Bitcoin Forum

Hi Bitcointalk members and moderators;

before talking about my case, I will sign a message to confirm that I still control this account and this since my regestration in this forum in 05 05 2016.



so my case is that I received a negative truste and this was in less than a month of my entry into this forum exactly on the 2016-06-07 due to a participation in a BCT account sale auction without intending to buy an account; my intention was to discourage the seller, but I am not here to justify my intention or whatsoever.

I am here because the one who put me this negative trust was a simple member like most of the people of this forum and it didn't affect my account now this member has had DT status since 2016-08-22, but that didn't affect my account until I became Sr. Member.
but what I find strange is that a few days ago I was in red trust then become neutral trust and now again I become in red trust, I wonder if there is an option to turn on the trust effect and turn it off after or it's just me who sees it as well!.

the person who pointed my account is The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418), so thank you for helping me or at least giving me explanations

I don't think that there is an option to turn on/off the trusty effect as you said. All that changes depend on The Pharmacist trust, I am sure when he becomes DT member, the neg trust shown red in your profile, It showing for everyone includes you. By the way, I don't think he will remove it, because accounts sales encourage scams activities.

it was pproximately $ 10 at that time.

thank you for your reply here but as I just said; there are less than 3 days I was in neutral trust for at least 3 week and month ago in red trust and also now I'm in red trust.

Your account is marked with red because The Pharmacist is a DT user. And since you (and the majority of users) have the DefaultTrust in your trust list, you see the feedback as trusted. You can remove The Pharmacist from your trust list by going to your trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) and adding him with a ~ before his name. But only you and whoever else has The Parmacist excluded will see his feedback as untrusted.

AFAIK The Pharmacist got removed from DT and added back recently. That's you your profile went from red to normal and back to red again.

Why does that matter?

And a stamp bag of heroin is approximately $10. Your point?

I thought that only feedback sent after he became a DT member will be taken into concederation but I think that I am misinformed, or it only concerns positive feedback.


I am in Africa, the expenses are limited, tell me about the beer maybe I'll have an answer.

No. Every single feedback he ever sent will be considered.

As long as a member is in a DT member’s list of trusted members, their trust left for you will be considered DT. If they are removed from the list of DT members, your trust rating that was left by them won’t appear to others as default trust. This is what happened when The Pharmacist left you trust. It displays as negative now because he has recently been readded to the DT network.

And regardless of how much bitcoin was worth at the time of the account sale, it’s still discouraged and shows dangerous behavior, which is why your account got tagged.

is this Member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=369212) encouraging scams, spam, and account farming? no, I'm pretty sure that NO, because it's a DT member even though he participated in the account sale Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1194528.msg12538293#msg12538293)

It's not the same thing. Not only was this a different time (2015), but i believe this member was selling accounts from people that defaulted on their loans. These account were basically the collateral for the loan.

 He didn't buy those accounts himself  or farmed them, ( which is what usually happens and causes a lot of spam, which is what is really frowned upon.)

Your argument seems invalid, and it really has nothing to do with him being a DT member. ( Which i don't think he is, since he left negative feedback here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1098946), but it doesn't affect my rating, and i have Depth currently at (2?).)

@zazarb is not a DT member. He is a trusted exchange of crypto to fiat here, as well as a loan provider, which is why he has such high positive feedback.

I am in no way suggesting that purchasing accounts is appropriate nor do I condone it.

When looking at the example OP is providing though it's hard to disagree with it based on logical thinking.

An account sale is an account sale.

Regardless of how you came to have the account; through essentially buying it (collateral for a default loan) or building it up and selling it.

As for it being a different time it appears the actions were taken within 9 months of each other.

I wasn't a part of the community that far back and can easily see that account sales are a fraudulent way to pass yourself off here, and to receive extra coin in SIG campaigns.

I'm not going to go through your entire history of posts and what not, but as long as you have been a contributing member of the community and other than that one infraction haven't participated in any other account sales or similarly shady dealings; I would plead my case to The Pharmacist.


I would also suggest that this rule from the forum rules be changed to Account sales are prohibited. As discouraged is far to ambiguous; considering if the only reason you don't trust someone is that they have in fact bought an account or tried to. You may think well I don't know who that is... well we really don't know who 98% of the people who post stuff here are except for a few of the people who put themselves and to some extent their identity out there. I would say that until this rule has been changed the feedback should be neutral so that it is still visible.

EDIT: Just want to be sure it's known this was copied from the forum rules posted in meta.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

OP got a point here in my own perspective because when was the time of giving a red trust to those forum members that are selling their spare, extra, alt accounts started?


It's still considered buying and selling of an account even if he got it from collateral, you are reliable with it once you own it.

I am neutral on this topic and want to get concrete answers from DT members or Mods., this top is so interesting though.

I'm not sure. Probably when spammers and scammers started taking it to such an enormous level which made the situation of account sellings uncontrollable?


It is, but that isn't against the rules? DT members are free to choose who they tag, and who they don't. ( it doesn't even have to be against the rules, ( exempli gratia is scamming, which isn't against forum rules)).

I don't see anything wrong with a lender selling defaulted accounts. What else should he do with them? Give them away for free?

Also you're acting as if he is responsible to what happens with the account after he sold it, which is the equivalent of holding an arms dealer responsible to what happens  with the gun he sold to someone who commited a crime with it. It seems a bit far-fetched to me.


I'm not saying i condone what he did at the time ( as i probably wouldn't have done the same), but i could see why he did it, and i don't think there was any malicious intent. ( abusing campaigns/farming these accounts..).

Obviously spammers and scammers are one of the reason but it's mainly for account farming that abuses most of the Signature Campaigns because when you have a high ranking account you can enjoy also the high pay outs.

If we look the Forum Rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0) that posted by mprep (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173)(Global Moderator)
it is clearly stated in #18 rules that 'Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.'
I have never seen a forum member that got negative trust from mprep in selling their accounts though, only DT forum members.
And in his FAQ he said that:
                                     Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?[/b]
                                     A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.
        If only he said that 'A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security instead you can put
        negative trust on those people who are involve. '

It seems you are overacting in the comparison with this statement though. It's just simply this, if they are against with that kind of act then why they would do it, do they have any sort of immunity from others?(the tagged forum member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=369212) is not a DT member but a trusted one)

maybe  participating in an account sale auction is considered as encoraging scams, spam, and account farming but also tagged accounts with red trust after being preserved clean for over a year is encouraging membres to buy high ranked and trusted account (maybe cheap hero member).

now tell me why there is always threads for the BCT account sale? not in proxies, TOR sales and other forums but right here and who benefits from the sale of these accounts? I say that more account red trusted, more account will be sold.

I knew the pharmacist since my first days here because he was always present where moderator and DT members participated and used some cleverness to impress them; his goal was to become DT ,his method was to give a red trust for all the participants in the account sales (since all other ways are taken by old legendary members who gave a plus for this forum; but not him),  his vocation is the sale of Paypal and BTC.

Getting negative trust after 2 years because of the trust giver become default trust is absurd and you all know it.

What you're NOT mentioning (because your argument is entirely self-serving), is that I used so much cleverness that two DT1 members actually excluded me from their trust lists, and that I started leaving negs for account sellers roughly 1.5 years before I got on DT the first time, and that I incurred a hell of a lot of retaliatory negative trust from non-DT members by doing so.  

I'd like to know more about this cleverness of which you speak.  Not for my own ego, but I'm curious as to how exactly you think I charmed either Blazed or Hilariousandco, the two DT1 members who have me in their trust lists.

FYI:  I don't know if anyone else was giving negatives for account sales prior to me starting my own personal campaign against account dealers in 2016.  I started doing this after I got scammed by TimSweat in March 2016, and I suspect that this was a purchased account.  No proof on that one, just suspicion.

Life is one big absurdity.  Better stay indoors.

I am so happy that you participated in this thread, unfortunately I don't have much time right now but I promise you to continue this discussion later and answer to you; but now, I just want to know if you are convinced that I am an account seller/farmer and that the red trust on my profile is merited by me?

edit: just as a clue; I wished you to be in DT member well before you were one, at that time you was full member or senior, in one of my PM talks with you ; I had a futuristic vision  ;).

My answer: I am only a drop of water in an ocean, if I evaporated; nobody realize but I would always be present somewhere and maybe the rain will throw me from where I come.

I salute you for staying on the same decision for two years even if your status has changed.

User 'The Pharmacist' has blocked your personal message.

I have only  to hope that this person will be removed from DT list so that I can have the opportunity to see my account returned in its neutral state.

I see this as a good example of wanting to be good and helpful to this community and that's what happens when a person is puted where he or she should not be; without any disrespect to any of the moderator and Dt member of this forum but it is irresponsible to block a person without giving a justification or at least a suitable answer

The Devil's Advocate

There's this:

And then there's this:
So, you're happy with the neg I left you way back when but now you're pissed that I blocked your PMs.  OK.  I don't spend time going back and forth with people I've tagged via PM.  There's too many of you, and there's not really much to discuss, so I've learned that blocking PMs is the best option to prevent my inbox from filling up with nonsense, like the following:


That gets tiresome, and it wastes everybody's time.  We can do it out in the sunshine, right here, as if we were on the beach in Florida.  

You got lucky with your other feedback for your previous loan shenanigans.   The fact that you got neutral feedback from Lauda is almost a miracle in my eyes.  It's hard to see how those kinds of behaviors are consistent with being a productive, upstanding member of bitcointalk.  But you're crazy if you think I'm going to remove my feedback, and you'll remain blocked.

OK then.

you don't look like someone who can enjoy a day at the beach under the sun, you are not even someone who was able to keep his job as a pharmacist in real life, you don't digest this fact, at the point you created a profile on this forum to live the life you wanted but that was deprived by those who knew your real competence, you can be king here.

other people's PM's quotes do not justify your actions, if you accepte to be a DT member, you should accept the following facts.
and about Lauda feedback it's a thousand times better than yours in these acts, I do not have to contact him several times for realize the gravity of the facts and he was not the only one to revise feedback because they were all responsible people.

you; you are not looking for potential danger but rather for the suspect edeal.

If there was any sliver of hope remaining that would you get the outcome you wanted here, you just destroyed it with that post. Resorting to argumentum ad hominem generally means you have no logical arguments left to make, and you have lost the dispute. Time to accept you were busted and move on.

ghost15 is without a doubt frustrated and I'm sure of that because why was he/she keeps on fighting to remove his/her red trust that was almost 2 years now(I think  because of ranking w/ merit system is hard ;D) instead of accepting the fact that there are people who have static perspective. If you read this whole thread you can see that I am neutral about this matter but I think that the OP got a point in his/her justification based on his/her comparison to one of the forum member that may be not equal to his/her case. Please try to back read again.

can this be considered plagiarism? because you didn't put 'Socrates' as your source  :D.

The comparison to other forum members has been discussed previously - I suggest you read the thread again. Also, Socrates never said that (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/socrates-debate-lost-slander-loser/).

I have already read all of the posts here and something ignited my interest as it seems to me that this is an ongoing debate of 2 long lost lovers or maybe 1 sided lover(ghost15) that turned into something different. I'm still expecting that some other DT forum members to get involve but as of now there's still none. The comparison of 'other forum members' that I'm pertaining to when I said 'Please try to back read again' was zazarb (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=369212) and ghost15 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=818947), as ghost15 pointed in his post this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3191808.msg33086499#msg33086499)

And if you want an another comparison of forum members aside from this then try to take a look about the issue of mprep (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173) and BayAreaCoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=137773). I know that they are not into account sales and they're both DT forum members but we can relate the reason behind their red trust retaliatory to each other because this thread and their issue has nothing to do with the Forum rules but something to their Self moderated rules

This forum has its own rules that must be followed, We all have our own discretion and everyone must respect that but to what certain extent? does this a decentralized forum or a capitalized one?

be sure I'm not one; I'm not expecting anything from you; one swallow doesn't make the spring you may be a DT at the moment but you don't represent all the other TDs members of this forum, I'm sure there are others who are highly mature and responsible that you are, and end up realizing that you only satisfy your own ego.

proof here.

you started this campaign simply because you got scammed by someone you're not even sure it was a bought account.
Admins and mod of this forum have given you a chance but unfortunately   you used it for personal matters.

it's time to change some habits

Yours or mine?

Hi The Pharmacist,

thanks for the negative trust rating.

I understand where you're coming from as many who buy accounts might not have the best intentions, however I do not have these intentions, if you look at all my posts you will see I hate scammers.

Worse than people who want to buy accounts are the ones who sell them, especially when they are hacked. I refused to deal with these types of sellers...

If you are really interested to make this forum better I have a list of people who are real scammers.
Happy to share with you..

https://i.imgur.com/pD1lUAM.jpg

Am I a dumb person? Yes maybe; but not enough to give up 2 years to satisfy the needs of some people.
whether you like it or not, I'm here and I'll stay.

still nothing new about my status ::)

What are you waiting for? The Pharmacist is the only one who can remove your neg trust. And I don't think that's what he wants.

Your status will not change.

You shouldnt be asking to remove it,the pharmacist has no balls, i got my redtrust for having alts account here,
i didnt sell accounts,nor cheat in any bounty campaigns,he said he was annoyed that is why he gave me red trust.

You wrote me 'Sign a message from an address you staked between...' and I know this is your work but have you ever thought about maybe you should do it more properly, you have blocked my PM after I just asked you to explain me how can I do that (Sign a message from an address). Cuz I have no idea. You gave me RT for some not so strong reason, because you 'SUSPECT'... BTW it's allowed to buy and sell accounts, and you even don't give me any chance???

No, it is indeed allowed but there are a number of members here who think that dealing in accounts leads to spamming and scams, and you are proof of that.

I blocked your PMs because you kept sending me shit like the following:

I'd pointed out to you that you deleted a lot of old posts which I am fairly certain could have proved that your account did not start off on bitcointalk as a shitposter.  I don't buy the fact that you registered on bitcointalk in 2012 and yet you claim you don't know how to sign a message and didn't stake an address. 

To those reading this, I came across raudisomiya posting in a single thread in Altcoin Discussion (I forgot the thread).  In that thread, there was a huge cluster of bounty shitposts being made by really old accounts.  This aroused my suspicion, because we didn't have this problem to nearly the extent we have now back in 2012.  I started looking at the posts of these accounts, and I noticed that posting quality went from very good in the old days to extremely shitty, usually around 10/2017. 

Check some of the feedback I left on people before and after raudisomiya, and you'll see what I mean.  I may do some more research and make a thread in Meta.

I'm not waiting for anything; Generally the red trust is given for people reputed to be scammers or that may represent a potential danger to other member of this forum but I know who I am, I do not live to please to other people such as a pharmacist or anyone else. to be in green or red it will not change anything for what I am actually.
but why do not you wonder why Satoshi Nakamoto no longer partcipate in this forum?
I would not change my opinion about this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3) because I am convinced that it is the truth, you could have another vision for a few more dollars but I have seen enough and I have enough to live better than other and less than some other peoples so enjoy life like it is; not like than  you would like that it will be

Hi, Man
How can I get my red trust off? It's ugly.

Patience.

Be patient forever,because the chance for the negative trust to be removed for the reason of account selling and buying is none.

I am always patient and dont expect anything from anyone.
Nobody hold the key of my house; I go home when i want and go out when i want to.
And don't forget that an account seller and buyer will not find any dificulty to be here even with a DT members account, So as your grandmother Said;
Appearance are deceiving.

https://i.imgur.com/pjUrHD7.jpg (https://imgur.com/pjUrHD7)

If any of my grandmothers were still alive, they'd never say anything so sloppily.  

I also don't see what that has to do with this statement:

So what you're saying is that because these idiots can still buy & sell accounts that they shouldn't get tagged?  I don't think so.  They might very well still be able to do account deals, but most of them sure as hell don't like having negative trust.  Even if it's only a weak deterrent, I'll take it.  It's better than nothing.

I am searching in the ghost dictionary to find out the meaning. :D

Probably he meant like that old saying here in my country Italy, "L'apparenza inganna" that means, in proper English "The Appearance lies" and not in every case tells the truth. Probably that is what the OP meant but he doesn't look to write in proper English which is a big minus to him I think.

The correct (common?) phrasing in English is: "Appearances can be deceiving"... or sometimes it is said as "Things are not always what they appear to be"

That's one of the problems with English... there are usually about 15 ways of saying the same thing! :P

emmm still no chance for this time >:( 


seeing dead people like Lauda resurrected and becoming more powerful than before keep all my chances intact and encourage me to stay patient and watch.