|
Title: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: TheGambler on April 26, 2015, 06:57:12 AM No, an address and private key are paired. they can't be "allocated"
Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: Vod on April 26, 2015, 07:00:11 AM I ALSO WANT YOU TO PROVIDE A CLEAR STATEMENT: "I, QuickSeller, am the sole owner of the account ACCTSeller" Since you have failed to do this clearly in the past and continue to 'beat around the bush' when the subject is brought up. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on April 26, 2015, 07:03:29 AM I ALSO WANT YOU TO PROVIDE A CLEAR STATEMENT: "I, QuickSeller, am the sole owner of the account ACCTSeller" Since you have failed to do this clearly in the past and continue to 'beat around the bush' when the subject is brought up. I think Quickseller has already admitted he is ACCTSeller. Such a statement is not necessary. Another Quickseller thread. I just posted in one of these. How many do you have ??? Two, one of which is a poll to get him off of default trust which has manipulated with his altsThis is calling him out to prove his accusations He says it here. Page one of your last thread: 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. ALSO, Why don't you admit that you are ACCTSeller's alt, before I have to go dig for proof of that to? 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. Nice excuse... But looks pretty legitimate to me. you think I'm just going to get down on my knees because you mentioned "partnership" and "ponzi" in the same sentence? And accuse me with "investcryptos" all you want...even I am not dumb enough to "pump" a site so quickly let alone use a blatant copy of CryptoDouble. Any of my previous sites had different designs and structures, that's just plain stupidity lol Either way, sorry for calling out your scam so soon after you started it. Better luck next time Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: Quickseller on April 26, 2015, 07:27:24 AM Your alternate account dmugetsu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=408040) posted the address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=967149.0) (archive (https://archive.is/EPPqa)).
The address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD and 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs both signed c575d3624907d0593158901bb45e398abcbcfa3bcda627d1eaa0371bb45f23e6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. The addresses 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs and 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 16PUsV75ahM7jy2gfErpbcFaA6SKWJpLHh all signed 12972d307be00c564710553b024a1bb0fa2b0f63912bb382410f2963f58055bb and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ both signed 68db84599ca8e78ae03b4389f392c7d6c2d070eb2a608f2d09b7d8a7f35f2d3b and therefore are most likely (are) are owned by the same person 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ and 1EUMtJ2wRPjioKhiS8qyENjnzvq3B4TZQ5 and 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS all signed ba6ce401ee3ae428bc79e6d4cc3b48dafad8bf943ffcf41a0ba98917ce1768c6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS and 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy both signed 5629ee41edfedb525e03098a00e174220814f88f103c2346c5287baa883f4756 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person You (TheGambler (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=152722)) posted 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303230.msg3929439#msg3929439) (archive (https://archive.is/lxpWp)), and as a result you are an alt of dmugetsu 1. here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=838465.msg9363839#msg9363839) are screenshots of you trying to send malware to the owner of Moneypot. Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=838465.msg9363658#msg9363658) is an exactly similar claim by fairproof that you sent maleware as the claim that MoneyPot made. IMO this is conclusive that you sent malware to casino operators. Casino operators should reasonably be considered gamblers as they are betting that players will not have higher then expected winnings. Considering the lack of other similar reports, as well as the lack of other reports of malware being spread by other users, as well as the fact that you posted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=934177.msg10280797#msg10280797) (archive (https://archive.is/LUkKf)) the day the malware was initially reported (yet did not post for almost a month after the fact) should make it conclusive that you had sent malware to gamblers on the day in question. 2. See below {although you did not specifically ask, you were the 2nd (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=947235.0;all) (archive (https://archive.is/HeWTi)) investor in bit-dividends.com with your alt/shill dmugetsu was pushing it, and you even admitted to running (https://i.imgur.com/2Q45DYJ.png) bit-dividends}. I think this is proof that you scammed this year. Additionally, you then reviewed several sites with that account, but did not invest anything until you started your own crypterest scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1002314.msg10881338#msg10881338) (archive (https://archive.is/3sY7s)). 2a. Similar to below, and similar to your other scams, you quickly invested (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.msg11144185#msg11144185) (archive (https://archive.is/dqhls)) and were later upbeat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.msg11153617#msg11153617) (archive (https://archive.is/TrsRy)) about the site until I called it out as being run by you (which apparently carries more weight then BadBear giving a similar warning to your previous HYIP scam). 2b. - Again, your alt dmugetsu is making positive comments about this site (while making no positive comments about other sites).Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.msg11012367#msg11012367) (archive (https://archive.is/OldGt)). You even tried to sooth investor fears (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.msg11022150#msg11022150) (archive (https://archive.is/rvnLK)) when they were skeptical about the site. I think this is reasonable that you were running this site as well. I also put a question mark when I gave your dev negative trust as I was not sure if it was williamJ or not, however evidence collected after the leaving of such negative trust indicates that it was not him. 3. - This should be fairly straight forward. One day you asked me to buy a specific hero account that turned out to be hacked a very short time later. Then another account that also matches the description an of account were you selling off forum happens to also get hacked via the same way then first account gets hacked (this second account was on default trust at the time). I think the above facts are more then enough to prove that you were hacking accounts. Although if a court were to demand my presence in front of a notary then I will do that. It is none of your business what other accounts/assets I own/control. Prepare your anus for yourself to get thrown in jail/prison for a very long time. probably a very long time edit: The shilling of dmugetsu was very similar to the shilling done by a number of your accounts in bitcoin-stocks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all)(archive (https://archive.is/NcUID)) -OMG how did a thread where the OP of a self moderated thread deleted all the posts have all the posts displayed ?!?!? it is a scambusers's miracle. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: worhiper_-_ on April 26, 2015, 04:31:41 PM I notice Quickseller mostly puts effort into giving negative trust to people that are involved with account trading. Thsi patters is all over, his accusation to those people are almost always innacurate yet he refuses to change his ratings. Many have mentioned that although that he's stopped selling from his main, he could be trafficing the accounts that he's farmed through one of his many sockpuppets.
Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: koshgel on April 26, 2015, 04:39:25 PM So many demands and still Quickseller puts them in their place.
I'd like to see a thread nominating Quickseller and Vod as global mods. Scammers would be out of luck. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: worhiper_-_ on April 26, 2015, 05:16:13 PM So many demands and still Quickseller puts them in their place. This is the kind of trust that needs to go away. Blindly trusting someone because they're in the default list. I'd like to see a thread nominating Quickseller and Vod as global mods. Scammers would be out of luck. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: erikalui on April 26, 2015, 05:29:39 PM So many demands and still Quickseller puts them in their place. I'd like to see a thread nominating Quickseller and Vod as global mods. Scammers would be out of luck. He might be trustworthy but he uses abusive words while defending himself. Is that what a MOD should do while reasoning out with someone? I thought that MODs should make this place peaceful and not lose their temper while dealing with other members. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: smoothie on April 26, 2015, 06:27:28 PM Quote Provide your evidence or GET OFF BCT! No lol Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: Bicknellski on April 27, 2015, 08:40:49 AM So many demands and still Quickseller puts them in their place. This is the kind of trust that needs to go away. Blindly trusting someone because they're in the default list. I'd like to see a thread nominating Quickseller and Vod as global mods. Scammers would be out of luck. Trust no one? or Trust everyone until they give a reason not to? or Do your homework and make sure you have sufficient information from which to adequately identify the person of business you are dealing with. If you are using the trust system as anything other than a starting point and do not do your due diligence then you are more likely to fall victim. Does the person you are dealing with use a REAL name and provide ways to verify their identity or business or pseudonyms and remain quasi anonymous the whole time? Anyone putting FAITH in Quickseller who doesn't know his real name and vital information is really asking to be abused. Guys anonymous who would trust anyone like that particularly if he is offering negative ratings of others? Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: koshgel on April 27, 2015, 07:38:12 PM So many demands and still Quickseller puts them in their place. This is the kind of trust that needs to go away. Blindly trusting someone because they're in the default list. I'd like to see a thread nominating Quickseller and Vod as global mods. Scammers would be out of luck. How is my trust blind? My trust comes from forum experience. I trust them because of what I have seen them involved in. Not because of DefaultTrust status. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: Bardman on April 27, 2015, 07:58:21 PM Your alternate account dmugetsu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=408040) posted the address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=967149.0) (archive (https://archive.is/EPPqa)). The address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD and 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs both signed c575d3624907d0593158901bb45e398abcbcfa3bcda627d1eaa0371bb45f23e6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. The addresses 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs and 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 16PUsV75ahM7jy2gfErpbcFaA6SKWJpLHh all signed 12972d307be00c564710553b024a1bb0fa2b0f63912bb382410f2963f58055bb and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ both signed 68db84599ca8e78ae03b4389f392c7d6c2d070eb2a608f2d09b7d8a7f35f2d3b and therefore are most likely (are) are owned by the same person 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ and 1EUMtJ2wRPjioKhiS8qyENjnzvq3B4TZQ5 and 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS all signed ba6ce401ee3ae428bc79e6d4cc3b48dafad8bf943ffcf41a0ba98917ce1768c6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS and 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy both signed 5629ee41edfedb525e03098a00e174220814f88f103c2346c5287baa883f4756 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person You (TheGambler (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=152722)) posted 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303230.msg3929439#msg3929439) (archive (https://archive.is/lxpWp)), and as a result you are an alt of dmugetsu 1. here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=838465.msg9363839#msg9363839) are screenshots of you trying to send malware to the owner of Moneypot. Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=838465.msg9363658#msg9363658) is an exactly similar claim by fairproof that you sent maleware as the claim that MoneyPot made. IMO this is conclusive that you sent malware to casino operators. Casino operators should reasonably be considered gamblers as they are betting that players will not have higher then expected winnings. Considering the lack of other similar reports, as well as the lack of other reports of malware being spread by other users, as well as the fact that you posted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=934177.msg10280797#msg10280797) (archive (https://archive.is/LUkKf)) the day the malware was initially reported (yet did not post for almost a month after the fact) should make it conclusive that you had sent malware to gamblers on the day in question. 2. See below {although you did not specifically ask, you were the 2nd (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=947235.0;all) (archive (https://archive.is/HeWTi)) investor in bit-dividends.com with your alt/shill dmugetsu was pushing it, and you even admitted to running (https://i.imgur.com/2Q45DYJ.png) bit-dividends}. I think this is proof that you scammed this year. Additionally, you then reviewed several sites with that account, but did not invest anything until you started your own crypterest scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1002314.msg10881338#msg10881338) (archive (https://archive.is/3sY7s)). 2a. Similar to below, and similar to your other scams, you quickly invested (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.msg11144185#msg11144185) (archive (https://archive.is/dqhls)) and were later upbeat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.msg11153617#msg11153617) (archive (https://archive.is/TrsRy)) about the site until I called it out as being run by you (which apparently carries more weight then BadBear giving a similar warning to your previous HYIP scam). 2b. - Again, your alt dmugetsu is making positive comments about this site (while making no positive comments about other sites).Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.msg11012367#msg11012367) (archive (https://archive.is/OldGt)). You even tried to sooth investor fears (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.msg11022150#msg11022150) (archive (https://archive.is/rvnLK)) when they were skeptical about the site. I think this is reasonable that you were running this site as well. I also put a question mark when I gave your dev negative trust as I was not sure if it was williamJ or not, however evidence collected after the leaving of such negative trust indicates that it was not him. 3. - This should be fairly straight forward. One day you asked me to buy a specific hero account that turned out to be hacked a very short time later. Then another account that also matches the description an of account were you selling off forum happens to also get hacked via the same way then first account gets hacked (this second account was on default trust at the time). I think the above facts are more then enough to prove that you were hacking accounts. Although if a court were to demand my presence in front of a notary then I will do that. It is none of your business what other accounts/assets I own/control. Prepare your anus for yourself to get thrown in jail/prison for a very long time. probably a very long time edit: The shilling of dmugetsu was very similar to the shilling done by a number of your accounts in bitcoin-stocks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all)(archive (https://archive.is/NcUID)) -OMG how did a thread where the OP of a self moderated thread deleted all the posts have all the posts displayed ?!?!? it is a scambusers's miracle. 1. That was not me it was darksun22 AS DESCRIBED in the thread where the issue originally arised, invalid. 2. Bit-Dividends refunded all members (that we had record of) but IC3 threatened to take it down. Most of those accounts were hired to post, this is where I first met dmugetsu who wanted to learn more. 2a. dmugetsu is not my alt. He is a colleague (no longer). Dmugetsu is not my alt so invalid. I invest in a lot of HYIP's (check my history) so also invalid. 2b. Dmugetsu is not my alt, so invalid. WilliamJ is no longer apart of my work since nextponzi, so again, invalid. 3. I already explained this in another thread... It is none of my business, so you are NOT admitting to owning ACCTSeller? I will not prepare my anus for anything. You (as of yet) don't know anything accurate about me so good luck. you have brought up points I HAVE ALREADY proven invalid... The TXID proof was me simply paying Dmugetsu for his posting work in Bit-Dividends. I haven't ran a site LIKE that SINCE Bit-Dividends closure and refunded all investors. Waiting for some valid proof, so far it's all a load of mumbo jumbo you've pulled from publicly displayed info WHICH I have already proven wrong elsewhere. And thats your proof? Your own words? Its invalid cuz you say so, what a great argument, quickseller has given overwhelming proof of you being the owner of those accounts and your argument is that you are not. Well you didnt convince me so your post is invalid Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: zcxvbs on April 28, 2015, 07:53:50 AM Whatever, can I call this forum a quarrel forum? Arguments, scams, trolls are everywhere, try to be mercy to others please, maybe this place will be getting better.
Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: tspacepilot on April 29, 2015, 10:10:31 PM He doesn't have to have proof. All he has to have is his own suspicions. In general, this wouldn't be a problem. Where it is a problem is that:
1) He's on default trust so his accusations carry weight until someone takes the time to look around meta and see what he's been doing to people 2) He sells account so the more he negreps people's accounts the more he drives up the market for his own account farming/account sales. Anyone putting FAITH in Quickseller who doesn't know his real name and vital information is really asking to be abused. Guys anonymous who would trust anyone like that particularly if he is offering negative ratings of others? Actually anyone who disagrees with him in any way is asking to be abused. As you can see, he quickly loses his temper and goes off namecalling and when I called him out for his hotheadedness, he went off and trolled me with an alt and then dug up some false accusations and used them as a basis to neg rep my account. You don't actually have to do much to get on his bad side and once you are on his bad side he'll stop at nothing to try to smear you using his default-trust status. Title: Re: Re: allocating private keys to an address Post by: Bicknellski on April 29, 2015, 11:48:28 PM He doesn't have to have proof. All he has to have is his own suspicions. In general, this wouldn't be a problem. Where it is a problem is that: 1) He's on default trust so his accusations carry weight until someone takes the time to look around meta and see what he's been doing to people 2) He sells account so the more he negreps people's accounts the more he drives up the market for his own account farming/account sales. Anyone putting FAITH in Quickseller who doesn't know his real name and vital information is really asking to be abused. Guys anonymous who would trust anyone like that particularly if he is offering negative ratings of others? Actually anyone who disagrees with him in any way is asking to be abused. As you can see, he quickly loses his temper and goes off namecalling and when I called him out for his hotheadedness, he went off and trolled me with an alt and then dug up some false accusations and used them as a basis to neg rep my account. You don't actually have to do much to get on his bad side and once you are on his bad side he'll stop at nothing to try to smear you using his default-trust status. Not unlike Dogie and Loshia, Marto74... seems like a few accounts have a similar pattern of behavior. Thankfully none were on the default. This guy needs to be removed from trust ASAP I don't see how he got their in the first place given his record. |