to get him to scam. If you were to read my further conversation with him then you would have seen that I explicitly said that the ponzi game was going to be run in a fair way and that scamming was not an option (I don't doubt this this why he initially declined my offer).

It is an accepted practice to give negative trust to any accounts of a scammer which what the plan was to do.

You clearly do not have an understanding of the legal definition of entrapment as the above would indicate that the OP was going to start additional ponzis with or without my proposition (and he did start additional ponzis after my proposition without my involvement). Either that or you are trying to push your agenda so hard that you fail to use any logic in your argument.

Additionally I am not sure why you are using this account when you speak out so freely against the default trust system with your "main" account.

See my above post. He is trying to push his agenda so hard that he can't even use logic to make his arguments.

>which what the plan was to do.

>You clearly do not have an understanding of the legal definition of entrapment

>I am not sure why you are using this account
No better way to show how absurd condoning alts & dealing in forum accounts really is. Working within the system to take it down :)

P.S. I do not try to disguise my agenda. I believe that accounts should not be bought and sold, that alt accounts should not be condoned, and that default trust is conceptually flawed, and, recently, has been empirically shown to be shit. I think these points are self-evident to an average child, and am a bit surprised I'm meeting with this much resistance.

I am not a scammer. I was trying to start a business that the OP was an expert in. There is a good reason to out the OPs alts because he is a scammer. There is no reason to out my alts.

I am saying that your main account often speaks out against the trust system since a specific change was made to it which you did not agree with. I see no reason to want to hide behind an alt to make arguements to change/remove the trust system.

>I see no reason to want to hide behind an alt to make arguements to change/remove the trust system.
Frustrating, ain't it, dealing with alts?
Glad to let you experience it for yourself (when it's not you hiding behind one of your alts, that is) :)

Are you serious? Is the OP an 'alt of moreia'  ::) ? Amazing, he caused a lot of trouble/problem here in the forum. In that case I am supporting quickseller, he should leave a negative trust to all the alleged scammers (because this is the function of the trust system, and if someone doesn't agree he can remove him from the personal trust list ... with the use of '~').

No it is not frustrating, I know exactly who you are. The more accurate adjective would be baffling.

What is frustrating is the fact you are using invalid logic and reasoning to make your arguements. I had thought that you were able to act reasonably, however I think I was wrong.

Yes the OP is an alt of moreia. He even admits it above (actually he claims moreia is an alt of the OP, but that is a distinction without a difference).

^^My logic is sound. Claiming otherwise, without sound counterarguments, simply makes you seem desperate.
...and sucks you in deeper into this quagmire which, if you recall, I've tried to help you avoid :)

*Try to avoid multiple, consecutive posts. Looks like you're simply padding your post count :(

You claimed that I was trying to entrap the OP when my proposition was not illegal nor would be a scam. In order for something to be considered entrapment, one needs to try to get someone to do something illegal.

If you want to go back to your police officer analogy, that what I did was similar to a police officer asking someone to start a legit business with someone but asking for him that persons' assets be disclosed.

Oh ok, then he should go fuck himself. He is only a poor bastard, and that type of people should learn to respect the others.


Have a great day guys, this forum is amazing (every day !).

>In order for something to be considered entrapment, one needs to try to get someone to do something illegal.
Ponzis are illegal, so that criterion is met. This forum allowing them to be planned and advertised is neither here nor there (other than providing ammo for LEO).

>I did was similar to a police officer asking someone to start a legit business
No, otherwise you would have asked him to help you sell alpaca socks :-\


In that case, how would signing an address prove you're not him?
Explain?

You really are an idiot and really do not like listening. Re-read the thread, if you still think it was entrapment then read it again, if your mind is still not changed then learn the definition of entrapment, if still not changed then read the thread again, if your mind is still not changed then continue to re-read the thread.

If you are claiming that josef2000 is my main/first account then it would be impossible that he would have registered after I registered (your specific claim was that he is my main account). Additionally you present nothing more then speculation that we are the same person and you base that speculation on the fact that he disagrees with you.

Edit: I am surprised as to how many people have voted in the poll. So far 43 people have voted after only ~50 hours while 80 people voted in the replacing default trust thread after 5 days, and that proposal was much more controversial then me being in default trust.

>You really are an idiot
You really are a rude little faggot, though not sure what spewing slurs adds to this discussion.

>If you are claiming that josef2000 is my main/first account then it would be impossible that he would have registered after I registered (your specific claim was that he is my main account)
No. My specific claim is that signing an addy would neither prove or disprove him being you.

>I am surprised as to how many people have voted in the poll.
I haven't voted once. Though I could, from multiple accounts.
The reason I haven't is just that - anyone with an account farm can vote as much and as often as needed :)

BTW, I'm helping you earn with your sig, bro! And you're repeatedly failing to thank me.

you are right, you didn't claim that Joseph was my original account

Oh wait actually you did lol.

You are also right that people can vote multiple times as I don't doubt that scammers have done in this case, especially those whose scams I have busted.

Your lack of specific evidence for any of your arguments does not give them any credibility especially considering that by your own admission you are using a throwaway account.

My signature deal is a fixed rate deal so I am not receiving additional payment for making these posts, the special deal I got is one of the perks that come with having the general respect of the community and having a reputation of being able to detect scams, and otherwise being a high profile member of the community.

No. I said "There's nothing to suggest that [josef2000 is] not Quickseller's original account."
If I told you there's nothing to suggest a coin will come up heads next time I flip it, don't misconstrue that as me claiming it won't. It merely means that I have no evidence :-\

If there's anything else I can clear up for you, you just go ahead and ask.

*re. "I don't doubt that scammers have done in this case": Taking your past history of using alts to rig trust ratings, I don't doubt you yourself have voted. Possibly more than once even :D

Why don't you explain how Joseph can possibly be my main account (as in an account that I was using prior to me starting to use my quickseller account)

^I'm not claiming that he is your main account, merely that he could be one of your accounts. And signing from an addy would neither prove nor disprove this.
Why is this so difficult to grasp?

* I can also make a plausible case for him buying the Quickseller account, which would make josef2000 "your" main account :D

No you claimed that it could be my original account. Why don't you speculate how this would be possible.

^See edit :D
But gg bro, way to latch on to an irrelevancy for maximum distraction (what difference does it make if Quickseller is josef2000's alt, or josef2000 is Quickseller's? It amounts to the same thing.)

Omg
I hate talking with these people... Just believe it or do not believe it. I say it the last time. I am NOT Quicksellers alt nor his main account.

Don't take it the wrong way, friend, I only pointed out that signing an addy wouldn't constitute proof. I have no idea if you're his alt or not.
OTOH, his alt did get pretty indignant when confronted with being an alt. Demanded I prove it even. Can you really blame me for erring on the side of caution?

Note to self: Contact josef2000 re. starting a ponzi. If caught, claim it was a clever ruse to make him admit to controlling QuickSeller/ACCTSeller. Foolproof!

at this point you are just trolling. Just go back to claiming there are conspiracy theories to try to get you kicked off default trust. You have caused this thread to go way off topic.

Drats! My fiendishly clever plan, ruined! And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids >:(

Note to self: Next time use smaller font size when writing notes to self, you're dealing with the likes of Quickseeller - trained professionals!

That's pretty much his normal m.o. from what I've been able to tell.  I think he has two modes: 1) answer accusations with distractions and 2) when not busy with doing (1), singing his own praises "I'm gods-gift to this forum, a scambuster and everyone who disagrees with me, I know why!" and thow insults at anyone who has crossed him.

LOL what? I think you have me confused with yourself buddy. Especially the bolded part. Every time you are asked something your response has nothing to do with the question and is basically nothing more then a sound bite.

Cute.  But no one is accusing me.  Nevertheless I'm glad you recognize the polish in my statements.  I'm certainly not one of the trust rangers and with all your "skills and skills and skills and reputations for skills" then I'm sure you'd be able to find an example if I was known for running around tooting my own horn at the expense of others.  Meanwhile, search through your own posts for the string "my reputation" and it's pretty easy to see how fragile your ego is.

lol moreia, you haven't added anything to the OP. Again I ask you what you are smoking? You seriously need to lay off the drugs. I'd also suggest putting your sales/marketing skills to good use and get an actual job instead of constantly scamming as you are getting much closer then you think to getting caught in RL ;)

I am just saying that you thinking that something a prolific scammer says is going to get anyone removed from default trust is just delusional, and I want to know what is causing those delusions.

Fine, lets have at it. Lets see who has stronger alts. You bring all of your alts out and vote on the poll and I will bring all my alts and vote ;)

Alts are the reason I don't trust any sensitive poll on here.   ;)

Quickseller eats all the tasteless fruits the forum has to offer then huffs and puffs in meta all day about the rules.

I blame Vod for it...

"Blame Vod!" is a common meme among many forum members.  :)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1000633.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1011675.0

I know the forum really loves me deep in their hearts. 

I blame Vod for BadBear. See how this works now? ;)

Hey! Don't blame me! (That's not how this works at all >:()

This post made my day - laughing so hard I spit out my coffee.
One question for you: Who is actually trolling with this thread?

In a court of a despot king, the Fool's the only one who's unafraid to speak. True fact :-\