Bitcoin Forum

First of all there's a valid evidence that Lauda sold bitcointalk accounts, and bet on buying accounts through his alt Xanis.

Lauda recently sent me a negative feedback for having multiple bitcointalk accounts. Contradiction  ::) ?

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2393049.msg24620117#msg24620117

Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.

Got accounts farming 2015, maybe that year, account farming was accepted, maybe just the year Lauda did it  :) ?

And what do you think this will do? Do you think that this thread will get Lauda kicked off DT-2?

Neg trusting a fellow campaign manager (competition) for engaging in the same behavior as you? Tsk tsk.


Moot point.....Once you confront Lauda, this is all your account is good for. All I did was point out Lauda's behavior, proven with blockchain evidence. And I received negative trust (twice) for "lying." Mind you, these lies were perfectly verifiable as truth.

Some trust system ya got here!! :)

This is something he did over at least two years, including a time when this activity was considered scammy behavior. He was trying to buy at least 10 accounts as part of a single transaction at one point.

I also think it should raise some eyebrows when a number of "sold" accounts have negative ratings removed and/or changed to neutral because of an "internal" resolution. The fact that Lauda leaves negative ratings for sold accounts, account buyers/sellers/etc., means it is at least possible he is either leaving negative ratings for accounts with the intent of buying it at a low price only to later remove the rating, or otherwise leaving negative ratings against his competition. Similar things can be said about his SMAS list. Neither Lauda's removed trust ratings, nor the SMAS list is particularly transparent, and both seem to use an arbitrary criteria.

The point is he/she engaged with account selling here, the time is not matter here since we all know many people tag by him for that doings.

Well this is annoying to see, An alt account buster is also an alt account seller.

Let's go ahead and start punishing everyone involved in account trades back then, in that case.

Oh wait... how many DT members are there?!

A lot. A lot HAVE sold/bought/escrowed accounts. And now they don't.

Do you really know that these people are no longer dealing in accounts? Do you think it is possible that these people are using alternate accounts to deal in accounts?


Do you think there is a difference between personally stopping certain behavior and leading a crusade against said behavior, while refusing to discuss the merits of said crusade? Would you find it unusual/strange that the person leading the crusade personally engaged in similar behavior not long before the crusade started?


I am also curious if you want Lauda to make an explicit statement confirming the number of accounts he has posted from in the last two years, if he has attempted to deal in accounts in the last two years, and if he has ever attempted to purchase an account he has left negative trust against.   

OP is a liar, similar to QS. You said you had left the forum, but you didn't. In addition to that, you are now stating that I have sold accounts(?). Now you wake up with an army of shills, which is exactly why you were tagged. Pathetically ironic.

The only thing I did for is post from a second account for a period of time. I have not tried nor purchased any accounts to my knowledge. As always, everything that you and your moppets are saying is a lie.

4 years ago is "not long ago". ::)

You're trying to go out the subject, anyway I don't post anymore out of my case, I free to return posting anytime I want ;D.

So you deny that Xanis isn't your alt ? and not involved in account trading?
You mean you stopped account trading 4 years ago  8) ?
I acknowledge that I stopped two years ago  ;D!

There is no subject.

That account was not involved in account trading, but was legitimately making posts to up its post count (aka post padding).

No. There is absolutely zero evidence of any such behavior despite your absurd claims. I have double checked now, and the account has not been used since the end of 2014 thus it has been dead for 3 full years (not 4).

Nope, just as QS didn't stop.

Yes there's a subject: Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason


Quote from Lauda: Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur
Quote from Lauda: Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.

Playing ? Sometimes you deny that Xanis is involved in accounts trading, and sometimes that Xanis is not your alt.

That's absurd too.

FTFY.

Nope. My responses are consistent.

Nobody believes you other than QS and your own alts. Therefore, no.

You were placing bids on accounts listed for sale. You asked for a quote for 10 accounts. What would you call that?

Also, to your knowledge. You have either purchased accounts or you haven't. There is absolutely no way you purchased (or tried to purchase) an account without your own knowledge.

Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?

Impoliteness, I think I touched an injury. cry more.

Something that was very fitting with my behavior at the time: post padding.

There are most certainly multiple ways of something like that happening:
1) Temporary loss of control of the account due to whatever reason (e.g. hacking).
2) Simply not remembering, which I don't and which is why you are asking for bullshit "statements".

There are probably more.

Why don't you? ::)

This sounds a lot like you are giving yourself an out from being accused of lying when someone finds proof of an actual transaction with an account buyer/seller.

When someone is asking for themselves, theymos is more likely to give up this information because this person is giving up their privacy themselves, rather than someone else requesting that theymos violate the privacy of a third party.

Do you have a reason to not want to ask theymos to provide this information? Would you have a problem with theymos publicly posting all of your current and previous alts? 

This sounds a lot like you're a biased baboon. Anyone with higher education should know that memories can not be trusted in any way or form, especially not old ones. Don't ask me about the past. QED.

"Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?" is what I meant with "why don't you". I didn't ask why you don't do that for my accounts.

Do you? If you don't, then do the same for your own alts. If you don't plan on doing that, then stop wasting my time with your hypocritical bullshit.

I am not the one who is claiming to never have purchased accounts. I have been open about having many alts in the past, so it would be of no surprise to anyone when he posts many accounts associated with my owning them at one point.

You on the other hand just said that that you used one additional account to post from, and implied that you did not purchase any accounts from said account or otherwise ("to your knowledge"). You asking theymos to post every account that you currently or in the past have owned would help you verify this statement.....or more likely disprove this statement, and confirm you are in fact lying.

Is that supposed to be some kind of joke?

This sounds a lot like you're giving yourself an out. Why don't you really ask theymos to do this? It is likely that you're trying to prevent more of your accounts from being tagged by me. ::)

Like I said above, theymos is more likely to fulfill this request when coming from the person themselves, rather than from a third party.

If you are telling the truth, then you should have no reason asking for this information to be posted? right?

Like I said above, I'm asking you to do this for your own account/alts.

I'm waiting for you to do this. ::) You are stooping to new lows of pathetic reasoning.

Is there a statement of mine that you are questing that could be proven/disproven if I did this? There is a statement of yours that could be proven/disproven if you consented to this kind of disclosure.

Whether there is a statement or not is completely irrelevant. You're deflecting. Why does this not surprise me given that you're a scammer and sell accounts to other scammers?

I don't think Quickseller denied having other alts. Did he?

You are the one saying you only ever had one alt, Lauda, expecting everyone to accept your word as truth.

But your word looks less honorable everyday! Especially as you stand here refusing to take responsibility for your alt's account trading----proven, archived and tied to your bitcoin wallet!!

He has denied at lot of stuff that turned out to be true. There is a very good reason for which anyone rational considers him the scum of this forum.

That is a lie and you wonder why you got tagged, hypocrite.  ::)

Its provably not a lie. Why are you so openly showing that you leave false feedback??

Here is an example. Yesterday you tagged this user for account trading ("Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming.")----


Your proven alt, Xanis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg24552892#msg24552892), engaged in the exact same behavior here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320328.msg3435067#msg3435067
http://archive.is/2TBKt
https://i.imgur.com/EBcWS4c.jpg

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292662.msg3334977#msg3334977
http://archive.is/qFolm
https://i.imgur.com/Ge0WOAr.jpg

What lie??

It is factually, without a shred of doubt, a blatant lie.


Opening a thread that you want to buy accounts is exactly the same as making a inquiry or a shitpost bid?
Posting that you have accounts for sale is exactly the same as making a inquiry or a shitpost bid?

---

Chronic liar. You should get some help if you think those are exactly the same. :-\

Seems pretty similar to me.


Kenshin: "I have an account for sale."
Xanis (Lauda's proven alt): "I'll start the bid at 0.01" ... "0.02" ... "0.031"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320328.msg3435067#msg3435067

Xanis (Lauda's proven alt): "How much for 10 accounts created in june/july 2013?"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292662.msg3334977#msg3334977

You've contradicted yourself. Changing the attack vector now, are we? ::)

That's a pretty weak deflection.

Scenario A--
"I have an account for sale"
"Send me a PM to arrange a deal."

Scenario B--
"I have an account for sale"
Lauda: "I'll offer 0.01 BTC." "How much for 10 accounts?"

Such difference!! Wow!!

There is no deflection as you have no case.

FTFY deceitful liar.

The point I made: You offered to buy accounts. So did the person you gave negative trust. In both cases, there is no proof that the actual sale has taken place. But you assigned negative trust anyway for engaging in account trading. The existence of a sale thread doesn't prove that account sales have taken place, either. You just assumed as we are doing now.

You're again trying to deny that Xanis = Lauda?? Considering the blockchain evidence, that would be a lie. Please confirm.

Anyone can scroll up, read the links provided and see that I am not lying.

Is there anyone that has anything substantial to say or is this just a circle-jerk of scammers, account farmers and butthurt trolls?

https://i.imgur.com/hV7hbbE.gif

This is the 2nd proven fact that Lauda is connected with shady behaviour. I will discuss this with Shorna. Lauda you have been removed from DT Trust and I think you will soon be removed from this entire Forum!

There are no facts here, just speculation.

You mean Shorena, the one who is willing to escrow account sales? Oh wait.

If Quickseller was not removed given his chronic concern trolling, then I highly doubt that.

Listen Catwoman, your days as forum police officer are over. It's time for you to step down!!!

Lauda:

QuickSeller:

Bitcoin_Boy$:
I acknowledge that I had more than one account.
 
Let's make things simple,
Lauda you're the one arguing you don't have any alts.
why don't you simply ask theymos to provide a list of your alts ? otherwise you're a liar

please don't shitpost if you wont ask theymos ;D

Let me get this straight.

Anyone caught trading accounts and given negative trust can just say "I was hacked" or "I don't remember doing that" and you will remove their negative rating??

Otherwise it seems like yet another double standard......

Alright. Let's do it. Remove all negative ratings for account selling by Lauda back in 2013.

Wait, why am I saying 'by Lauda'? Because you're trying to enforce this suggestion of a double standard.


But it's nice and cozy in here! :(

Who asks to remove negative ratings?
@actmyname asked to punish Lauda same way he is tagging everyone involved in account trading/account farming.

Nice job Mr. Detective, you're defending Lauda and don't fearofnegativeACC  :o

And then some wonder why they get tagged for lying.

It is not.

What flaw?

It's rather simple: It's a shitpost for post padding. I was certain that I was never involved in such deals before the shill came with the connection, and I stand by it[1].

That's also a possibility.

There is nothing to defend myself from. I paid the price for shitposting long ago. You are not being rational. You can easily find random members and a few of their statements/ideas/views that fully contradict their positions/statements of today[2].

Which ratings are we talking about? Obviously I will request others to tag all of them should I drop out. Some DT1 members couldn't give a damn about anything other than their own profit, thus exclusions which would release hundreds of scammers into the wild are always a possibility.

How so?

He is arguing rather unbiased IMO.

---

[1] There's always a possibility that I could be mistaken. See [2].

I disagree. Bids are used for post padding more often than you'd think and that behavior fits exactly my profile from back then.

The possibility of either one is non zero.

This isn't 2013/4.

I must have missed them, but newbie accounts are a waste of time to tag anyways (it's essentially playing whack-a-mole). I'll get to them soon^TM.

He's barely made any private contact with me, thus I highly doubt that.

Harsh and honest. I like you; you sound a lot like me. Are you my alt? :D

What about the linked addresses?

What about them? ::)

Avoiding the Issue (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue)

Fallacies are scientific ways of determining who is wrong or right in debate. You literally just lost this debate by committing the above fallacy.

Until you provide a valid explanation of how your own addresses are linked to an account you claim you never controlled, you must lose DT status.

Baboon, don't act smart and use things that you have little understanding of. Claiming that something is absolutely false just because it contains a fallacy is itself a fallacy[1]. You just played yourself. 8)

"I claim I've never controlled"? You're a liar. ::)

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Avoiding the Issue (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue)

Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?

That one doesn't even apply. Are you really that degenerate?

That's none of your business. :-*

Fallacies ARE how we determine who wins and loses debate. Whichever side commits more is what determines who has the strongest argument. I never said you were proven wrong - I said you lost the debate, and there is a big difference... "baboon".

There is no actual debate nor would I lose a debate against idiots like Quickseller, OP or other shills of users that I've busted. Now dance Muppet.

Why don't you take advantage of the opportunity Quickseller is giving you to prove him wrong?

There is nothing that needs to be proven wrong. I'd have to be out of my damn mind to do something just because the pathetic scammer [1] asked for it. Snowflake, you lines are getting weaker.

---

[1] Context for the uninformed: Quickseller pulled bogus escrow scams, stealing pennies per escrow deal, and thus destroyed his reputation (among other things).

Avoiding the Issue (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue)

Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?

False. More fallacies ≠ Worse argument.

Strong argument without fallacies + many fallacies  > Bad argument without fallacies

---

If I make a strong point to which you are unable to respond but the debate continues and I begin to use ad hominem against you, my argument in summation is still strong.

Whichever side commits more fallacies does determine the strongest argument ≠ Whichever side commits more fallacies is the strongest argument

Nice try though.

Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?

I don't believe you and no one will believe you. Watch your actions man and  never accuse Lauda heir of Zeus for these stuff. Lauda is perfect and was born here in bitcointalk forum. This is his kingdom and no one have the balls to fight him. You understand?

Having multiple accounts is illegal but joining your multiple accounts in one signature is not that's one moderator said. Maybe she caught you joining your other accounts in one signature campaigns, or the one you are selling is yours and not from others. Enough lets just be careful on what we are doing.

Firstly, I did not argue the questionable point, "whichever side commits more fallacies is the strongest argument." Rather, I argued the opposite.

Secondly, the number of fallacies has no bearing on the number of strong arguments. They are independent of one another, for a strong argument relies not on a fallacy. Thus the strongest argument cannot be determined via the number of fallacies.

I do not see how you can state that you can determine the strongest argument purely through the number of fallacies committed by both sides.

Well I certainly would love to know all of Lauda's alts and Quickseller's alts... and everyone else on the forum.
Everyone man up (or woman up) and start posting their alts and all of the accounts they control! I'll even take them in PM :)

I'll start... just this one.   :o

So lauda is a account seller by birth?
Hmm..so where is hilarious scum? Who wish to keep such duchebags in his trust list?
I am so much disappointed by this lauda beheviour
If one is himself a scammer then he has no right to call other a scammer.

Go go quickseller, long live quickseller, long live kralle.

I can only respond to this with: "Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?". Unless you ask theymos to list your alts, any statements of anyone should be considered invalid.  :P

No.

Ironic given OP, Quickseller and you are talking. ;D

Lauda isn't a scammer, however.   Quickseller is, though he seems to have given up his scammy pursuits for the moment.   

Calling hilariousandco "scum" is not likely to win you any arguments or love here, and I would suggest you reflect on your own feedback, which tells me you're the scammer.  I love it when scammers bitch about legitimate negs and thereby call attention to themselves. Not that you probably care, but have another one on the house.

theymos is welcome to list my nonexistent alts, although I'm sure he has better things to do.  ;D

It is too bad I am asking for you to consent to theymos to verify your statement that you only have that one alt and your statement that you have never purchased nor sold accounts.

There is significant evidence that refutes these statements.

Well, selling DT accounts to scammers isn't exactly a scam. Is it?  :)

There are legitimate reasons to permanently ban at least some scammers (e.g. those that have been tagged by multiple independent DT parties for quite some time).

At least someone gets it.

There is zero evidence. Your brain can't parse things properly when it comes to me. When are you going to leave the forum as you said you would? Oh right, your words can't be trusted.

The evidence is that you placed multiple bids to buy an account via auction and asked for a price quote for 10 accounts via an alt that is connected to you via blockchain evidence.

No. There is 1 valid bid which further confirms my assumption of both posts just being shitposts for post padding. ;)

A question is a question. Anything else?

---

I'm waiting for your alt Gorgonzolla to complain about this. ::)

Avoiding the Issue (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue[/url)

Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?

I'd encourage Lauda and others to ignore idiots like this.  They don't stand behind their words, obviously.

I am curious to know how Vod would feel about Lauda having many accounts (more than 2), and buying and/or selling accounts. Do you think this would be okay?

Curiosity is healthy.  It promotes education.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think it would be okay if Lauda had purchased and/or sold accounts in the past? (or is currently doing so).

Do you think it would be okay if Lauda had more than one alt? (he has claimed to have exactly one -- the one that he took the time to delete 3,000+ posts from).

In the current Age of ICOs we should start our own ICO and collect BTC and ETH to then pay Theymos which in return will give us all off the alts of Lauda.

Is there a reason why vod is declining to address this? Is Vod himself afraid of Lauda? Or is Vod declining to hold Lauda accountable because of their prior relationship?

Because people are bored of your stupid, biased behaviour.

Where does it say it is illegal to sell an account?

I just went through META and Mprep FAQ, question number 18 says the following:
18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

Discouraged is different from illegal and forbidden. How come some mods do not respect their own rules and punish people for selling accounts?????

What am I missing here?

You are exactly right. If it was illegal people would be banned for it, but it doesn't happen.

Once again for the 10,000th time: the trust system is a whole lot different to the forum rules. Lauda gives out negative trust just because she/he himself doesn't not trust you.
Why would you even need to buy/ sell forum accounts?

No, this cannot be possible. Please tell me there is some misunderstanding here.  I have not used this forum a lot but I cannot believe my eyes what I see. We have  a number 1 forum in Bitcoin world where people who are able to post negative trust do not follow the rules of the forum and make up their own rules? Fuck me, this is material for crypto news, cannot believe my eyes.

I have to say I am a bit dissapointed mods can choose to do whatever they want even though FAQ clearly spells out what can be sanctioned. I somehow hoped this forum to be top shelf. What is the point of FAQ and forum rules then?

Lol, your account looks very much bought.

Coindetective is Crazyivan's "brother" (see feedback left on his profile), who coincidentally contacted me today about wanting me to temove that feedback.   Ain't gonna happen, bud.  You are the same person and are a fucking liar and account dealer.  Here you pretend not to know how it works on bct with feedback, like a big drama queen.  It's always the account sellers who end up being the worst members of this forum.  But I wouldn't be surprised if QS got control of the coindetective account and is using it as an alt in his ponderous crusade against Lauda.

After reading this thread, I feel like in a mental asylum.. DT member who is tagging scammers for account trading, was doing the same in the past ? This is hilarious   ;D Or did I get something wrong ?

Yap, I m his brother, that s true, what is so hard to understand there? You must have no siblings at all, you do seem as a very, very lonely person. You know what, get a pet, maybe a snake or a cockroach, I highly doubt anything else would survive in your toxic environment.

I don't give rats ass the fact you do not trust me. All I did was helping a bud of mine long time ago sell an account. That was ONE MISTAKE I did here and I was wrong to do it. So, if anyone else wants to give me a negative rating, go ahead. I admit, I never even tried to hide this, a long time ago I tried to help a friend sell an account, the sale never took place since I was told by someone close to me not to do it and the sale thread was closed short time after it was open.

I was not even aware this was not allowed on this forum at that time and today, after reading this thread, I can see I was right. You gave me a negative rating over something WHICH IS NOT ILLEGAL ON THIS FORUM, take a look at FAQ 18 I ve posted, a FAQ set up by someone who established this forum clearly says SELLING ACCOUNTS IS ALLOWED. So again, what did you give me negative trust rating for? Just to satisfy your morbid desire to call someone a liar, right? I ASK AGAIN, WHAT RULE DID I BREAK HERE ON THIS FORUM?

Are you going to say you re the one who makes the rules on this forum? Please do not insult my intelligence, even though I do not use this forum a lot, this forum seems to be a serious place.

I do now understand potential negative implications selling an account might have, there you ve got a point but this should be clearly FORBIDDEN and then assholes like you could go around and cure their childhood frustrations by hunting down people who sell their accounts. Until there is such clear ban, I ask you again, what rule of this forum did I break? Please say your own rules, your way or highway, please, please say something like that.

Saying I am an account dealer makes me understand how seriously disturbed person you are, you must be living an illusion of being a big time  internet warrior who protects the world from vicious tribes of online barbarians. I can only say, get a life dude and stop being so bitter, not everyone is a scammer.

To conclude and to take off my white glows, since you took them long time ago, fuck you for calling me a liar and an account dealer, you re incorrect dear sir.

If you are really a pharmacists, which I seriously doubt, nobody can do that serious work and sit online 24/7, I m preparing for a med school. If I ever get that MD plate on my chest, I m sure your frustrations re going to quadruple. I m gonna  make sure to let you know about this happy event and send a photo so you can celebrate with me. I know I am not allowed to do it yet but let me give you diagnosis regarding your behaviour, a clear case of manic depression which often involves hallucinations, psychosis and most importantly delusions. So far your delusions have produced a lot of stuff about me and now you say my account is controlled by QS (whatever that is) to fight a war against somebody else????? What s going to be next? Let me guess, you just saw Elvis who came into your pharmacy to buy a lollipop!

Unfortunately, psychiatric hospitalisation is the only way out for you. Now you go and post another negative rating on my account for explaining you how things work in life. HA HA

Have a good one!

Interesting thing would be what's Theymos's take on account selling, Does he considers that it leads to 'scams, spam and encourages account farming?' Many users have cried over this, but theymos's take on this will be an interesting one. I myself totally believe that account selling should be banned. It has caused a lot of damage to the community and hasn't brought forward any fruitful results, which i can't even think of.

Also a question, is there a list/record of scams done by sold accounts?

That's a bit mean. And unfounded.

(as you proceed to write a wall of text)

When you yourself admit that it was a mistake, what more is there to justify the action?

Aw, heck. Did you know that trust is not dependent on rules?

Therefore, whenever there is a legal gray area, you will abuse it and lash out at anyone that questions you?

That seems unwarranted.

Right. Attempted account dealer would be more appropriate.

Screen names never meant anything. Are you a detective? ::)

Good luck. It'll be hard.

Wait why?

Hallucinations?

It looks like this negative trust really got to you, even though it didn't do anything.

No, I did not know trust is not dependant on rules. I did read FAQ and I try to stick to them. Is there any other set of rules a user need to respect? To formulate my question better, WHAT is trust EXACTLY dependant on here on this forum?

How can a user make sure they respect the rules and do not get negative trust rating? I read here people getting flagged for having different opinion about something compared to people who have got higher trust level and can flag people.

How can I know what is allowed and what is not allowed if it is not in the rule book. I do not spend much time here on the forum and cannot afford to get informed about everything. This is why I read the rules. If that s not enough and still people like this fake internet hero can flag people, then I really do not see a point of having rules at all. Let s ask Pharmacist if I can post about Bitcoin price.Maybe he does not like the fact I am going to say the price will drop next week and flag me. I am sure you understand where this goes.

You say account selling is potential grey area. How can that be a potential grey area when it is clearly allowed by the rules. VERY CLEARLY. How can anyone abuse something which is allowed to do? To tell you the truth, I would have nothing against the fact selling accounts gets completely prohibited but as long it is allowed, how can users know what is allowed unless it is clearly written.  

Yes, I did try to help a friend sell that account, I was honest about that. That was stupid and irresponsible from my side and I had no direct financial benefit from that. I was not aware that was illegal when I did it and rules confirmed that. if it was clearly stated to be illegal, I would never try to help him. Still, after all that I was labelled as an account flipper, scammer and spam promoter. What? Where? How?

There was no real damage due to his post, that s not the point. The point is he s being extremely dishonest and vengeful over something which was not illegal neither prohibited. I get pissed when I see internet warriors trying to bully other people just cause they thing they can.

Well, this dog s got teeth, I never allowed to be harassed in any way by anyone and I certainly won't allow some basement warrior to do so.

Thank you for attention and I apologise if my argumentation seems a bit too much to some of you.

Technically, by the rules, scamming is also allowed.

In general, account selling is discouraged for the reasons that The Pharmacist illustrated in his feedback. Trust is given at a user's discretion, and anyone can provide trust for any reason at all. The key bit to take away from this is the fact that his trust is (currently) untrusted and has no impact on most people's perceptions of you, since most have only DefaultTrust in their trust list. I would recommend reading about how trust works in the Meta section to further clarify this.

Cheers.

You have not answered my question. How am I, as a user, sure I will not be flagged again by Pharmacist or anyone else if not by reading the rules? Do I need to be a mind reader to know that? How can I do that?

I repeat, I have followed the rules of this forum to the last letter and he gave me negative rating. I understand his trust has no impact on most people perception of me but that s not the point here. I have not raised this issue since I want that trust rating removed because of anything else but the fact he posted shit about me in that trust rating. I do not like being caller a liar and a scammer for no reason.

The fact remains here he gave me negative trust rating over something which was and still is allowed, account selling. I think it should not be allowed and I would not be part of that if this were the case. But IT IS NOT THE CASE. So what gives you right to flag people accounts over something which is not an unclear grey area but clearly allowed. How can you break a rule which is NOT A RULE at the moment you break it??? I am sure you understand my point.

Don't do anything untrustworthy, such as try to sell an identity to someone else.

I want you to find me the rule that says 'Do not scam'.
When you're done, I want you to then tell me this: Do you think that we should give Negative trust to scammers?

What do you mean 'what gives him the right'? His right is that he is a forum member, and can leave positive and negative trust to anyone for whatever reasons he chooses.
Would you prefer that people were silenced and stopped from leaving trust, just because someone doesn't like them? (I'm guessing that is a yes, so you can continue with your shitty, shady account trading).

Has anyone said that you have broken a rule? Negative trust doesn't indicate that you have broken a rule, it indicates that you have done something untrustworthy. Try to get it through your thick noggin that the rules and the trust system are completely different and unrelated.

The fact is that you tried selling an account here, which makes you untrustworthy in my eyes.  No it's not against the rules--though it should be IMO--and the Crazyivan account comes along with a story about you being brothers and how he set you straight.   I don't believe that.  I believe you messed up and forgot to log off.

And really, leaving trust feedback for each other?   

Then I get another great wall of text PM from crazyivan askingme to remove the feedback, even though it's not a big deal since I'm not on DT--even though he linked the reputation thread where hilariousandco was discussing putting me in his trust list.  You and your "brother" reek of dishonesty.

He, He, He, do I detect a bit of anger in your words, my friend? I guess you got schooled with that last post of mine about you and started asking for help from your friends. Now you know how does it feel when people post shit and insults about you, ha? The only difference is I WAS NOT AWARE what I did was wrong since the rules state differently and there are no rules for what is trustworthy here while you DO KNOW what you do and you enjoy in it. I m glad you show you are a human after all.

Now let us get back to the focus of our discussion. Do you have some trouble with your memory? How many times do I have to say, yes, I tried to help a friend sell an account, when I was told not to do it, I closed down that thread. If you need some pills to remember the fact I acknowledge that, I m sure you can Google something up. Finally, we agree about something, yes, it should be against the rules to trade accounts but it is not so who are you to create new rules about what makes people untrustworthy?

You say you BELIVE this and you BELIVE that. Well, that s the whole point, you re so angry about something in your life, you refuse to consider any other possibility but the one you BELIVE. Well, you are WRONG, that s what I m trying to put into that thick skull of yours but I think I d have more success convincing a piece of wood into something. Whether you believe that or not, that s really not my problem, I am not going to try to convince you otherwise anymore, we have come to a conclusion our opinions about that issue differ big time.

What I am going to do is spend much more time here on this forum due to 2 reasons. First, discussing this stuff with you started really amusing me. I was never into forums, I did trade crypto a lot but now I start enjoying these discussions of ours. Second, I would like to prevent you to continue harassing people in the future, people who are too polite or to afraid to show their teeth and put you in your spot. The fact is you intentionally like bothering people even though you know account selling is allowed, yet you enjoy spreading your own rules cause that makes you feel internet powerful. Well, this time you ve met your match, my friend. There s no way I let this one slide. EVER.

I see you are also extremely impressed by my big bro since you keep mentioning him. I am glad you do that, you should learn from his posts, knowledge is really important in life. Yes, we he did leave trust feedback to me. As I already said, it s obvious u re a very lonely person and cannot understand being bonded to someone but that s OK. Do you maybe suggest I do not trust my brother and vice versa? Is that maybe against your rules as well? You know what, I suggest you go and give us negative rating for that as well if that s going to make you happy. I really care about you and I d like you to be a bit less angry. :)

Sorry but I didn't get this last one remark of yours, what should we care whose trust list you re going to be put on? You really have no life besides this forum when you keep talking about these lists all the time? Maybe Santa puts you on his list as well, after all you have not been that bad this year. :))

Anyway, stay safe and have a great day. One thing is sure, your days of bothering people over stuff which is not forbidden while not getting the same treatment back are over! I can get 150 gazillion negative trust rating from you, I do not mind that at all, as long that makes you happy.

Simple, lets give Lauda negative trust for being narrowed minded and Bitcoin shill, like why not? BTC scam, BCH scam because BCH ==== BTC, even ==== scam, so crypto scam. Digital gold? yeah, scam, bitcointalk scam, because we have Lauda-like that protects scam from another scam. Everything for lulz!

I see my dear The Pharmacist friend has run away with his tail between his legs, which is something which perfectly fits into a profile of an keyboard warrior who picks on nobs and inexperienced users too afraid to fight him back.

He clearly stated most of his negative rating he gives around s based not on rules of this forum, not on verifiable information,  but on stuff he "believes" in. The problem is that stuff he believes in can easily be misused, which he often does, either for his private goals or FUDing something or even worse, just to make him feel better for hurting somebody else. Well, that tactics is about to end, I can be insanely persistent when I smell injustice.

Since I ve had this discussion with my dear friend, I ve started reading some of his post in an attempt to see whether maybe I was wrong in this entire discussion. I generally do not like getting into conflicts of this kind and I always come clear when I do something wrong. But this attitude of a person who tags other people accounts, in some cases over nothing else but to achieve some personal satisfaction after hurting other user, made me very interested into analysing this issue even further. Guess what, after reading his posts for 20 minutes, I ve found so many inconsistencies I cannot believe my eyes. I ve found situations where he gives negative rating to people over stuff which can have 10 different outcomes, most of them completely harmless but in his eyes, all these people re the worst scam on the face of the planet, according to comments from his trust ratings. In other words, he translates his personal anger into intentionally harming people here on this forum.  

So, in order to continue this discussion, I ve decided to do a few things.

1.  I will continue reading and I will present here on this forum the most interesting cases so we can all comment whether devotion of Mr. Pharmacist to fight Bitcointalk scammers s been based on anything else but his personal delusions and beliefs which are often completely factually unsupported.

2. In order to make this issue more visible, I ll link this thread to my personal signature with a proper introductory message. I d like for people outside of this thread to be aware of this and similar situations and this Reputation thread s been a bit hidden. I never knew it existed before I started talking to my dear friend, the Pharmacist. I should probably make a separate thread about this issue and link that one to my signature, not to hijack this thread anymore since I do not know anything about this issue with Lauda.

3. I spoke to an acquaintance of mine, we actually visit the same Slack channel. He is a part time writer for Cointelegraph portal. After explaining him the entire story, he s willing to discuss with his editor the possibility of writing a piece about this issue. According to what he told me, there were already discussions among his colleagues about information where certain forum users would intentionally trash other users accounts in order to prevent them from applying for signature campaigns (wasn't even aware this is such a big deal since I never used a campaign) and even situations where certain users would intentionally give negative ratings to other people accounts and then blackmailing them over these ratings in order to extort some money. As far as I could understand, this was not related to Bitcointtalk exclusively and I certainly do not claim this is something anyone here does but the issue does seem interesting to discuss.

If his superiors do give him a green light, we might get a nice story about these deceiving tactics (Yup, you re gonna be famous my friend!). I understand this is a private forum but it is also a public medium and I refuse to accept certain users can do whatever they want and try to harass other users just based on the stuff they believe or depending on whether they are in a bad mood any particular day. There should be some form or consumer protection implemented here and just saying if you do not like it, leave the forum, is not good enough for me. After all, most of us live in western democracies and we know how important is freedom of speech on one side but also consumer or user protection on the other side. Just to clarify, my intention is not to affect Bitcointalk reputation in any way or form. I have not been here a lot but I really like this forum and I think it has immensely contributed to exchange of information and growth of crypto. My whole focus is on users who act as assholes and go way over the rules and regulations of this forum.

That s all for now, fortunately we have holidays almost in front of us and I should have more free time on my hands to work on project.  

Cheers and have a good one!

Yes, that's exactly what you should do.  

Thought you didn't care about my feedback on you?  

Please, by all means analyze my posts for inconsistencies.  And as I've stated in another thread in the reputation section, the negs I  leave are not for personal advancement.  Most are on low-ranked members with whom I don't compete for signature campaigns anyway, nor have I ever blackmailed/extorted anyone in order to remove a neg that I've left.  Indeed, I've done that by request if the person has not been a scammer or nuisance over the course of some months.

Doesn't your journalist friend realize what a passive-aggressive butthurt little turd you are?  Is this "friend" your brother Crazyivan by any chance?  I think you live in a world of imaginary people, but sure--I'd be OK with someone looking into the trust system here.  I'm sure it'd be a cutting-edge piece of journalism, the trust system on an internet forum.  LOL.  Do your worst.

Edit:  Dude, you're insane.  In the membrane.  And I have already addressed that conflict of interest about competing for signature campaigns.  What would you have me do, not go after scammers, account sellers, and shitposters because they might be applying to the same campaigns?  Hell no, I won't do that.  But you are implying that that's the reason I do it, which is false.

Well, here it is again, you again bring in the world of your delusions into this great forum.

I see it took you 20 sec this time to reply to my thread, good, it means you do feel guilty over this, YOU SHOULD BE, assholes like you deserve to exposed. HA, HA, HA. I have such a good time talking to you I sincerely consider giving you a positive rating as the most wrecked guy on this forum! :) Let me know if that would hurt your feelings, hope not.

Let me get back to this topic. I don't give a shit about your neg feedback, we have already agreed to put that behind us, you think it s justified, I don't, case closed.  Please do not make me recommend you memory pills again since I feel you keep asking the same questions over and over again. I suggest you start taking something which contains lots of vitamin E and vitamin B-12, it should help you with this issue. Would not want you forget me next time when we talk. So, again, it is not about your feedback about me, it is about your asshole tactics where you enjoy hurting people who won't write you back and tell you what kind of piece of shit you are. That it is about, it is about JUSTICE, my friend. Also, I have to say it amuses me to discuss this with you when I know I am 100% right and you try to put this issue under the rug and divert the topic. Well, tough luck, you re not gonna be that lucky. :)

The fact you check the rank of people who you give negative rating too, as you just admitted it, means you do mostly target noobs and green users knowing they re much more inclined not to respond back and to bow to your authority. Busted!!!!

Next, the fact you do acknowledge you do compete with some people for campaigns also clearly depict the way you think. Cause some of these negs you gave could be considered your competition, I can post at least 20 examples from your records here. Did you try to harm your competition bad boy, ha? How come I do not compete with anyone, I would never even consider it, ha? Is this all BS you spread on this forum only your attempt to become the sole autority of this forum so you can pick any signature campaign you want? Damn, if this is the case, it s an excellent tactics, Dr. Moriarty style! Then after this, you call me a scammer? HE, HE, HE,. As I ve already said, it seems to me, you re nothing else but very, very angry over something. I hope you do resolve it as soon as possible. After all, friend always wish friends all the best. Even when they re assholes!

I see you again mention my big bro, you seem to be so impressed by him I d have to ask him to sign an autograph just for you. Again, I m glad you have role models you look after, that means you can become a great man once you grow up and get out of your basement. About that piece, you see, nobody asked you a permit for that to be written. I think it is an interesting topic but what do I know about that. We ll see how that goes and what that portal thinks about this.

Cheers bud. Don't break your keyboard! Have a beer or something. :))))))))))

Edit: If you re about to back edit your posts, please do not do it if you already know I have quoted them in their original state. It only makes you even more guilty and nervous regarding this entire issue. Calling me insane? Well, that s not nice from your side but I m sure you ve just had a bad day so I won't hold it against you. Why don't you go and find some noob who just registered to teach him a lesson, vent out and give neg rating over something you BELIVE is not trustworthy! :)

Thanks coindetective for the false feedbacks, why don't you prove it?

This thread is announced for only one reason. F@cking scammers want to legalize account trading on bitcointalk and avoid a red tag when doing so. All of bought/sold accounts are involved in promoting of a scam projects, account farming, trust farming, shilling, blackmailing, fishing, spreading maleware, cheating in bounty campaigns, scamming, spamming.. e.t.c.. So, if you ask me, the red tag is not enough, and it will be much more better, to ban all that accounts permanently. And I really do not care if Lauda "fucked his friends mom or girlfriend in the past". The important thing is, what he/she is doing right now, and to be honest, he/she is doing the right and very helpful thing for this forum, by exposing and red-tagging all that scammers.

The moment I start exposing The Pharmacist, you emerge out of nowhere and give me red tag. Hmmm, that s really convenient, isn't it? Your explanation for that neg tag is that I am "Stupid spammer". That is really strong, justified evidence for the tag, ha? A good one, I have to say, I did have a laugh when I saw that. Maybe you should add childish in between or DANGEROUS. I d suggest DANGEROUS!

Dude, I already told you and your alts, feel free to neg tag me as much as you want, actually, try to neg tag me more without reason, especially using this king of explanations, it s fun! I ve got nothing to lose here, I don't do and will never do sig campaigns and red tags can't hurt me, especially these unjustified ones. This makes me dangerous, ha! In your mind, I should be immediately banned cause I might expose false Bitcointalk guardians like you, who are actually account farmers and scammers, how they intentionally sabotage competition for their signature campaigns and hurt new users. I know there are really honest people here who keep assholes and scammers away of this forum, they do it for free and I salute that. But, there is this other, fake kind.

Cause if you were anything else, I do not see what would be your interest in my discussion with my good old friend The Pharmacists.

About my feedback to you, I think I ve citied references from your waste library of neg tags you have received in the past. They do sound quite legit to me. As my friend The Pharmacist would say, I strong BELIVE they re legit!

So you just keep playing your game my alt buddy, I already came clean with what I did. Let see whether you can afford to come clean as well. The clock is ticking, tic,tac,tic,tac!

Have a great day!



 

Coindetective, you really ought to open up another thread for this, because this one is about Lauda and we've gone way off topic.

And I don't get if or what you're insinuating about aTriz and me.  We're not the same person.  If you think you can prove otherwise, be my guest--but do it in another thread dedicated to that purpose, please.

Also, did I misspell "believe" at some point?  Because you keep writing "belive" in huge, bold letters as if to mock someone's improper spelling of the word.

This forum needs more coindetectives.  :D

Or at least less dishonest scamming greenies.  ::)

You mean users like Quickseller?  ::)

 Here is no evidence for headline.


No, the thread, where aTriz was accused to pay for post writing, closed with result, that it is untrue accusation. Also other threads against aTriz where nonsense. There is no single evidence. Only one member posted to have evidence, that account was baught, but also didn't proove. So it is nonsense post for me.
But another member got my attention, who posted in these threads and seems to have support from "prominent" members
Aventhe
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1054592

"This user's email address was changed recently."
He uses same prooves to neg members on forum.
Look at his history.
First post of Aventhe is in Invites and Accounts. Seems, that he couldn't delete whole thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2092911.msg20909276#msg20909276
Bids in account sale thread, edited and "changed his mind"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2132459.msg21346161#msg21346161
"Ooops.

I was meant to write, I bid 0.14, but I have changed my mind. I hope accounts are clean, but I do not want to go into account trading. Sorry..."

First many posts in spamming threads. Then suddenly stops spamming and begins as bounty manager.

Okay.

Interesting. What does that mean, though?

Ah! Here's the critical point!

Wait... He didn't change his mind. He didn't edit it. You cannot edit posts in Auctions. Aventhe was literally just posting the fact that they did not want to get involved in account trading.

Read above.

And? Plenty of users come from a spammy beginning.
 e.g. Lauda, The Pharmacist [/quote]Enjoy your invisible response.

I don't know him. But if he's part of the green circle of trust the forum and it's honest users would be better off without him indeed.

Lauda is indeed a former spammer.

source :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

Name:   Lauda
Posts:   21990
Activity:   1680
Position:   Legendary

proof Posts with different Activity far up to 7x++ fold

he forgot where he came from <==== spammer   :D :D :D

I improved your sentence for you.  :D

You may also replace the 'p' for a 'c' in the sentence without changing its truth value.  ::)

That is an extremely asinine argument. There is no reason why someone cannot post more than once a day and still have quality responses.

An increased quantity in posts ≠ A decreased quality in posts (until we reach high levels)[/quote]

The screenshot literally contradicts your comment. The third bid was 0.03. Xanis bid 0.031, which was not an authorized increment. Don't you think spammers could potentially use that?

---

As for the first bid, that's usually a thing that people do to bump up their post count. Sometimes you'll get random people entering Collectible auctions because they know the auction's starting bid is always lower than the value of the actual item.

Same thing here.

---

I can't say anything about the second bid of 0.02, though. I'm not clear on the account prices back then so this could have a legitimate bid.

The account apparently ended up selling for 0.03 BTC, so neither of his bids were that far from that. Also lauda actually bid higher than the high bid amount, it is only that he was bidding in too low of increments that caused lauda to not win that auction -- although it is interesting that there is not actually any trace of auction rules on that thread....

Is my username really that hard to spell?  How could you fuck that up so badly?

This is a thread that's just going to keep going on and on way past the point of anyone caring anymore, just like the threads Quickseller keeps bumping for his masturbatory fantasies of getting Lauda removed from DT.  Wouldn't it be even cooler if someone bumped the thread where he hemmed and hawed over the fact that he got busted for his escrow scam?  Does no one else see the hypocrisy in this? Not that this is a thread about QS, but he seems to have no problem giving his hypocritical opinion in any thread that has to do with Lauda--and no one besides him and his alts find anything of value in said opinion.

But lauda really bad person that has some mental issues, why are you here protecting it? Is that your job?

I must say, Lauda's feedback for you was a tad harsh, but we're in agreement on a lot of other things.   The thread here isn't about your feedback, though.  Look at the title of this thread.   Hesheitweyouthey gives appropriate feedback to account sellers, and it bothers me not one whit if Lauda once upon a time bought or sold one.  The point is that Lauda doesn't now, and now sees how toxic such sales are to the community.   

Every pharmaceutical has a risk:benefit profile--nothing is 100% perfect.  Lauda's positive contribution to bitcointalk far outweighs his/her/its side effects.   

There's open war going on here against scammers and shitposters.  You have to take sides, else there's infighting and anarchy.  That feedback about being a bch shill is between you and Lauda.  That's not my fight.

Agree, topic is wrong though negative sentiments against this person is shared, not to support possible scammers and other shill will do personal topic when will not be lazy!

    
Re: Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason.
November 16, 2017, 12:19:55 AM
   
Reply with quote  #2
Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.

    
Re: Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason.
November 16, 2017, 06:09:58 AM
   
Reply with quote  #10
OP is a liar, similar to QS. You said you had left the forum, but you didn't. In addition to that, you are now stating that I have sold accounts(?). Now you wake up with an army of shills, which is exactly why you were tagged. Pathetically ironic.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 16, 2017, 02:26:06 AM
Quote from: actmyname on November 16, 2017, 12:19:55 AM
Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.
This is something he did over at least two years, including a time when this activity was considered scammy behavior. He was trying to buy at least 10 accounts as part of a single transaction at one point.
The only thing I did for is post from a second account for a period of time. I have not tried nor purchased any accounts to my knowledge. As always, everything that you and your moppets are saying is a lie.

The spirit in these comments is enough to show humility of the person involved. When someone has show this attitude, there should be room for forgiveness. Since there seem not to be a recent similar action, then let bygone be bygone.

Which is exactly why no one except Quickseller and a handful of angry trolls/scammers that Lauda negged care about these accusations against Lauda.  Staff doesn't care.  People on DT generally don't care.  That's because Lauda owned up to the screw up in judgement with the sting operation, whereas QS still thinks he did nothing wrong by taking two sides of a three-sided escrow transaction, which he did repeatedly and deceitfully withheld this from the other parties in the escrow transactions.   Big, big difference between the two situations

I can't imagine that someone could have 242 negative trust and still posting. There must be something wrong. Not all those negative trust are wrongly giving. Man check yourself.

Well said :)