Bitcoin Forum

*Mod Edit threat removed* -SaltySpitoon

Under my trust score I see -3, and him being on trusted feedback again. I give zero shits about badbear and vod's rating but seeing Quickseller trusted again...brings out a fire in me.




Did no one read how childish and unethical the guy is? And how he has no life besides being on here? Seriously, would you like to trust your $ in a person who is obviously a child.

Also, how ironic, Badbear is a college student. Quickseller is an account that randomly popped up a YEAR AGO having MANY accounts as old as 2011...coincidence? Around same time Badbear got into Bitcoin. Quickseller acts likes a child, badbear is in college....Quickseller gets default trust quicker then anyone before him...coincidence? I think not.

Quickseller = Badbear. 100%. Calling this bullshit for what it is.


Two years ago, you contacted me Salty asking if I would like to get lunch sometime since you live closeby. I would like to know if you would like to do that still. Let me know!

What assurance do you have to back up that Badbear is Quickseller 100%? I think all if not most of your arguments are either wrong or irrelevant.

Rather than starting a thread, you could have checked the default trust list to see that Quickseller is trusted by Tomatocage, and then Pmed Tomatocage asking for a reason why they added Quickseller.

LOL. It took barely 24 hours for KoS to notice that I was readded to default trust.

I am not even sure why you hate me so much. Did I out one of your alts trying to scam that is not publicly known to be your alt?

edit: If you don't care about BadBear giving you a negative rating, and you do care about my negative rating, and you think that QS=BadBear then at least one of those statements must be incorrect  :D

also - what was the threat? (@Salty)

edit2: there was at least one person who was scammed because my negative trust ratings were not seen by default in the one week that I was off default trust, and I think that fact should say something about the effectiveness of my work

This is why people on DT should back each other up so that this doesn't happen if one of us gets removed.

Personally, I try to catch all the newbie loan requests, but I'm not as involved anymore as QS is to catch the other scams.

I just lost what little respect I had left for Tomatocage. This is unfortunate, I once considered him a pillar of this community.

In case you didn't notice, QS left you the trust that fixed your trust issue.

http://corcodilos.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/clueless.jpg

Bahahaha, I just saw that as well. Bit ironic that the person who tries to stand up for you and prevent you from having a TWC tag is the same person who you decide to insult for being put back onto DefaultTrust.

That said, I've been away for a while, but I never had an inherent problem with QS. He did leave the occasional weird negative trust but generally his ratings were (are?) accurate.

QS: This was the insult. (http://www.pmslweb.com/the-blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/21-if-you-touch-my-virginity-I-ll-stab-you.jpg)

Quickseller didn't fix anything, all he did was make it so I don't have ? ? ? any more. I still have a ZERO trust rating after hundreds of trades and 4 years of activity because Vod feels it is appropriate to destroy peoples trust ratings because he does not like what was said about him. Him leaving a rating for me doesn't change my opinion of him, and if anything I would prefer he had not left it, because we have never traded or even hardly had any direct interaction. Furthermore he calls my left ratings into question. I am curious which actual rating(s) he takes issue with, because unlike you jamokes I try to limit my ratings to people I have had direct interaction or trade with and have used negative ratings sparingly. Additionally my posts have noting to do with the default trust, but with how the rules are selectively enforced regarding it (specifically Vods systematic abuse of it). I don't consider this a favor, even if he intended it to be.

"Appearing at the end of the 19th century as a blend of java and mocha, by the 1920s it became slang for someone who lacked mental abilities beyond that of a cup of coffee, probably influenced by moke. In the 1960s it also began to be used as slang for male genitalia.
jamoke - Wiktionary
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamoke"

Sorry needed to define that, that's a curious word to use...

Anyway:

I don't think the negative rating he left on you is unwarranted but I'm curious as to how you can be -1 / +12 and have 0 trust points. I'm guessing the positive ratings need more time to mature for the algorithm but that's still a bit dodgy, I don't think that just because I agree with you having a negative rating put on you means I should agree with that.

But god damnit TECSHARE we're not all secret illuminati members conspiring with the Bitcointalk staff just because we made an argument against you.

I said this where? There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for you to be a jamoke.

P.S. Thanks for taking the time to look up the definition of jamoke and pasting it. That gave me a good laugh. At least we are on the same page now.

"BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Obviously there was a level of hyperbole, please don't be one of those people who try to take everything extremely literally when someone implements a touch of humour.

Sorry but I don't see anything about DiamondCardz in there... and I don't find it funny, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, even if you are pretending that it was just a joke.

I'm aware, but I'm not really talking about me. If you're going to pick out things from my grammar or use of pronouns then you don't really have a valid argument in the first place. And well, yes, it is dismissive and meant as an insult, I could've easily put it in another way. I just decided to throw in a touch of humour to freshen it up, if you like, eh? You don't like that...well, I'm not really bothered.

I'm more sticking up for Vod with that statement, I don't really need to defend myself from you like that.

This was bound to happen, sooner or later he was going to be readded to the list , but this can't be helped. The Quickseller - Badbear theory could be possible looking at how things went but is highly improbable.

I left the rating because you had previously expressed legitimate concerns about your ability to trade effectively and efficiently due to what is essentially a de facto trade with caution rating due to vod's negative.

I do think that you do want to be put back in the default trust network although a good number of your posts reflect your wish to do away with the default trust system.

I am not sure why your trust score shows as zero when you have so many positive ratings. My interpretation of how trust scores are calculated means that your trust score should increase by 12 points every month. Maybe theymos can comment as to why your rating is not 100+ that it appears you should have. (The formula is somewhat complicated ) - he can comment if he wants to but I figured it out. When you have a negative rating, only ratings since after your first negative rating are counted for your trust score.

You are welcome to have your own opinion of me. If you want the positive to be removed then confirm and I will remove it.

If you don't agree with Vod's rating then I would suggest contacting TC with your concerns.  He may or may not ask Vod to change it to a neutral however I would consider him to be fair and IMO he is a very good moderator of the trust ratings sent by people on his trust list, he really should teach a class or something on how to moderate the trust ratings of people on his trust list.

I primarily do not trust the negative ratings that you leave. Although I also don't trust the positive ratings you leave for people like WC (who is pretty clearly a scammer).

Edit: it looks like that Vod removed his rating so I will remove my positive that countered his negative.

I'm so glad I don't trade on here, I've seen so many arguments between some of you guys on here.
I appreciate scammers should be given negative trust but do you guys sometimes have feuds with each other & just give each other negative trust for no reason?
Come on guys, can't we all just get along?
We're all in bitcoin for the same reason aren't we, to make money ethically?

TS has more then one positive rating, he has 12 positives. That scenario is not addressed above.

I think it is addressed above or am I wrong? No matter how many positive feedback you get *before* negative feedback, rating will be ???. The next positive feedback negates it and make rating 0. Please correct me if I am wrong.


P.S.

I see your point. Maybe it is addressed.

Better question who the hell is Quickseller and what other accounts does he control?

For someone to gain a Default Trust place through anyone or to act as an escrow or be a pillar or paragon of the community why should he hide behind several anonymous ID's? That is circumspect and the height of hypocrisy given how many times Quickseller is quick to call out shill accounts as scam artists. Why should we trust anyone that hides his identity?

Will this get deleted as well? I suppose it will.

===

Techshare is correct in "BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES AND IGNORE CLEAR INSTANCES OF ABUSE TO PROTECT THOSE WITHIN THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUE"

Quickseller / Dogie / Muhammed Zakir are a quite the little echo chamber... there is a long list of these sorts of people being given preferential treatment while others are held to to the "letter" of the law. Seen it too many times across too many threads maybe it is time for Theymos to clean house a bit.

They are just egoistic assholes on the forum ,and the whole scenario is mis-interpreted but a lot of people on here. What most people see here is a negative trust on a scammer and who was spotted by Quickseller or someone and they follow him like scammer spotting god. What they don't realize is the other side of the argument and how they also do unethical things on here. Quickseller gave me a negative trust for something clearly I didn't do , and despite providing all the proof he disregarded all of it. But there happened to be another guy with the exact same case as mine, and he got his rating removed from Quickseller, because apparently Quickseller acted as an escrow on the deal and got 1$ out of it.

I knew it. :D When I posted in mprep's thread, I knew you would drag me into this. I am not willing  to discuss about your theories in this thread because that will be an endless discussion. I am post here to ask how is TECSHARE's words applies to me? I am not in DF, not a staff or a person who have power and is not a person who is highly trusted. I am also not a spammer. How is staff protecting me?

I just wanted to comment that even though Muhammed Zakir is very opinionated, so much so he might not think everything though as much as he should, but IMO he is a reasonable person. We had a momentary conflict but it was easily resolved with a short private discussion. I don't believe he belongs grouped in with the others you mentioned. I don't really find him abusive (at least not that I have witnessed).




Yeah but, which actual ratings do you find questionable? I didn't just leave WC a positive rating, I transacted with him and he delivered what was promised. Why shouldn't I leave him a positive rating for that? It is not like it changes much anyway.

As far as negative ratings, I have left 13 total in the 4 years I have been trading here. Of those 13, 10 were for unique users (some users I left negatives for twice, usually as an update due to their activities). Of those 10 users, 6 were marked negative by other high ranking members for their fraudulent or questionable activities (confirming that others agree the negative trust was justified). Of the four remaining users I left ratings for, one was left for some one who skipped out on a loan from me, one was left for a user that decided to dox an Infinitecoin development team member with no cause or reason because he was angry that he was hacked by a 3rd party, two were left for Nubbins for negative rating me for being critical of his behavior, and the last one was left for Armis for harassing me in my own market place threads. Which of these ratings do you find questionable?

I try to only leave ratings (positive or negative) for people I have personally transacted with, or at least have had some direct interaction with. I don't hand out ratings as favors or use them as a tool to harass people I don't agree with. I consider myself one of the more conservative users of the trust system. You have on the other hand left more negative ratings than I have the free time to count, many of them questionable, and that is just on one account. I am not sure you are the person to criticize my use of trust ratings.

I'm pretty sure Quickseller is also a moderator. He has every negative comment that I have to say about him removed by a moderator.

He'll probably have this one removed as well.

Since he buys and sells accounts for a living, thus enabling a pervasive culture of fraud and untrustworthiness that is now considered inherent in this particular forum, there is no way his ratings should have actual sway on peoples' trust levels.

If Quickseller were to suddenly disappear, the forum would instantly become a more honest, trustworthy place. I am quite certain of this.

Finally one person will stop hounding me from now on.  :D

In any case, the entire DF system is being misused and immature ratings are being left on accounts. So many ratings are due to personal reasons. With the recent changes in the trust system, I can expect ??? ratings for many accounts and the ratings can have the following comments:

"I don't like the avatar of this person. Oversmart person."

"This person openly stated to be Obama himself. Very suspicious."

"He's a psycho. Don't deal with him."

"He called me mad. I call him mad now."

"He is a big fat liar."

"This person is making fun of me and now I am making fun of him."

And positive trust can be as sensible as "I love his hairstyle and hence I trust him."

Continue with such ratings as trust system isn't moderated and people can leave ratings even without any evidence and just spam. It will not benefit the bitcoin community for sure but will give peace to the members who want to personally attack others. I don't know what's the meaning of having a trust system which itself cannot be trusted.

DF now seems to consist of members who are treated as ministers and have the power to rule over the forum and the best thing is that they are appointed without conducting any elections. What can be worse than this?

Come now, you aren't one of the trolls who calls censorship abuse when a rule is broken and a post is deleted or a line is censored.

You shouldn't have to give up your pseudonymity/anonymity to be on default trust. You don't have to trust anyone who hides their identity. You can trust everyone or no one if you wish, that's up to you. Why does it matter what accounts someone has? If one of their accounts does something untrustworthy, then that should carry over to their other accounts as well. Persecute Quickseller when someone finds that one of their accounts has done something they shouldn't have.

You are welcome to think whatever you want, but I still don't see how this relates to Staff at all. The only correlation I see is that Staff tend to respond to threads in Meta as that is sort of in the job description. Tomatocage has added Quickseller to their default trust list, Tomatocage is not staff. If you have a problem with Quickseller being on default trust again, talk to Tomatocage about it. I'm baffled by the fact that people are fighting "preferential treatment", but don't respect individuals rights to make their own opinion. Would it not be abuse if someone forced Tomatocage to remove Quickseller? Provide Tomatocage with a list of reasons why Quickseller shouldn't be on default trust, if Tomatocage doesn't agree, then its on him.

I really have a hard time rationalizing what your complaint is. I guess I should first try to understand a few points.

Who is in charge of giving preferential treatment to people?
Why must Tomatocage listen to you?
And who is or should be responsible for counteracting trust of people you don't approve of?

Okay I'll take that challenge give me the holidays let us see how anecdotal observation holds up to close scrutiny shall we. The point is bias in the application of the rules where "friends" and likely alt accounts of our mods skate free. The patterns exists let us see.

New Meta thread.

Who is Quickseller?  Nobody knows... number 1 reason he shouldn't be on any trust list.

The negative rating that you had left for armis is clearly based on a person dispute and has nothing to do with how much he should (or should not) be trusted. If I was an outsider and has no prior connection to you then there would be no reason why I should have to take additional precautions when trading with armis just because you do not like him.

The same goes for your ratings you sent to Vod and nubbins. I think it is pretty clear that you do not like either of them (at least as of when you left the ratings). Granted they did leave you negative trust first (I think), however I think anyone who leaves retaliatory trust ratings against someone should not have their sent trust ratings trusted. You should only leave a negative rating if you strongly think they are a scammer, and leaving an inaccurate rating is not scamming (nor is "trust abuse"). 

Regarding the rating that you left WC, I would say that it is a fair rating as you appear to have traded with him (I have no reason to believe the trade was faked, nor do I think you would do something like that). With that being said, I think you were probably defending him for longer then you probably should have. At first when WC was first accused of using a laser to make his pieces when he was claiming to hand carve them, I could understand you defending them as some of the points he was making was somewhat valid, and I could see you relating to the points he was making. However after a while, it became more apparent that he was scamming, yet you were still supporting him. Even when it got to the point where he had essentially admitted to scamming and when he admitted that he was simply trolling, you were still supporting him.

---

The ratings that I have left were left because I have found evidence of either a scam or of scammy behavior (i.e. an attempt to scam). Although I may not agree with some of the people who I left negative ratings for, that does not mean that the negative rating is connected to my disagreement with them.

Of course there are plenty of people who are more then willing to claim that my negative rating I left for them is because of a personal opinion, however that is just an attempt to get my rating to either be removed or to get my rating to not show up by default. 

The Armis rating was debated endlessly here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg9495269#msg9495269
 so I am not going to waste time repeating myself. I did not negative rate him because "I did not like him", I negative rated him because he was calling me a scammer in my market place ops for asking the full cost of a gift card and continued lying about me and making insults in my market place op, effecting my ability to trade negatively for no other reason than his own personal entertainment.

He was trolling my op and refused to move on, and then escalated it with a series of accusations of me trying to"silence" him from speaking out about me, when he has the whole rest of the forum to do so in. If he would have posted in the appropriate section I never would have negative rated him. I made an offer to him that if he had removed his troll posts, I would have removed my rating for him, but he refused, and instead opted to continue to escalate the situation. Furthermore, no one ever explained to me that there were additional standards for default trust members. I was left to believe like everyone else in the trust system, we were free to rate people as we pleased. If some one had explained this to me I never would have left the rating, but these rules are not posted anywhere of course.


I never left a rating for Vod ... ever. Way to form opinions on something without knowing the facts. As for Nubbins he negative rated me simply because I disagreed with his WC theories, and his method of mob justice based on flimsy speculation. He also did this to several other users for the same reason. If some one is willing to abuse the trust system to try to silence myself and others from criticizing their behavior, then why shouldn't I negative rate them? It has nothing to do with retaliation and everything with drawing attention to the fact their ratings can not be trusted. Even Badbear excluded Nubbins from his trust list because of his behavior.


What does my stance on the WC fiasco have to do with my clearly accurate positive rating left for him for a trade? Did I in any way abuse the trust system to try to support WC, or did I simply speak my opinion in threads, and you happen to disagree with it? Also, he never admitted to scamming anyone, lets not start with revisionism here.

You claim your left ratings are accurate and that they are all scammers, but that is not that easy to prove for certain. It is very easy to just claim anyone critical of your ratings is just another scammer, and who would believe them anyway unless they could prove their innocence. Judging people guilty until proven innocent has historically been a very destructive social policy because innocents are easily wrapped up in it.

People like Tomatocage at least have some standard of evidence that they require before marking a user negative, and he doesn't make a sport out of it, or use it as an excuse to farm trust points from rubbernecking onlookers entertained with the ensuing drama. If he is unsure, he uses neutral ratings to warn people of the possibility of a scam, he doesn't just outright accuse people on a hunch. I have seen you exercise more of the Vod method of scambusting, where you attack anyone who provokes your suspicions with little or no evidence, shotgun style, and let God sort out the rest. I think people have quite a bit of justification to call your ratings into question, and you trying to divert the topic and make this about me is not doing you a service.

Love the hypocrisy from this jamoke!   ;)

I see you you still can't restrain yourself. There is no hypocrisy, just no understanding of the rules that were unwritten and never explained to me at the time. He was impeding my ability to trade directly. He had the rest of the entire forum to accuse me of scams if he wanted to. The only reason he chose to do it in my op was to entertain himself at the expense of my sales. This is a common problem in the marketplace section, and often staff refuse to do anything about it. It is like trying to sell things on 4chan here some times. Anyways, do you have any comment on the actual topic, or are you just here to start more drama because you were asked to revise your rating left for me?

Badbear asked me to give you a chance, and I am.  I've removed your negative trust.

I hope you don't disappoint me.   :-\   Good luck.

This is exactly the egotistical bullshit that I am talking about.
Who the bloody hell do you think you are that we need to not disappoint you...

And how dare we not listen to or live up to your standards, am I right?  ::)

QS and Vod: I added you both to my Trust list because you two are very good at identifying scammers. However, to maintain your positions on my list, I ask that you remain as impartial as possible (ie. don't be a Trust Nazi) and flag only those accounts who are clearly up to no good. Vindictive ratings levied out of spite will not be tolerated, mmkay?

That being said, I know I'm guilty of doing it myself in the past, but I've done my best to go back and audit such ratings. TL;DR: Let's not be those cops that throw the book at people for going 1mph over.

Nothing like DefaultTrust to turn a Bitcoin community into squabbling, teenage schoolgirls.

Sweet!  I found the traditional quickseller masterbation post!  I love it.  I thought he had been masterbating less in public since I started the game to catch these masterbation posts.  But I guess sometimes you just feel that pressure and you gotta let it go.  For the record, a quickseller masterbation post is one where he "toots his own horn" (to use a euphemism) without providing any concrete proof or evidence.  "At least one person .. " lol.

The OP is KingOfSports. If he isn't a clear scammer then IDK who is.

There have been several instances when I have either removed or downgraded to neutral my trust ratings when additional information was available, when someone was able to complete a successful transaction, or I otherwise am made aware that I was wrong.

Either way I am always open to suggestions in regards to my sent trust ratings.

I have only had one dealing with QS but in my experience he is reasonable and trustworthy.  I think that it would be more productive to communicate with him in a less belligerent manner.  you might be surprised at the results.

(goes to hide in his bunker)

I've listened from when you told me this a few weeks ago.  In fact, I've removed a number of potentially negative trust ratings in the last week, in preparation for my trip.

The only scammer I am dealing with now is Armis and you can read all about that on the PICISI (http://picisi.net) website. 

Dont listen to them, they have all sort of crazy theories about quickseller, they are saying that he is badbear so i guess thats why he talks about him logging to mod account.

All the people that whine about vod or quickseller are just scammers that got busted and now they are crying, you can notice that they actually never try to refute the accusations against them but rather attack the guy who accused them.

Yes, a lot of people also think he is an alt of hilariousandco (a mod here in the forum) but I think it is only 'speculation or fud', maybe someone is only trying to destroy his reputation.

He is not (obviously) an alt of BadBear, why him should have alt on bitcointalk.org ? He is an admin http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif. However nice to see again Quickseller in the defaultTrust list, the bad thing is that now a lot of scammer will start again to open & spam thread here in the Meta section.

Eh, well simply based on how much he posts I think if he was going to be anyone's alt he would be hilariousandco's. I don't think he is an alt though, I mean maybe when he was selling accounts back in the day there was a good reason for it but not for all the scambusting and all that stuff.

Disappointed by you tomatocage. Really am.

I've used your escrow service at least 10 times in the last year and this is what you do. Its a shame.

Unfortunately I am now in need of a new neutral escrow to use for my future trades here.

Also, just FYI, me being a blatant scammer is probably one of the least effective examples of what a scammer is Quickseller. A loan was agreed upon for 2 BTC, I rec'd 4 BTC, 2 BTC from two different addresses. Now yes, a heartfelt person would return the said 2 BTC extra but 1) there was no proof it came from the same guy and 2) no full agreement on 4 BTC. I took it as a gift for my help to the community. At the time I had been doing escrows for people and if you look back I had handled escrows as large as 50 BTC. If I was such a scammer why scam for 2 BTC instead of 50 when I had the chance?

I repaid the agreed upon 2.01 BTC. Contractually I did not scam. Contractually I followed all repayment requirements.

Since that 2013 fiasco, in the years 2014 and 2015 I have traded well over $50,000 worth of BTC on Localbitcoins and here. Just check my LBC, last year and this year I've traded well over $25,000 alone. I make good margins and continue to do so. I have 100% feedback on my 3 LBC accounts and have traded over 250 times with over 100 different people. Two of my accounts are Pro Traders and known very well on the forums there for being a trustworthy trader. Had someone sell me $1000 BTC outside of escrow there about a month ago. Wheres the scam report Quickseller? Marketing time: Feel free to message me if you have PPMC codes or want to sell BTC for bank deposits / moneygram / Western Union as those are what I am currently looking for. Always looking for long term sellers and always open to using escrow.

You can hate me all you want, I sure come across as an asshole no doubt there, but a scammer? Nah Im not. An asshole yes, a scammer no. And especially not the poster boy of a scammer. I aint a scammer but keep on insisting im the poster boy of a scammer. How funny and yet I always insist on accepting escrow. It makes me laugh honestly.

Im sure tomatocage wont be able to sleep at night because of this post. Do you realize that badbear himself gave you negative trust for being a loan scammer? What does it matter that you are insisting in using escrow in this account when you scammed in your other? 

Your word means nothing, you say you traded x amounts of money and all bla bla but at the end of the day you will still have the red trust, keep whining scammer.

I have 3 other accounts. This account means nothing. If you actually read into my posts you would understand. Time to put an idiot troll on ignore since obviously he should keep his ass out of things when he realized I DONT CARE about trust on this account. This account is pointless. I'll probably make a thread giving out the password to it in the next week or so.

The point I'm trying to make is that Quickseller isn't mature or someone who can handle himself in a neutral position with default trust. He has side interests that interfere with his ability and also motivation to leave trust.

He sells accounts. He has accounts that I;m sure have been built up with trust. Him leaving negative trust also creates a demand for accounts with trust or free of red. As he "calls out" "potential" scammers those people who most likely were trustworthy now need to buy an account to get rid of the red as there is a negative connatation associated with red which almost always equals less trading occurring. He also has created threads that he insists should be stickied when ultimately it is him trying to cover up his own free marketing (see his escrow thread LOL). He is a bias person because of all this, immature as well and also very new (only a year old account). He does not deserve to be on default trust and I disappointed by Tomatocage's decision to add him back.

Juste a little question from an outsider (I don't really use / need the trust system here): isn't putting conditions to be on your list a kind of (default) trust abuse?
Seems that "because of you" they removed some of theirs feedbacks.. so I don't know what to think now: can I trust people who removed feedbacks just because they were asked to / want to on the default trust list..?

Trust abuse isn't yet defined.

1) Is leaving a person a trusted positive feedback just because the person appears kind via their comments and behavior on the forum (without having an actual trade with the person), considered trust abuse?

2) Is leaving a person a neutral feedback just because the person has been critical of you and doesn't agree with your actions and expresses their opinion (without any evidence that the person is a scammer), considered trust abuse?

3) Is leaving a person a negative feedback because he has appeared rude to you and lied about you (or one has had a fight with someone on the forum), considered trust abuse?

Yes, that why I said "kind of" but there is a difference between having some personal rules to manage the users in you trust and asking people in your list to enforce your rules if they want to stay here... There are user who were negative trusted by others than Tomatocage who aren't anymore because of him asking them to clean theirs list...
If Tomatocage wasn't in defaulttrust, would QuickSellet and Vod have reviewed theirs feedbacks ?

I don't hate you. When you created the thread calling me out for supposedly claiming you were KoS in retaliation for criticizing me (which was untrue BTW) I gave you good advice (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1063011.msg11397352#msg11397352) to get help with your problems. I also have never trolled you or encouraged people not to do business with you (you always were accepting escrow so there would be no point). I even tried to meditate a resolution when you had created a thread trying to dox Vod.

To say that the extra 2 BTC that you received was a "gift" is complete bs and you know it. Any honest trader would have returned the overpayment. Any trader that would neglect to send such an overpayment should not be trusted, and it would be a general good idea to avoid doing business with them.

To say that you have traded honestly since the BigBiz incident is not entirely accurate either. Back in December, you tried to auction (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916875.msg10071614#msg10071614) a banned account while neglecting to disclose the fact that it was banned.

I can also say that you tried to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583572.msg11335927#msg11335927) stolen PayPal funds to shdvb, although you later claimed that you were just joking (I do have my doubts about it being a joke though).

Logical and plenty of evidence to support that assessment.

Wonder why it is not a concern for Tomatocage?

Most likely, tomatocage has only seen the tip of the iceberg.  For people who haven't been on the receiving end of a smear-attack by quickseller, it might look at first like he's merely pointing out scammers and potential scammers and the people complaining about him are merely sore about his finding them.  However, once you have to start vouching for his actions, it's another story altogether.  Presumably, something like this is why he didn't last long on badbear's list.  Tomatocage is only just now having to deal with all the QS drama and lies and trickery and cetera.

Here's another possibility though, QS is obviously power-hungry and it's pretty sure that he didn't like getting removed from default trust.  TC giving him another chance but warning him to hold himself together, etc may actually affect his behavior.  Ie, if he stops doing so much abuse, perhaps he'll stay on TC's list and that will be that.  That wouldn't be an altogether bad outcome.  While it's certainly dissapointing that someone can claw their way to the top through lies and scandals and smear campaigns, if, once they get their, they straighten out their act, I guess that's better than not straightening out.

1st, okay so yes you pointed it out, if extra was sent and I didn't send it back, that makes me a dick but not a scammer. Contractually I followed all things. So godforbid it wasnt a gift and godforbid he accidently sent 2 BTC then Im just a dick. Honestly, after these 2 years I wish you would change it to what it is, that im a untrustworthy asshole and not a scammer. I dont scam, I follow my agreements. We work with an irreversible currency. Life lesson learned if you accidently send 2 BTC twice. I mean hell I accidently sent 0.20 BTC to someone instead of a different BTC address after I traded with that person and never got it back. You don't see me blasting for years on end that guy for not returning my funds do you? Nope. It was a hard lesson learned.

The account was going to be unbanned in a couple days. At this time, the ban hammers had only just began and people had only just THEN started caring about accounts being banned. Over a year ago, accounts being sold was completely frowned upon. A couple months later when it started happening constantly, no one cared about banning or if the account was hacked. One or two accounts bought then got banned or found to be stolen accounts which created a huge cry for now signing addresses and all that. So no, me selling an account as it came off banned was not something shady because at the time, only YOU quickseller were asking about it and I already hated you at that point.

I don't send stolen funds to SHVB or whatever his name is, if you look at my accounts I flame the guy for ALWAYS butting into other peoples' sell or buy threads with his BS company. He is an unethical business person and I try to troll him from time to time to make it appear that hes a serial scammer and people should avoid. If I say I sent him stolen funds and he accepted it might come across as someone who takes too huge of risk to being trusted which is why I made the post. Also to give the guy a bad feeling inside that possibly he might lose $. I just want him to squirm, hes a dick.

There is one person on this forum, I'd have to look up his name, who I've bought BTC via PayPal from, roughly $500 in total (about $100 each time) in the past year or so. He was a victim of Vod and felt sympathy for me. I never chargedback that payment.

Interestingly enough, I actually had a situation where a guy Mike from Just Dice sold me $400 of BTC for PayPal. I had bought $200 worth twice from him before and he owned a reputable business but yet this time tried to scam me. Anyways, I tried charging it back via PayPal I lost the case. Called his local police and got them involved and finally he decided to refund me 90% of my money. Mike4tattoos or whatever was his name, hes still a moderator in Just-Dice to this day.

Funny thing is, I messaged Tomatocage with my concerns about why Quickseller should not be on default trust and his response was:
"You sound like BadBear." Whatever that means or represents.

The strangest thing about you is that you justify robbing someone because of a mistake they made. If I leave my door open by accident when I go out, do you now suddenly have the right to enter my home and rob me?

KoS, if someone meant to gave you $100 as payment for a bike but accidentally gave you two $100 notes, are you telling me you'd refuse to give back the second $100 note when they noticed? You wouldn't refuse, would you, when you're face to face with them? Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. That's what you did here though, and no matter what you spout about trying to "resolve" the issue, you should have just returned the damned 2 BTC in the first place.

However, on-topic: I don't think QS is *that* bad. Sure he's not the purest giver of trust out of everyone on DefaultTrust but he definitely shouldn't be getting shouted at just for being added to DefaultTrust. If he goes over-the-top the community will take action anyway.

Can you point out any trust abuse that quickseller has done? I mean i know you are butthurt because he left you a trust, wich is neutral so you shouldnt be that butthurt but yeah i would to see some of those cases where quickseller is "abusing" the trust system.

Butthurt about the trust he left? No sir. I'm -32: -5 / +0 I could give a care less about the feedback quickseller gave.

Simply he sells accounts. He has a conflict of interest here. He also "helps" the community by advertising himself and negative repping those who go against him. He has marked multiple signature campaign managers which can only help his case for becoming a manager himself. He also sells accounts so him negative repping accounts creates a desire for these accounts for people to get accounts without red. He also insists upon others to use escrow and tried to force him escrow post to be stickied in which ironically oh look he also offers escrow! What a coincidence!

The dude also is a year old account here. There are people who have been here 4 years more deserving of him by far of the prestigious honor of being on default trust. He sure as heck don't deserve it.

Quickseller was removed from the default trust after receiving numerous valid accusations of leaving inaccurate feedback. Him going on huge rants to defend unreasonable decisions only made things worse and created a lot of drama in the forum. Sure whatever, he spends half his day here and negs people that are likely scammer. But he has proven to be extremely irresponsible when in the default trust.

I really can't get why Tomatocage thinks that keeping Quickseller in default trust is a good idea. I know that there was a deal between Quickseller and him going on, but if it's just for trusting him personally, he also has to consider that by adding him in his trust list he puts him in default trust again. A list from wich Quickseller was removed for causing chaos because of his irresponsible actions.

What i dont get is why anyone would listen to anything you say since you are nothing than a trash scammer, you actually admited it already, are you enjoying wasting your time in this forum making pointless accusations? Are you feeling better? I suggest you to find another hobby you lowlife scammer. No one gives a shit about anything you say.

This is the primary cause of most of these disputes in my opinion. There are no official rules for how to use the trust system anywhere on the site. I understand the idea of wanting people to define what is and is not acceptable for themselves, but at the same time if there are no limits at all defined then there is total confusion and subjective application of these unspoken and unwritten rules. Under this system no one is ever sure if they are abusing the trust or not. In addition this means often users will be punished overly harshly in some cases, and in others clear abuse will be ignored. The way it operates now these "rules" are 100% subjective and open to selective enforcement.

https://github.com/TheBitcoinFoundation/legal/blob/master/White%20Papers/White%20Paper%20-%20Receipt%20of%20BTC%20From%20Unknown%20Person.mdown

While this kind of argument would probably eventually give good cause to have KoS's name "cleared" assuming that BigBiz is unable to give a good counter argument, posts like  this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877184.msg9695808#msg9695808) would be good reason to say that KoS should not be trusted. Although it is likely that KoS did not actually possess information to carry out his threat, KoS did make a specific threat against Vod and if a court would conclude that KoS had actually written that post (eg his account was not hacked ect) then he would likely be convicted of either the MD or federal equivalent of NC GS 14-227.1 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-277.1.html). While the fact that KoS's account could have been "hacked" could be a defense to such a criminal charge, it is the community accepted practice to hold people accountable when damage is caused as a result of such a hack. (Also it is all but certain that KoS's account was not hacked as of when the above post was made, especially considering that such threats have been made at other times by KoS and there has been no claim of such a hack).

Furthermore, it is the generally accepted practice to consider the lack of returning excess funds that are not owed to you when asked to be a scam.

This is just one example of how KoS should not be trusted

Edit: apparently this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075419.0) is another example as to why KoS should not be trusted (he received several negative ratings with a reference to that thread).

I also pointed out other reasons as to why KoS should not be trusted here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072385.msg11490171#msg11490171) even if it is decided the loan incident is concluded to not be a scam.

Again true why would this not be a concern of Tomatocage?

Do you care to point out these threads and/or posts that back up these statements?Are you sure about this? Again please point out specific posts made by me. What specific unreasonable decisions have I made?

What deal was this? If you are referring to a deal that TC is escrowing then I would point out that there are plenty of people that TC has escrowed for. If you are referring to some other deal then why don't you provide some kind of evidence of this?

KoS - If you paid BigBitz back I think over time you could actually repair your reputation some. Will you ever be highly trusted...probably not, but people would at least deal with you. Try sending him the coins and rebuilding yourself here. Everyone loves a good come back story!

Step 1 - Pay back Bitz (he is good people)

Step 2 - Drop the QS thing and move on

Step 3 - Slowly build up some trust and be nice here

I'm sure you remember the time that there were about 10 or so posts in the meta, most of wich were reports about inaccurate feedback you had left. Badbear removed you from his trust list shortly after some specific topics started gaining traction and receiving responses from more prominent members.

Want me to provide 'evidence' of you going on huge rants to defend said inaccurate ratings? Well you kind of do this nearly every time, but here's one still:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1065347.0

As of what I refer to a 'deal' between you and Tomatocage, yes I was talking about the escrow. I'm aware that he offers escrow services openly. I just find it a bit odd that you went in an escrow transaction with him shortly after being removed from default trust and next thing we know is him having you added in his trust list.

I've offered many times to pay him back the USD version of the BTC he sent me. He knew personally that I never kept BTC in BTC form for long, always converted to USD. At the time BTC was $125, many times I offered him the sum of $250, even at one point to get it done, $275 converted to BTC at time of agreement in exchange for dropping the scammer label and stop badmouthing me. He refused multiple times.

At this point I've given up with the situation and moved on. I am slowly building up the reputation of specifically one of my alt accounts thru successful trading while also staying under the radar. Hopefully I will become trusted again and back in the escrow biz where you guys all are. And no people not to scam but graciously accept the escrow tips that I was earning before when I used to escrow all the time under KOS.

Look in all honesty I actually think that's a pretty fair agreement and I don't see why BigBitz doesn't take it rather than just refusing it...other than you kind of appearing to have shady morals after flat-out stating you didn't have any responsibility to send it back. Eh, I don't know. I would just take it.

From the looks of it, he did accept (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877184.msg9798984#msg9798984) the deal, although if you read further down then you will see that BigBitz said that he was not going to remove his negative trust against KoS.

Also, it appears to be disputed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877184.msg9771179#msg9771179) that KoS only agreed to repay 2 BTC and not 4 BTC

The nature freedom of speech is that anyone can make any claim they want with or without there being any legitimacy to such claim. Feel free to find a thread that claims that I left an inaccurate negative rating, along with evidence that such rating was in fact inaccurate.

The rating I left in the referenced thread was never a negative rating, although the comment that I left is factually accurate.

I guess you are free to speculate that the ~.07 that TC will receive for the escrow fee is enough for him to compromise his interrogatory and sell a spot on default trust. I can say with a good amount of certainty that TC does not sell positions on the default trust network, however if spots were to be sold they would likely be sold for a lot more then .07 BTC. Also, I have used TC as escrow a number of other times.

What exactly is this list? Do you happen to have a copy of the dumped DB? It appears that among other things, if these accounts really can be linked back to KoS, that the account  JustAGuyFromTexas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=225316) had tried to send a fake escrow contract from DannyHamilton, which would mean that KoS is more then a one-time scammer as he claims.

Welp, RIP. That changes the game then, if he's just actively avoiding paying the money. Funny thing is Bitcoin is so low right now that he wouldn't even lose that much out of his own pocket to just pay the full 2 BTC back anyway...

No specifically I told Bigbitz once paid the $250 or $275 whatever it was that you would remove the negative trust and make a post saying that the debt or whatever he would call is settled/repaid so that I could actively reach out to those who red trusted me to consider changing / removing their feedback. Instead he goes on to tell me that he would not remove the negative trust and that i would still owe the remaining balance of 2.00 BTC - X.XX BTC (worth $250-$275) and would reach out to those who left negatives to keep it there until the full 2 BTC was repaid. So no there was no settlement and I did try my best to reach a fair agreement just get it done with.

I noticed that Vod had previously left me a positive trust rating agreeing with me about the trust system (most likely out of spite of Badbear informing him he would be excluding him if he did not remove his rating). Now after the perceived slight quoted above, suddenly it is gone. I think he is having issues trying to figure out whom he should spite more (in stead of perhaps examining his own behavior).

It makes little sense to keeping this guy on any Default list it is just thread after thread of complaints and just look at the recent bullshit claim he just made this weekend. Run a person through the mud without even talking to the guy? Hey Techshare you watching this or are you still hung up on Vod?

..why ??  :o Did you poop out some jalapeno sauce ??

Serious question.

What is bad about Quickseller being on the default trust list?

With Vod going into retirement, the Bitcoin community needs someone like that.


~BCX~

I am curious to know how many threads we would see requesting specific moderators to be removed from being moderators if the identity of the moderator was revealed publicly any time a moderator took action against someone.

I don't think there's that much bad about him, though he can be jumpy as hell to make decisions. That's my primary concern but hopefully Quickseller is moving to address that anyway. This community needs more investigation, more question-asking and less jumping to conclusions.

Hopefully you're correct about him changing his overly-destructive MO.  Anyway, now that TC has removed him from default trust (again) perhaps it's time to let this thread die.  The title is more than a little inflammatory, and quite outdated at this point.

Well to be fair, the accusation against ndnhc was reviewed by several people after I opened it over several days. Two people agreed with my conclusion enough to leave negative trust as well. The people who were defending him were only arguing that ndnhc was too much of a 'nice guy' and he 'made too much money' to ruin his reputation over .1 BTC.

The first time anyone brought up what ultimately exonerated ndnhc was when ndnhc brought up the point that the address was posted  after the giveaway had ended. Although one other person did hint at knowing specifically that they knew ndnhc was being framed (along with that they had evidence of such), they did not specifically give the evidence of such and they did not provide (me) of any kind of warning.

Other then the ndnhc incident it is fairly rare that I am actually wrong about someone being a scammer, although sometimes I remove a negative because sufficient time has elapsed, they go on to complete successful deals, or they repay money they borrowed/stole.

I was also thinking the same thing that I received via PM yesterday just as I was removing the negative on ndnhc:

Well, PistolPete is quite good at finding things out...so there's now a theory that you were framed to have framed nhdnc?

Huh. I guess that could make sense...Christ this is confusing.

Your attempt to draw me into your personal battles has failed. I have already said everything I needed to say about QS.

That is what he apparently thinks, and I would be in agreement with him prior to him telling me that.

I don't think this is conclusive proof of anything however look at reply #43 of this (https://archive.is/0SB1g). Also look at Bitcoindistrubator's signature:
(bold adjusted by me). KoS was on the short list of people I thought who could be behind this when I replied to PistolPete.

To further back this theory there is information that I found and posted in this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072974.msg11473720#msg11473720) thread. Most specifically the fact that I found twipple posting an address that belonged to ndnhc when posting such any address was not required. Then he only deleted it shortly after I posted the scam accusation against ndnhc. At the time twipple was just making himself look stupid by contradicting himself, however I think it was bait for me to give ndnhc a negative for being an alt of twipple. Not only that but if you look at reply #39 of this (https://archive.is/vk39L) (it is #35 of the live version of the thread), you will see that he says among other things:

He said that he intentionally posted an address that was related to ndnhc although he has never interacted with him.

Obviously most of this is just speculation, however I do think there is a non-zero possibility that I am right about this. At this point, a lot more circumstantial evidence is needed or a little more hard evidence is needed.

LOL god quickseller you are the easiest guy in the world to troll. I put you on ignore but I see you kept commenting so I put you on unignore to see what is it you are babbling about.

It was a joke, a troll. I knew that if I said three words "it was me" for who "framed" ndnc or whatever his name his, that you would then spend your life trying to prove that or wondering if I did.

I've never had business with ndnc or any interest with the guy. The only sig campaign I have and will ever use is bitmixer.io as it is automated without need to message people and all that bothersome work to get paid.

I made my signature cause despite you and others labeling me as the posterboy of scamhood around here, which makes me laugh as I continue to call out scammers when I see them, just check my feedback, I doxxed a longtime scammer not too long ago. Anyways, I made my sig cause despite that, two things
1) I run my own business now and hit 100k in sales (95k thru paypal, go figure and 5k in BTC) last week in only 5 months and it has been a nice side business for me. And yes its legal, yes its registered with the state, yes im paying taxes so dont try calling cops saying im selling drugs or something, im not.
2) Unrelated to the business I created, I do trading and have had good success over the last year or so on LBC

So yes, your rating cannot stop my success as I stated. Continue on with your delusions of thinking im the biggest scammer or framers or any of that of shit. From what i read the guy tried scamming for 0.2 BTC or some pity amount? No just no. I wouldnt waste my time over some pity amount like that. Back to ignore with you quickseller.

Seriously quickseller, do what vod did and what ive been doing outside of here, get a life. When you realize bitcointalk consumes your life as it obviously does for you, and used to for me, youll want to better yourself. I hope you realize that soon.

-the one and only
Kingofsports

Yup thought as much. Pfft.

Quickseller is off default trust again?
When/why did this happen?

It happened a few days ago. I was never given a reason however I have a feeling it had to do with this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072408.0) mistake :/

It was quite humorous actually. Tomatocage messaged me after I talked with him why he added you to his default trust and he told me to show examples of Quickseller's bad ratings. Well the ndnc or whatever that dude's name was happening and I quickly showed Tomatocage how Quickseller jumped too quickly to conclusions with that "scam hunt" and called out someone who was innocent and red marked him for multiple days.

Ironically, within hours Quickseller's default trust was gone.

Well it sounds like you were more likely to be the person behind question2.

It probably also means that TC was the one who made that qcexpose account (or something similar to that), not that it matters who it was. That was previously my theory however this somewhat strengthens that hypothesis.

It really is too bad that the rating on ndnhc was up for days and no one was able to provide any specific evidence that refuted my conclusion. The people who were defending ndnhc were simply saying that he was "too nice" or "made too much money" for him to try to extort someone, neither of those arguments would have standing to show his innocence.

Not only that but other people agreed with my conclusion. I might as well have created a newbie account to open that thread and I could have just left a negative saying that there was a scam accusation against him and that I would revisit it upon evidence of his innocence.

Enough already with the question2 bullshit. Ask any admin if that guy is me or whatever, its not.

I've addressed that enough. You think I'm a scammer but in the last 3 years I have never once done an act that is relative to scamming. You should probably remove me from that "its instantly him!" list you have me on. For your own mental sake.

Sweet!  Popcorn time.  Do your thing QS, mark qcexpose as a "probably alt of scammer TC", mark tomatocage with negative trust as "probably trying to weaken the trust system by attacking the reputation of trust member me".  Let's do this.  It's jump-to-conclusions time!Except that they have standing for a reasonable person who considers motive (what was the motive here?) and they ended up being right.  Hmmm.

Nice to see him getting out of the DT2.  He makes decisions based on certain assumptions and no solid proofs and he doesn't even care to listen what the other person is saying in his defence. He is just a troll and keeps on repeating the accusations again and again. He is doing anything and everything to catch other(for what they didn't do) just for the sake of satisfying his ego and hoping that he could be the next Vod.

There is unfortunately no denying that. Out of all the scam accusations I have seen by Quickseller most of them were never removed if they started a thread on the forum. After a few PM's I sent , he had also stopped listening to me. IN a similar case as mine, he even removed the negative rep after that user used QS as an escrow to sell the account. While he is effective in spotting out scams, he does add a lot of wrong and inappropriate reputation . A better solution would be to have him post scam accusations in the appropriate forum and wait for enough conclusive evidence to be gathered before having a negative trust added to the account.

But what when his accusations are not enough and aren't watertight, and still those people get negative trust(like I got) because of his kiddish behaviour? No one is even caring to listen what I've to say in my defence, and out of a few accusations he doesn't have even a single proof for couple of them, and the other proofs are misleading, but trust depth 2 members, still paint others red.

All people care about is reading the first post of the scam accusation and then patting Qs on his back without even reading what does the person accused has to say in his defence, most of these people are signature ad spammers who don't give a fuck and just post mindlessly.

Its highly saddening.

This is what I hate about this forum, except trades being value over opinionated feedback,  Trade Feedback and opinionated feedback should be separated in value.  if you didn't conduct a trade to the member then your feedback shouldn't be more valued then feedback done with monies.

You can think what you want about the reasons why I like to catch scammers.

The assumptions that I make regarding determining if someone is a scammer or not are sound. The evidence against you is solid and you are clearly the same person as puzzel.me. If I open a scam accusation, other people will not leave negative trust unless they can come to the same conclusion that I came to after looking at the evidence. In your case, I just so happened to gather enough evidence to make it 100% undeniable that you are puzzel.me

I think you are learning your lessons as to how to avoid detection of your alts. There are a number of things that you are clearly doing to cover your tracks. I am not going to further explain to you how I know that you are puzzel.me (you are the actual person who attempted to blackmail someone and failed). You know that you are the same person as well.

Please stop sending me PM's from multiple accounts.

Problem is people lie.

Quickseller is a liar and that is the main issue here.

When he is wrong he won't admit his error and keeps attacking (lying) to maintain the image he is somehow above being wrong.

I get called an extortionist and that is pure bullshit. I have a better escrow record than he does. I have never extorted anything from anyone and people think that an anonymous agent in these forums like he is should be trusted?

Come on now when is it really ever okay to hide your identity and try to bust scams in public forums? He isn't some undercover FBI agent he is just someone hiding behind an alt account of known person in these forums most likely.  Never trust people hiding their identities. Never for escrow. Never for account selling. Never for anything. Who the fook knows who he really is right?

So what does that quote have to do with anything??  You say he doesnt admit his errors, would you mind quoting or linking an example of that? You were called extortionist by him but you also have a lot more negative trust ratings from other important people once again proving that everyone that is against quickseller is a moron and deservers all his ratings.

And now when he knows he is wrong he will also divert the topic and wont reply you straight. He just wants everyone to accept what he says as "truth".
He is just a troll and needs to be ignored.

I dont care to be honest how many negs are here, I have shit tons of trades with my other accounts, no big deal, no harm done to me.  Im just saying that being on default or having one it is used for abuse of power on others.  Im really surprised this forum became big, and was the only reason it did because it was an early adopter forum.  This trust system would have been the death of it, if it wasnt for Satoshi himself.

Already done that weeks ago and I keep adding his agents/shills/alts as I go. XinXin seems like another ignored. Another one that can't think for himself or read the threads to a depth or read a false negs. I have held 80K for people and not one penny went missing. You want to address TRUST then know my record vs. his puffery over the last year. He hasn't ever done more than a few hundred bucks as an escrow. Can't trust him as far as you can throw em. Anonymous people should NEVER be trusted.

Problem becomes he has a myriad of alt accounts and is probably built relationships with other accounts here to maintain an image all behind a pseudonym propping up a small group of people to push trust ratings that are mostly fabricated or built on circular anonymous accounts that have never really transferred bitcoins to any real people. Why would he have so many issues with scammers? I have been here since 2013 and I have never run into scammers on his scale when doing business here. It is like he is honey trapping or ENTRAPPING people and that is a big reason for him not to be trusted in ANYTHING he says or does. He is not part of a LEO so he should be forthright about his identity and since he is not he should be given a wide berth.

Does anyone really know who this person is? Could be a Moderator or an Admin, could be a long time scammer for anyone knows given he has 'been' this an account for 1 year max. Please why do people even bother trusting this moron who can't tell the difference between extortion and a laundry list of proof of VAT and Mail fraud of someone like Dogie? If anything he is the one extorting people and misusing his unearned reputation libeling people left right and center. The amount of spam generated as a result of his false claims this past week would fill most forums and yet no bans? Why? You would think that a warning at least would be sent out that would reprimand him for FALSE accusations? That is the real problem I see is mods turning a blind eye to that form of spam. At what point does he have to go before he gets punished for lies and false accusations?

He did the same thing when he was on the warpath against me.  Brought up unsubstantiated (and false) allegations, then tried to change the subject when his own motivation was called into question.  The good thing is that his M.O. is well known by almost everyone at this point, and he won't be back on default trust until he learns to calm himself.  He's a lot like an ambitious, amateur cop who wants to make it to the top by arresting everyone in site.  He doesn't have any sympathy for anyone other than himself.  So while it's true that he catches a scammer in action from time to time, he also steamrollls a huge number of innocent people with no remorse.  If he ever realizes this, he could do the forum a lot of good.  Until he realizes this, he causes more harm than good.

I dont give a shit who he is, i couldnt care less, this is a forum there is no need for us to know who he is, what i care about is his accusations and evidence, you obviously got your red trust for a reason, its not only quickseller that left you negative trust, you are throwing accusations against quickseller with no evidence to back it up and you complain about him for supposedly doing the same, do you see the irony there?

You wrote a whole lot of useless trash there again throwing accusations and saying things with absolutly no evidence.

You can block PMs here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;;sa=pmprefs) if he keeps it up.


A 5000 post shill account, that'd be impressive.


Oh really, remember when you worked with a guy with 10 circular anonymous accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064824.0) in order to prop up your agenda and attack targets you didn't like? I've cut down the quote because its huge post, but you can read more about the trust ratings they left for each other and their victims here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.msg11369559#msg11369559). There are a few more accounts that were discovered before the post so the circle jerk is actually larger.

Definitely and this is more than a default trust issue. Now it is a spam issue. I get posting information for the community to be more aware but when you are unwilling and unable to determine scams / extortion from honest people trying to do honest business you become a nuisance to the community. Strange nothing is done about this particular anonymous individual with only a year on the forum gets so much 'support'. I wonder who he really is, typically most people that act in this manner are usually called out and or reprimanded by the forum mods. Why doesn't his shit stink like Techshare's or Mine or others... funny.

 trust should be measured by many not by the ones in power

The ones in power are in power because others that are in power gave them that power, besides anyone can give you red or green trust, its not like quickseller is the only one that gives trust, if you were so trusted you wouldnt care about quickseller trust because you would have too much green trust but you dont and everyone knows why, now stop whining and making a fool of yourself

Trust should be measured by those affected directly by others.

Direct democracy requires that those who hold a stake in what is being decided should have vote. It would have to affect them directly or infringe on their ability to transact business.

Unfortunately a DEFAULT is not democratic. Nor is 1 vote for each alt account. What is worse are default's that are alts and 'hand picked' by the powers that be, which is what we have now.

yeah and this is why the USA is fucked up, because intead of people holding the power the gov which are default, fuck things for the little few?

Dont tell me I am wrong, I am trying to make a point, dont care about the trust given to me.  I had real trust from real trades nor did that give me any leverage here.  Ebay is a good example that is much more fairer system then the system we have here.

Fair? How? Have you read SaltySpitoon's* post? He has explained correctly about this.

Ebay gives false sense to users because most of them think feedback can't be faked where in fact, it is very easy to do.


* IIRC.

@bold: I received a negative rating from a buyer who himself backed out from my deal. He had purchased my gift card in an auction on Ebay and backed out later. Instead, I should be the one giving him a negtive feedback and yes, he has received 100% positives from other members when he himself seems to be a scammer.

Woah. You quoted an outside source here. I've never seen that here in my 3 years on this forum. I'm impressed and need to learn on this. *Starts looking at text code*

Seems BitcoinDistributor changed the title of the OP/thread?

The OP is a huge troll. When he fake sold his KoS account, he changed the title of one of his 'Vod' threads to something along the lines of 'Vod is a good guy'

edit: this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877184.msg10166686#msg10166686) is the thread I am talking about, however it appears that KoS has since changed the title back

You still don't believe I sold the KOS account? LOL. Its honestly hillarious.

Ask Tomatocage, he escrowed the 0.10 BTC I sold it for. The buyer was Watoshi-Dimoto or a friend of his (I still dont know). He contacted me saying he wanted to buy and then said he wanted to use a different account to make the purchase, and this gandalf.grey dude contacted me. The weird part is the gandalf guy talked differently then Watoshi so IDK if it was him.

Anyways, it looks like he gave up on the account. I'd rebuy it back for 0.01 BTC just for shits n giggles if Watoshi / gandolf / whoever reads this.

Interesting how you are still trying to link ndnhc to a scam (you)

I've changed the OP because this thread has been derailed and gone off to different subjects at least 5 times. Instead of making new threads, why not use this obviously popular thread to serve my annoucement needs.

How is the world in ndnc related to Watoshi??? Did I miss sometime? I think I was pretty clear what I said, Watoshi bought the account from me. hmmm let me see if I still have the PMs. Dont know if he messaged me on kingofsports2 but I'll check.

What do you know, I do still have PMs! Here ya go.

https://i.imgur.com/5KDzFdn.png

ndnhc posted 1At8KjNtUyAhWdUuNrZyUsCVQCFqcuY68m here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815815.msg9160894#msg9160894), and Watoshi-Dimobuto posted 13UytrmhA4FBuELZnXp12TXjj4Y19Hvb57 here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857133.msg9539425#msg9539425). Both of these addresses signed this (https://blockchain.info/tx/31e6d850719f3c05f1dc4985cfba36ee92bc5c6e1d6aebf15205d70287ccd189) transaction.

The above is spelled out in this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525975.msg9935220#msg9935220) post, which I am fairly certain that you are/were aware of.

---

Your screenshot does not prove anything nor is it conclusive of anything even if the PM is legit.

You are one sad dude. Go ahead and ask Badbear to confirm those messages. Ask Tomatocage. Back to ignore with you troll. Any person with a brain would know that.

As for your ndnc thing, find me any evidence as to why i give a shit about the dude? I dont. 2nd, I don't follow your signed message or whatever things. I use mixers all the time, hell you can mixx your coins with others on blockchain.info so just cause inputs are from similar users isnt 100% conclusive. its probably this same reason you got taken off default trust. i mean seriously dude who spends their life analyzing fucking blockchain txs of everyone? Get a cyber security job or something useful for your obvious huge amount of free time.

Like I said, even if the PM's are legit, they are not conclusive.

The transaction in question is not a coin-join (or similar) transaction. The two accounts were certainly controlled by the same person at least at one point in time.

ndnhc was never the target when the address was posted on the PRC dice giveaway thread that was closed, the evidence against ndnhc was designed to crumble upon close inspection, however no one bothered to look closely until ndnhc actually responded to the allegation himself.

Dude what the hell are you babbling on about? All I said was that I sold the kingofsports account to watoshi when you said I didnt.

I tried to address that issue here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074134.0 Its not right for a pretend cop to be 'trustworthy'.

Yet someone who is a scammer should be trusted enough to make accurate trust reports  :D

Actually no, but people shouldnt be given the 'trust of the community' because they busted a few scams, sure thats a commendable thing but in this community 'trust' for trade and 'trust' for doing a good cleanup job is blurred.

Its like giving the janitor a cop's badge.

(Not looking down upon a janitor just explaining the situation)

Ding ding.

I trusted Quickseller with my Private key, yes my PRIVATE KEY. My Trezor went haywire and he helped me get it back, he could've stolen all the coins but didn't. I think it was about 1200$+ worth of coins on that address.
I would trust Quickseller any day of the week.


Damn auto correct *Quickseller

I understand, but this thread is about quickseller, not quicksilver https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=17818

He was referring to me. You can check his sent trust.

Lol, apprantely Sakarias-Corporation will trust anyone who's name starts with quick on any day of the week.  Good thing he got luck and Quickseller was nice to him.

It was my phones damn auto correct :( Quickseller* you can also see I sent him feedback a while back.

If you go back through the forums you'll see that my KOS account handled escrows as large as $4000 without issue proving I could be trusted with $4000 before the bigbitz incident. Your point?

My point is that I trust him and don't consider him to be "unethical or childish"
He's a great asset to the forum.

He's a great asset to the forum until you're the one that he decides to wrecklessly go after.  Yes, I think he is basically ethical, but the problem is that he's also childish.  By that I mean that he flips out on people when they disagree with him.  You can see this again and again (although maybe he's calmer nowadays, maybe he's learning his lessons, idk).  I corrected him on a few points a few months ago and he flew into tirades of "you're an idiot" etc, then went off into a 3 month long smear campaign where he was using alts and trying to dig up all these unsubstantiated charges against me and use them to have me kicked off a signature campaign.  Why?  Apprantely he didn't like it when I told him he was a hothead and that calling people idiots wasn't cool.

Quickseller is a little like an overambitious cop, he wants to catch the bad guys so damn badly that he doesn't care how many babies and old ladies get run over by his squad care while he's in pursuit.  It's the main reason he didn't last on default trust (my guess, anyway), he's so quick to call people out on half-baked conspiracy stories and accusations that his actions often do more harm than good.

That said, who knows, maybe he's learned his lesson but I don't know.  A week ago a newbie account showed up and started to try to reignite the quickseller drama with me, then disappeared again.  I'm sure it was quickseller in a trolling mood---the person even had his writing style---but who can say for sure.  Anyway, I'm hoping that as quickseller gets older, he'll learn to think twice before he acts.   Once he learns that lesson, he realy will be a great asset to this forum, till then, it's hit-or-miss at best.

Da fuck is this shit..?

If there is any truth in that statement what so ever .. the lid off my mind just got blown!

How did you come to this conclusion?

Of course there's no truth to it.


Probably because BadBear is a user and Quickseller is also user. Someone dislikes both of them, therefore they're the same person  ::).

What a waste of time to spread such acusatation

Ask theymos or the MODs  I think they can trace/see their IP add to their previous posts, you can confirm it, if QS vs BD is one person.

I dont think theymos would do that. If that wild accusation was true then it would severely hamper Quickie boy's credibility as well as badbear's.

Quickie boy is doing the dirty work for this forum, things which theymos should hire & regularly pay his own staff members to do.
Not saying he cant afford to or isnt bothered to do that already, but directly acting against the credibility of one pretend cop would discourage others as well and could increase the work load for the staff members & make the whole situation more messed up.

But we dont have to worry about badbear being the same as Quickie cuz they arent. (* I think..)

Those accusations have no fundament whatsoever they are just thrown randomly, you can see that he called me an alt of quickseller too because i was defending qs so if you defend qs means you are qs. Im surprised this thread is not locked by the mods since its bringing no benefit to the forum and its just useless but ok

Well the moron that started this thread needs to be banned from creating threads / commenting.

This is a common tactic of people who are loosing an argument. They claim that everyone who is against their side is an alt of each other in order to distract from the conversation.

But we've seen you login with an alt and keep a conversation going in order to make it seem like there are more poeple on your side of an argument than there really are.  Anyone who reasearches the posts of ACCTSeller and Quickseller can see you doing this.  Because you are (or were, so you say) active in account sales, we have no idea how many accounts you're in control of.  So given that (1) you've been seen perpetrating this kind of sockpuppetry and (2) your background in account trading I think it's makes sense why you find yourself confronting this accusation again and again.

But haven't you too done the same in the past? You called out Tomatocage as qsexpose's alt and me as some other member's alt (don't even remember the name) and I don't know how many alts have been called out here as those who criticize you are all alts of each other and scammers too. You also claim TC took 2 BTC bribe for getting you off his trust list.  :(


You think so? OK may be  ::)

I think you are confused.

No one is confused, wait are you telling yourself that you have multiple personality disorder syndrome ?

you think QS is same as BB? I don't think so, badbear looks not like QS. Like others said, you can request IP proofs for your speculations.