Bitcoin Forum

This a thread to substantiate a warning flag on Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020). I believe that if you engage in any kind of deal with Quickseller, or even as much as debate him on a forum topic, you risk being attacked via frivolous accusations with the intent to damage your reputation and your ability to conduct business on the forum. This may happen for any reason, such as the deal not going the way Quickseller expected, or no particular reason at all.

Exhibit A

Quickseller was hired then fired (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129675.msg51116576#msg51116576) as a participant in a signature campaign managed by Hhampuz. Shortly after being fired he launched an unsubstantiated scam accusation against Hhampuz. Quickseller is not a victim or otherwise affected by the alleged scam, there is no proof, and it is based on the mere fact of coins being moved by Hhampuz. Despite the extremely flimsy basis Quickseller makes bold claims such as "Hhampuz has stolen the excess money from the BestMixer campaign for his own personal use". Note that he didn't use the trust system (old or new) to label Hhampuz and when called out on this he said this:


Which makes me think he's seeking to damage HH's business and doesn't have an actual concern or proof of a scam, which would necessitate feedback/flag.

Exhibit B

Quickseller took a 20 BTC payment from a known scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12406963#msg12406963) to sue Vod, whose "crime" was to suggest that Quickseller should repay victims of his (Quickseller's) escrow scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=79). Eventually Quickseller failed to sue and claims to have returned part of the payment (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3095008.msg34256111#msg34256111).

Quickseller has also repeatedly posted unfounded allegations against Vod that originated from a known shady website specializing in extorting targets of such allegations.

Exhibit C

Quickseller accused Lauda of having a pill addiction (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533). Quickseller's conflicts with Lauda are numerous, proof of addiction is non-existent to the point where Quickseller was claiming that Lauda's lack of denial was proof (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533.msg29621555#msg29621555) and that other users trying to dispute the frivolous accusation were Lauda's alts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533.msg30118601#msg30118601).

Exhibit D

Quockseller accused dooglus of supporting a Ponzi scheme (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841) with the alleged reasons being that dooglus fixed a bug in open-source code used by a Ponzi site. The accusation was an attempt to put pressure on dooglus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841.msg14336235#msg14336235) (a DT1 member at the time) to exclude Vod and/or cryptodevil who both had posted negative trust ratings for Quickseller, as well as for dooglus' role in the tspacepilot conflict (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059) (see below).

Later Quickseller accused dooglus and other users of condoning violence (https://archive.ph/wpzP7) just because they included a person Quickseller doesn't like (and who in Quickseller's opinion threatened him) in their trust lists. A few years later Quickseller edited the thread (https://archive.ph/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1614573*) to remove the accusation.

Exhibit E

Quickseller used his later-exposed alt Panthers52 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0) to argue in his dispute against tspacepilot pretending he's someone else as can be seen from references to himself in the 3rd person (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12312657#msg12312657). Later Quickseller faked a ban (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167) in an apparent attempt to give himself and/or his alts more credibility.

Exhibits F through Z

More examples of Quickseller's retaliatory destructive actions:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153872.msg51462407#msg51462407

---

Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=79

Reserved for Quickseller's alts

---

Quickseller has many known and unknown alt accounts. This post will be used as a reference for flags on his alts as they become known.

ACCTseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0) Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=81
Panthers52 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0) Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=82
PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.0) Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=2778

Reserved for Quickseller's alts

---

Quickseller has many known and unknown alt accounts. This post will be used as a reference for flags on his alts as they become known.

Reserved for Quickseller's alts

---

Quickseller has many known and unknown alt accounts. This post will be used as a reference for flags on his alts as they become known.

This appears to be a vindictive attack on QS merely because he has presented some observable instances that cast suchmoon, and suchmoons possible alt lauda in a bad light.

I would not recommend to any reader that they endorse this action against QS without first examining this page which demonstrates the escrow attempt by suchmoons friends/alt lauda and his pals which QS was first to warn the board about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153864.0

Also regarding another observable instance QS revealed with suchmoons other friend hhampuz looking like he perhaps stole 0.5btc

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.0

Compared to suchmoons other friends/alts we do no think you should endorse any action against QS without endorsing action against lauda and hhmpuz

This is merely a thread to try to discredit his legitimate criticism of them and the observable instances he provided for the board.

Things must be taken in context. Also motive should be a consideration. We see that when you consider both of these if lauda and hhampuz are not flagged then QS should not be either.

This is clear double standards from suchmoon she is not encouraging flag support for lauda or hhampuz and their offences appear more serious by far.

Be very CAUTIOUS of people pushing clear double standards now. These people are highly untrustworthy. All members here deserve to be held to the SAME TRANSPARENT AND FAIR RULES EQUALLY. No gang tactics pushing their own personal agendas.

Suchmoon recently even made an attack ( in the form of suggesting he was sneaky and underhanded) on THEYMOS the owner of this board because he merely asked if DT members would consider excluding her friend/alt from lauda the proven scammer and liar from the TRUST SYSTEM.

Investigate everything that we have presented here to see if it is true or not.

Do not investigate suchmoon herself too much, because if you locate a picture of her you will not be sleeping for weeks....we don't mean in a good way either.

This is a thread about QS, can you stay on topic please. Hhampuz, Lauda & anybody else you choose to bitch about is off topic.

I don’t want to have to start reporting posts.

Thanks in advance.

WRONG - this is a vindictive thread from a clearly double standards back stabbing untrustworthy member. The reader needs to clearly have access to all the observable instances so they can make the optimal decision of whether to support or deny the flag.
If i say people are vindictive, have an ulterior motive and they have double standards the reader deserves to have access to the observable instances to know these are not false accusations.

To support disciplinary action one must have context to judge the CORRECT SUITABLE action is being taken. NO one rule for my friends one rule for everyone else. WE WANT THINGS FAIR AND CONSISTENT - NO MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS

The reader should also be privy to this observable instance

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136759.0

Notice the person meriting suchmoons motivated attack? yes the person that has admitted he is simply the mouth piece LAUDA bullies around.  Of course he will be doing his best to deprive the reader of the optimal level of back ground information to be able to decide optimally how to vote on QS flag.

If you allow double standards on this board then freedom of speech is vulnerable. If you can be punished for actions a gang gets away with it is all over here.  Punish one person then punish all persons that meet the same threshold of apparent untrustworthy behavior.

This is suggesting selective punishment for lesser crimes by QS  than suchmoons friends/alts are guilty of. NOT APPROPRIATE.

Quickseller has presented many, many observable instances of lying his ass off to get ahead in his imaginary game of thrones. Now that lying is apparently a valid use case for the trust system we could flag Quicksy and other trolls up the wazoo just for that. But in an attempt to remain at least somewhat civil I will flag only for observable instances of the most egregious lies intended to cause harm, and other similar actions to that effect.

To prove someone is lying you need to prove.

1. they 100% irrefutably presenting incorrect information.
2. They are 100% irrefutably doing so knowingly.

Present your evidence now then. Let's see it. No more bullshit someone did this , someone did that. Then no observable instance that meets the above 2 criteria.

After you have done so then you will be given another example that will be even stronger evidence of a lie and you better be prepared to open a flag for that because that was not a petty bullshit "lie" or joke "lie" like if you said you were slim and hot ... it was FOR DIRECT FINANCIAL GAIN AND SCAMMING. SCAMMING PEOPLE OUT OF MONEY IS WHAT WE ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH.

If you flag one person you must flag them all if they meet the same threshold or that is DOUBLE STANDARDS.

I am seeing zero evidence of threat of theft or fraud and tons of evidence of spite, butt hurt, and want for retribution here. Keep putting up flags like this, all you are doing is exposing who has no self control one by one.

"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

Feel free to oppose it then. I do believe Quickseller intends to cause harm and newbies deserve to know that. I do believe that a reasonable person would consider frivolous scam accusations a red flag against the accuser.

You will notice, before belief part it says "Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic", and I don't see you substantiating any risk of theft. I do however see you making lots of claims based on his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited.

The flag doesn't say anything about risk of theft. We can play word games all day long. I believe the presented facts point to Quickseller's intent to cause harm in retaliation to Hhampuz. You don't. Sounds like an excellent case to oppose.

Please help me to understand it Suchmoon.

https://i.imgur.com/Kw8In81.png

There were already a flag by Hhampuz. Instead of supporting it you had to create a new one. Why?

I hope you did not miss it:

Why are some of you are becoming mad with this new trust flags system? First Lauda and now looks like you who is pushing it hard.

Stop it. You are better than this.

Obviously this thread is complete bullshit and is a response to my calling out suchmoon for using a bot to check for plagiarism and use said bot as a weapon to get those who dissent the opinions of her supporters.

There are no facts nor “red flags” presented in this thread and it is explicitly stated that suchmoon doesn’t like my opinions and is doesn’t want others listening to my opinions, likely because she believes I will convince others to oppose her supporters.

Bold-faced lie and you have zero proof of it. Still not flag-worthy since it doesn't really affect me in any significant way.


The statements you made about Hhampuz are not opinions. You presented them as statements of fact with no proof.

Remove the dox, I wouldn't want you to get into trouble for that.

I believe if you go down my Trust Wall searching for "Quickseller" you'll find numerous examples.  I can point you to some threads I started that are in the "Investigations" sub-section as well. (Page two or three I believe - shouldn't be too hard to spot them - account sellers etc)

1- what six are you referring to? I didn’t associate any name with any forum alias. Are you saying that a name posted somewhere is associated with a forum member?

2- You are running a bot and are using it as a weapon. It is not possible to effectively check for plagiarism without compiling a database of posts, or potential sources plagiarized posts would be copied from. As such it is trivial to check any arbitrary persons posts for plagiarism. At least one person was banned for plagiarism very shortly after opposing your supporters. I have observed you being last online consistently within seconds of when I viewed your profile at all hours of the day without deviation. This has been observed over an extended period of time. As such you are having your bot use your account to obtain posts from the forum.

3 - there is blockchain evidence that Hhampuz both took the money from BestMixer and that he took out a loan prior to taking the money from BestMixer. Further there is evidence that he took out a loan based on Hhampuz send and received trust history.

The six-pack you downed before logging on... I can't deal with your drunk ramblings, sober up and stay on topic. Bullshit about the "bot" goes here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349

Lots of ad-hominem and smear attacks and not a lot of evidence.

Let me know when you have some, particularly if a victim of the alleged scam comes forward to accuse Hhampuz.

Oh, so you think the scam accusation against Hhampuz is frivolous because the victim is potentially in jail, or is running from the authorities? Or do you have a problem with it because the scam accusation stands to reduce the income of some of your friends?

It’s funny you didn’t feel this way when you were harassing many other companies over the years.

I think the accusation is frivolous because it lacks proof. Nice try arguing that with more made-up stuff. Is the victim really in jail? Is the victim really running from the authorities? Do I have friends even?


Well, if you want to start an accusation against me on behalf of Homero Garza (who is actually in prison (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.msg9544801#msg9544801)) - feel free to do so. In your own thread of course.

You play all the semantic games you like. I still don't see any evidence of him losing anyone money, or him engaging in trade activity that would result in that.

"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it.

The yellow box is specifically designed to warn newbies and guests. Based on the comment below I feel more justified to use it than e.g. old-school negative trust, which had a red warning visible to everyone. I believe newbies and guests should be made aware of Quickseller's bad business habits and that is not a punishment but rather information to help them make informed choices.

You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Objective facts are relevant. That is the entire purpose of this new flag system, you have to provide something more than your beliefs.


"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

Hawaiian for me. Thanks.


Due largely to the frivolous accusation against Hhampuz, I believe users dealing with Quickseller have a high risk of losing money, directly or indirectly, as a result of Quickseller's unpredictable and dangerous actions.

That is ridiculous. If anyone needs an example of a frivolous flag, this is it.

Also, FYI, reporting possible crimes is protected speech under libel laws, so your rational doesn’t hold water.

I'm not suing you, I'm just saying (based on the lack of proof in your accusations) that I consider your frivolous accusations a dangerous behavior pattern with intent to harm.

@suchmoon - I believe what the others are trying to say is that YOU need evidence to back up your claim that people dealing with QuickSeller are at risk of losing their funds - you made that accusation yet show nothing in relative evidence to back up that people will lose their money to QuickSeller - your basing your claim solely on the fact that Quickseller made an accusation against someone.

Amazing that for just yesterday you bashed me for leaving negative feedback on someone who falsely (with no evidence) accused me and 5 other forum members of scamming him - and here you are trying to put one on Quickseller simply because he made an accusation against someone and you dont like it....

edit - without reading all of QuickSeller's post on his accusation against Hhampuz - there is one difference between his accusation and yours - he is providing proof, will need to be verified of course. All you are providing is that you BELIEVE there is risk because of his accusation....

I didn't "bash" you, I just said that retaliatory red trust is frowned upon and tried to explain why I think so. You're free to do what you like.

Quickseller's case is not comparable to yours. He didn't merely spam someone's trust feedback from a sockpuppet account, he created a frivolous scam accusation thread in retaliation to getting fired and has explicitly stated that he's aiming to cause business problems for Hhampuz.

You're welcome to oppose the flag if your disagree.

ok maybe bash is not the right term- the point is you were saying my justified feedback about a guy who accused me falsely as well as several others was retaliation when it was not retaliation.  He left a false statement and I left feedback stating as such.

And by no means am I backing QS here either - I am simply stating that QS has provided some "evidence" to back up his claim - whether that "evidence" is valid or legitimate is not for me to decide nor do I plan to even review it. I am simply pointing out that is simply retaliation - you stated that people will lose their money when dealing with QS - and your "evidence" is his accusation.

Hell no.  If anyone is to be tagged under a new trust system, it is Quickseller and his alt accounts.  I don't have a link to the thread where his escrow scam got exposed, but I'm sure you're aware of it.  The huge problem IMO is that he doesn't even realize what he did was wrong to this day--and he's been known (AFAIK; will retract this if proven to be false) to use alt accounts as sockpuppets to strengthen his arguments in threads, which is very dishonest.  

This is not a vendetta.  This is a long-standing issue with Quickseller and his reputation.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that suchmoon started this thread.  If it wasn't suchmoon, it would have been Vod or someone else.

I don't feel threatened by QS, however.  The reason for that is because it would appear that very few people of note take him seriously unless he's got very hard evidence of something.  If he does something retaliatory, it's very obvious and laughable even.  Frankly I'm not sure why someone with such a disgraced reputation would even be here anymore.  Ah well, it will remain a mystery.

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see some evidence of QS scamming someone and not anything that points to his accusation of Hhampuz

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0


https://www.phrases.org.uk/images/elephant.jpg


And I'm certain there are plenty of delightful piles of "goodness" strewn about the forum, to step in.

Your entire statement is a lie....

It was tspacepilot who uncovered it, I remember him, I used to speak with him privately quite often.

May I be of service with the link - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

He would have a red box if a victim of his actions came forward. As it stands now, he is a high risk individual with a yellow box warning.

Perhaps if Hhampuz has a loss of business or a certain person in socal gets harrassing phone calls we can put a proper red box on him but for now this will have to suffice.

ok and if no victims have come forward - on what evidence do you base your statement that people will lose money if they deal with QS? I will read the other posts above about QS when I get home. I again do not back either side in this. I am just curious what actual evidence there was. If there is valid evidence, I would back the flag.

Hhampuz had a business deal with QS. The link is in the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129675.msg51116576#msg51116576

The deal ended with QS being fired. A few days later QS started the accusation with no proof whatsoever based on the mere fact of coins being moved by Hhampuz and makes bold claims such as "Hhampuz has stolen the excess money from the BestMixer campaign for his own personal use". Note that he didn't use the trust system (old or new) to label Hhampuz and when called out on this he said this:


Which makes me think he's seeking to damage HH's business and doesn't have an actual concern or proof of a scam, which would necessitate feedback/flag.

Here is a partial list of other frivolous accusations QS has brought up over the years about people he has grudges against:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.msg51387395#msg51387395

He took 20 BTC from a known scammer to sue Vod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12406963#msg12406963

There is a clear pattern.

now I have some reading to do :) and this is the evidence that should have been presented in your OP - at least that is my opinion.

I added this info to the OP so thank you for asking and giving me a chance to clarify even if this doesn't meet your expectation of "evidence". Note that according to the wording on the flags you can oppose if "you believe that it is at least partially false", which is not a particularly high bar so feel free to do that.

Theymos should create a special banner tag just for Quickseller. It should be flashing blue and red color.

Great, so you admit that this is not only based on his opinion, which is expressly prohibited, but this is also very likely retaliatory.

"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

You selectively omitted a key part of the requirements for this flag.

No, I don't, I have stated numerous times what specific facts this is based on. If you wanna have the last say - go ahead. I won't entertain this circular word play anymore.

Feel free to report me to admistration too for some mailing list treatment.

Sorry, but you are the one running in circles. If it is valid to flag people for making an accusation, all we have is the same broken system we had before where the trust system is openly used as a tool of retaliation for punishing users for making reports against certain users. I believe this is intentionally designed to subvert the intent of the system. The system is not here for you to punish people for saying things you don't like, it is here to protect people from fraud and theft. You know this, but you like other mall cops can't cope with your loss of dictatorial control and are clinging to it with every ounce of semantics and twisted logic you can muster.

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You are wanting me to remove my accusation against Hhampuz? This is your concern?

I am not sure if you know this or not, but I have posted blockchain evidence both that Hhampuz took the money, and that he had an outstanding loan as of when he took the money.

I support this flag! Thank you suchmoon for the compelling evidence in OP which makes opposing such a flag quite difficult. Surely it could even be labelled as misuse of the new flag system?

The flag is to warn users about your behavior. Removing the accusation would be a smart thing to do as it is completely bogus but I can't force your to do that nor would that change anything regarding the flag.


Which means nothing. I have an outstanding mortgage and I'm quite sure I've made payments on it around the same time when I moved similar amounts of business funds. Doesn't mean I was embezzling business funds to pay the mortgage.

---

Added exhibits B and C to the OP.

You are a weak minded puppet. The evidence is not compelling. You are a thieving little weasel. You and suchmoon know information contained in the OP is a lie.

Both "B" and "C" listed in the OP are lies. Information in thread "B" directly contradicts how it is described in the OP. The "C" listing is a misrepresentation of the thread in question.

I'm sorry QS. Not all of us have the time on our hands to be puppet masters :(

See everyone? It never stops. This is how tyrants operate. First they punish you for accusing them, then they punish anyone who objects to that abuse. Its always more and more until everyone is in a little box they have the key to.

BTW, by this logic above, I could by your metrics open a flag for Vod for accusing me of lying in a negative rating and directly harming my ability for trade by doing so, and never being able to substantiate it. I would expect you all to support it because it would be no different from your flag on Quickseller. You see how this is just the old system? We have a chance to end this bullshit. Stop being petty cunts.

Can you tell me more about how that works? I might have some users that I'd like to... put in a box.

---

Go ahead and open up that flag, but if you do you best be supporting the flag on QS. Nobody is stopping you, really.

There is plenty of room in the box, but I think Suchmoon is sleeping right now so I will have to show you later.

I am stopping me, because I am trying to show you goobers you have an opportunity for a reset here and you are immediately setting it on fire just to continue your little obsessions. Quickseller has no authority. You do. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

Standing silently and allowing something to happen is just as bad as taking part. You do you, I won't be idle and let someone fall prey to QS's manipulative behaviour.

You and I both know Quickseller is more of a threat to himself than you or anyone else. No one really believes your horse shit chicken little, people just don't like him so they are willing to persecute him. Show me a real scammer with proof and you can pour gasoline on him and I will light the match.

We could always do both ;).

---

I've not always disliked QS, I mean there was a reason for me even hiring him in one my campaigns but you see how far that took me? If you engage with QS regarding anything that involves money or otherwise you are at a high risk to get burned. I truly believe that and who would I be unless I warned others about it? (I'm not the only one either).

If that is wrong, theymos can oppose the flag and blacklist me + others (he already did with Lauda). I'll still be in support of it, some things are worth far more around here than the imaginary power that is being on DT.

The real reason why QS is far from trustworthy and quite the opposite is because he has a long, established history of flat out lying about things. For years he's been taking personal grudges and turning them into baseless accusations, posting hundreds of times in accusatory threads even after it has been explained to him repeatedly why he is mistaken.

Let's go through some of them:

Hhampuz embezzling signature campaign funds from BestMixer - completely fabricated allegation based 100% on conjecturing and without real, substantiating evidence of claims

Is theymos okay with Blazed being on DT1 when he refuses to account for x00 btc - another series of unsubstantiated allegations in an attempt to damage the standing of Blazed, lauda, and minerjones

owlcatz dox information - doxing attempt on a user who did not scam anybody, not much more needs to be said

Former Staff member Lauda has a pill addiction - not a single shred of evidence produced by QS in 9 pages of discussion

Scammer TMAN - vindictive nonsense demonstrated to be wholly inaccurate

minerjones backing out of multiple auctions - posted in Scam Accusations even though no one had been scammed, clearly a smear attempt on MJ's reputation

Requesting proof of trade between Zepher and TMAN[Zepher engaging in fake trades - QS believes the lack of blockchain evidence on the forum of a trade between 2 highly trusted members warrants a thread claiming they are engaging in "fake trades"

Dooglus is supporting ponzis - Scam Accusation against dooglus for fixing bugs in a script known to be used by Ponzis (he never scammed anyone, nor said he "supported ponzis")

He does have some insightful threads and posts from time to time, but based on the whole of his behavior over the years, I wouldn't trust QS with a wooden nickel.

So why is it then you aren't opening a flag against Vod? He has been responsible for all the same acts as listed above. I have proven he was lying about me using his own contradicting words to justify his abusive negative ratings. If lying is the metric then about half of this forum can go into a dumpster. Also who gets to decide what is a lie and not just a difference of opinion, or simply a mistaken conclusion? Lying necessitates intent, and you have no way to prove in this case what exists only in the mind of another. The purpose of this system is to protect people from fraud, not to put ointment on your inflamed butt holes.





Then don't deal with him. See how simple that is? This is all about the fact he upset you. He didn't do any harm to you other than agitating you, and everyone knows it. Flagging people for making too many accusations is not a precedent that should be set, regardless of how stupid or baseless they are. Baseless accusations fail on their own lack of merits, no additional action is needed.

However punishing accusations again opens right up that 4 lane highway of abuse of being able to silence LEGITIMATE accusations against the people here MOST ABLE to rob massive amounts of value from the most amount of people. You are essentially putting the entire community at risk so you can play your little pretend game he is a threat and get your revenge. This demonstrates to me you don't give a fuck about this community or its safety, you just want your pound of flesh at any cost. You, by trying to justify these types of flags are far more of a threat to the security of the forum than Quickseller could ever be.

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years :).

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little. This whole pushing impending doom so you can step in to pretend to be the savior act is played out.

You don't want to answer the question then? I really want to know as that would make things easier for me when making decisions in the future. Why you always have to resort to name-calling? :(

So you don't want to respond to any of the points I made but now I am some how obligated to reply to your distractions? That is not name calling, it is a descriptive term alluding to your behavior of calling out "THE SKY IS FALLING!" so you can rush in to save us from the imaginary doom you claim is impending.

If you want to call me putting one flag on one confirmed scammer "calling upon the impending doom" that's on you. I've never made any such claims :).

First of all, we're not talking about Vod, we're talking about Quickseller, but since you brought it up, I would trust Vod 100 times before I trusted QS once.

Second of all, we're talking about inherent trustworthiness, which also has subjective metrics whose importance varies from individual to individual. I know you want to live in a world of black and white but the issue is more complex than that. QS is clearly motivated by personal grudges (as are you) so he fabricates malicious stories in order to get a kind of revenge on them.

You also didn't prove anything about QS - you rarely prove anything about anything - you just convince yourself that you do so that you can chalk another win in your imaginary "V" tally. Clearly not many other people around here see you as the infinite hot-streak victor that you see yourself as.


You're a child and there's clearly no point in trying to reason with you. I'm putting you back on ignore.

No, I am saying you are claiming you must put the flag down or else there will be impending doom, as demonstrated in bold above.


We aren't talking about Vod, we are talking about standards. I don't care who you decide to trust. I do care how you use the system designed to warn people of fraud as a tool of retribution, especially as demonstrated by your selectively applied standards. I brought up Vod to prove the point you are willing to apply this standard to your opponents but not your pals. Inherent trustworthiness is subjective. The trust system is not supposed to be a trustworthiness ranking system, it is meant to be a system of indicating users likely to defraud others. Useful systems don't use subjective metrics. You can make subjective conclusions, but they shouldn't be used systematically because they are by their very nature unfit to be part of any objective system. I don't have to prove anything about Quickseller, the burden of proof is on the accuser. What grudges am I motivated by? Am I abusing the trust system to fight my grudges? What exactly do I win here? More stalking from halfwits like you? Am I supposed to be disappointed you put me on ignore? All you are doing is saving me time rebutting your half baked arguments.

Arguing with you reminds of trying to argue with a militant feminist. There's no moving forward, there's no meet in the middle. You've made up your mind already even before you type out what it is you want to type out.  It's sad, because sometimes I feel like you bring up valid points but then we turn the corner and you've done a 360 and act very militant. Ugh.

That is interesting since I have been a vocal critic of militant feminists as anyone who is active in Politics & Society will attest. I think you are confusing persistence with inflexibility and lack of logic. I absolutely am one of the most persistent people you will ever meet, but that does not make me automatically inflexible or illogical. You might want to consider for a moment as well that this is exactly what it would look like from a perspective of some one who is wrong but refuses to admit it for whatever reason...

Hey I'm just giving you my view. I never venture into Politics & Society so I would not know what you post about there. You take it as you will, I wish we could have more productive conversations though, that's all.

And I the same. I am sorry you feel this discussion is not productive. I feel as if it is very productive from my view point. I am forcing you to either explain your chain of logic or continue to dance around and find new distractions to avoid doing so. Either way we get to the core of your motivations by either working out the logic or demonstrating that you refuse to.

This is utter and complete ridiculousness. It looks to me like you do not want certain people to get criticized, regardless of any harm these people cause to others, and regardless of their behavior or violation of generally accepted community standards.

Perhaps you could point out where anyone had said I was "mistaken" when minerjones backed out of multiple auctions. For reference, here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.0) is a 24 page thread in which everyone except the OP agreed it is unacceptable to back out of auctions.

If you believe the allegation that money was missing from what was being entrusted to lauda, minerjones and blazed, I would refer you to this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44593221#msg44593221), this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44582608#msg44582608), and this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44672360#msg44672360) post.

It was very clearly explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2214957.0;all) that TMAN was misrepresenting the relationship between the current high bid at the time on his auction and the retail cost of what he was selling. TMAN was also part of an extortion attempt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0) in which he placed harassing phone calls to his victims family. Owlcatz was also an accomplice to this extortion attempt.

I was very clear as to the evidence I had regarding lauda's pill addiction from the start of the thread.

Helping ponzis with their code is in fact supporting the ponzi. Other types of support for ponzis is frowned upon around here. Others have received negative trust for even participating in ponzis, which is less of giving support than helping fix its code.

You forgot all about me.  

1) Quicksy called me a pedophile, but didn't care enough to report it then or now.

2) Quicksy claimed I was violent because I had a wonderful wish he would kill himself.

3) Quicksy claimed I was trying to pass myself off as a god.

4) Quicksy scammed a user for 20 bitcoin, saying he would use the money to dox and sue me.

I'm sure there are many more I have forgotten.

You posted it as a Scam Accusation. What's the scam?


This isn't the thread I linked, though there's a good chance you also started that one too... YOUR thread was clearly born out of vindictiveness and the issue at hand doesn't seem to be a problem to anybody but you.



This post by TheNewAnon put it best:



Yes. It was none. Bumpkiss. You presented no evidence, you just said you "had evidence," which in your mind was because somebody told you so. Then you continued to bump the thread over a year after you created it with nothing new to substantiate your claims.


I'm not a big fan of ponzis either but the way you wrote up your thread title and OP makes it seem like dooglus was encouraging people to invest in it. He was not. Again, nobody cared about this issue but you.

The threads from my list you chose not to defend are horseshit, and you know it. If you just stuck to trying to do good instead of dig up meaningless dirt on others, you'd be a bit more respected around here. Your most recent battle against Hhampuz is purely vindictive and utterly unfounded, and it just helps cement your reputation for being habitually untrustworthy.

From our own research on the internet under your name there does seem to be quite a lot of credibility to several instances within those claims about you. Which is far more worrying in your case than in QS's.

@nutildah most of your post is presenting one sided KNOWN associates and supporters of those the observable instances of clear undeniable wrong doing reference. That along with the FACT you are willing to facilitate scamming for 0.3BTC means the reader should totally strike or investigate VERY THOROUGHLY the misleading information you are trying to present here.

I would certainly trust QS in a financial transaction over these other 2 members.

Vod would perhaps dox you, and depending on who you are you could have far far more to worry about.

Nutildah is broke and begging for 0.02btc loans and has previously BY HIS OWN WORDS demonstrated he will certainly not mind to facilitating scams for 0.3BTC.

Imagine sending him 0.3BTC  upfront............BOOM that is likely to be the last you see of him. He may throw in a free account? if you want the account of someone like that.

If he didn't keep poking his scam facilitating nose into other peoples business, then we would not have to keep informing the reader of this background to give them opportunity to reach the optimal opinion of these matters.

As we have said before laudas own probable extortion and shady looking escrow is NOTHING TO THE PROVEN scamming we have demonstrated he is capable of before. That is iron clad evidence of the danger he represents the other instances are just what you would expect from this scum bag.

Nutildah trying to discredit this kind of warning about proven scammers is WORRYING.

Why would you not want a valid warning for newbies regarding these types of members that are directly related to financial wrongdoing nutildah?

We strongly believe the is credible and verifiable evidence to warrant a warning on most persons NUTILDAH is trying to get off the hook here.

I mentioned a couple of these in the OP, Exhibit B.

---

Added Exhibit D to the OP.

K Jr Member. If you want to leave a flag for me feel free. The only reason you quoted Vod was because you know if you didnt your post about me might be deleted for being off-topic.

Really Jr Member, if the best dirt you have on me is taking loans and a non-event from 3 years ago then you have nothing. Publish it every day. Rent out an opinion piece in Forbes. I don't give a fuck.

Have anything to say that countermands my arguments against Quickseller being trustworthy or do you want to just continue your epically tragic, attention-seeking trolling saga?

Are you blind and EVIL

the strongest observable instances we have on you are BY YOUR OWN WORDS  knowingly and willingly open to facilitating scams and acting in an EVIL manner for 0.3 btc

Now stop going off topic  

Quicksellers observable instances that demonstrate credible and verifiable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by your pals should not be cast in doubt by a PROVEN WILLING SCAM FACILITATOR like nutildah.

That is NOT A NON EVENT.   Let people make up their own minds
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

You are claiming you were being ironic about saying it was evil and facilitated scamming?  is this the lauda secret agents really play?

Stop derailing. QS has legitimate concerns and has voiced them. They are very strong cases that are independently verifiable. People can make their own minds up. They don't need someone who can be demonstrated willing to allow others to be scammed for 0.3btc making up nonsense to leave them MORE open to being scammed.

STFU and stay out of debates on scamming. You are woefully open criticism based on observable instances that are independently verifiable. You wonder why you keep getting blasted by us... stop wondering!! just shut up and stop trying to protect other scammers and those that can be demonstrated to be financially REALLY HIGH RISK. You are misleading the reader and could very well be facilitating and increasing the probability of them being scammed here.

What am I derailing? You weird obsession with me? I don't wonder about anything other than where your hatred for the world stems from. Something is seriously wrong in your life or your chemical balance. I know you're a certifiable troll who won't let go of grudges. That's what you and QS have in common. QS sold dozens or hundreds of accounts. I sold zero. Do you begin to see the irony of your whole cause now?


Weewie. This is... I dunno what else to say... Should I bother? Something tells me the answer is "no."

I got caught up thinking I needed to defend myself but all I was really doing was feeding your trollery. Now that I realize that I won't be responding to you any further. Have a terrific day Not Cryptohunter.

I get it, you don't like that I am calling out Hhampuz for stealing from BestMixer. If Hhampuz were to be labeled a scammer (rightfully so), your earnings from your signature campaign would likely stop. I am sure you don't like actual scammers, but when calling out a scammer means you lose out on income, you are more than willing to put pressure on the person to stop calling out the scammer.

This is not unlike how you described (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789658.msg9070313#msg9070313) as selling an account as "borderline evil" and subsequently tried to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0) your account for money.

I read a couple of reviews online, this could help with all of your issues!

https://i.imgur.com/6DoqRPG.png

Honk Honk.

Added Exhibit E to the OP. Might run out of alphabet at this rate.

What bothers me is the fact that you frequently engage in yellow journalism (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) when writing up your "accusations." They are usually devoid of actual substance and are presented in a way to maximize sensationalism. A prime example of this is what you just mentioned above. You have zero concrete evidence of what actually happened and are making accusations purely based on speculation.


Actually its extremely unlike that. But I'm not retelling the story for the umpteenth time.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of any of my accusations. 

In regards to the Hhampuz accusation, I believe the evidence is very solid. The existence of the loan from Darkstar_ should eliminate any reasonable doubt as to if the money was stolen or not. I believe he is being protected because of who he is associated with, not based on the merits. I believe any the "possible" explanations his friends have posted are excuses not to call him a scammer -- if Hhampuz wanted to go on the record to give some kind of explanation as to what happened, one of the "possible" explanations would perhaps be sufficient to create reasonable doubt, but he has not given any explanation. Another one of his campaigns shut down not long after the BestMixer campaign was shut down, and the owner of that site confirmed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100568.msg51255135#msg51255135) receipt of the excess money, so I don't think it is reasonable to say the alligation is so ludicrous to Hhampuz that it does not even deserve to be acknowledged. Obviously, if evidence was later found that contradicted Hhampuz's explanation, it would be clear he is a liar, and it would be more clear the money was in fact stolen from BestMixer.

If I see someone doing something they shouldn't be doing, or doing something unethical, I am not going to stay silent just because they are powerful.   

You're infamous for doing this shit over the years. Every little (or big) butthurt leads to a frivolous accusation of some sort. You seem to be unable to accept being wrong or being rejected like a properly-functioning human should.

None of my accusations are frivolous.

You are a liar and are intentionally presenting mischaracterized and inaccurate information in the OP. 

Anyone can click those links and decide for themselves. Considering that the threshold of opposing a flag is very low ("because you believe that it is at least partially false") you should have many users opposing it in your favor, if what you're saying is true.

Yes but ANYONE CAN CLICK this link

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153864.msg51452598#msg51452598

then research the ONLY people supporting you are also supporters and pals of this friend/alt of yours lauda?

Why are you NOT pushing for this far more seriously untrustworthy person to have a flag??

This is what ANYONE can verify?

You tried to cast negativity on the board warden theymos for requesting a PROVEN scammer, probable extortionist and shady escrow and blatant trust abuser  was excluded FROM A POSITION OF TRUST.

ANYONE can verify all of these things.

That looks far worse for Lauda and YOU than any of this does for QS. 

This adds lots of credibility to QS suggestion that you DO INDEED USE THESE WEAPONS  SELECTIVELY like you quite probably do your copy and past snitch bot, you fat slob.

ANYONE can see a regular pattern here with you suchmoon/lauda/scumbuster et al

The best part is you are demonstrating how corrupt you are, and now you tried to stab theymos in the back ... a few red pills were force-fed that day to plenty of people. You will do ANYTHING to keep this gang in power. However cracks a starting to open up and this will be eroded from the edges. The core will be left vulnerable very vulnerable and isolated soon.

" I hate asskissers, they are the first to stab you in the back "  -  a smart person told a friend of ours that once. Theymos just found that was the case with you. Snake.

The only acceptable way forward is a fair set of transparent rules that are applied to ALL members equally. No more selective punishment for lesser crimes than those you support your friends for suchmoon. Stop thinking people are so blind they can not see exactly what you are doing here now.

Thanks for bumping this, cryptohunter. I can't be bothered to read it but if you didn't call me fat at least once in that wall of text I'd be disappointed. I bet Quickseller is enjoying any exposure he gets for his shenanigans.

Okay lauda you are welcome.

This thread is an endorsement of QS because his actions are being put in the context of you and your pal lauda et al.

You don't have the credibility to raise a flag against anyone else without it coming under close scrutiny and being placed in the context of you and your friends. No double standards here any longer.

So am I Lauda or Lauda's pal?


I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously any posturing about credibility from a lying trolling sockpuppet. At least man up and post from your main account.

Thank you for a short-enough-to-read post though.

Impossible to PROVE 100% either way. Are we the true legend or just a friend, or spokesman for the true legend?  are you lauda or just laudas feltching puppet willing to back stab even theymos for your continued schemes and shared corrupt goals?

After the observable instances have been reviewed previously in this post have been thoroughly analyzed then NOBODY with any credibility here gives one fuck what a fat pig like you can or can not take seriously?

Get it now?

The credibility of your CLAIMS has been crushed by observable instances that are independently verifiable and do not require trust in ourselves. We encourage the reader to verify those instances for themselves. One should never accept anything here at face value.

Get it now?

Your diversion means nothing and is a weak tactic that we will crush at every attempt to use it. Actually it just serves as ANOTHER strength to our own argument that you have NOTHING to prevent observable instances being presented and NOTHING to discredit them. It just looks sneaky and pathetic to even try to mislead people in this way.

But are the instances observably verifiable, and if so, can they be independently observable? It's time we got to the bottom of this.

hahaha what does that even mean? ooooooglyboooooglywoooooglydoooooogly hahah


Yes, just pick one and tell me which you were unable to verify for yourself OH EVIL ONE. haha

Make sure you try hard because I would hate to have to blast you again for trying to mislead people and bring up your evil scam facilitating past over and over and over and over again.

Make sure they are on topic for this thread or make another thread and we will join you there when we have a care to.

This is about QS being accused of lesser deeds of wrongdoing than suchmoons friends like you and lauda. So therefore demonstrating QS claims of selective weaponizing the systems of control are supported.

Something tells me you enjoy it.


All of you will join me? Do you do everything together? Tell me, do you shower together?


I'm happy to be suchmoon's friend. But that doesn't have anything to do with QS. Not sure what you're trying to say here actually. I just realized a page or two ago I said I'd stop replying to you... So I do apologize for being weak about that.

QuickSeller summon me by spam pm for livecoin accusation
I'm investigating on LiveCoin and
i'm investigating on QuickSeller

about him i read all evidence, and him spent time for pm me and respond me (by pm)
does the good Samaritan for the good of all?
i think not

this scheme of vendettas reminds me very much of the children's school

i dont have time for play with retard kids and i HATE so much retard kid and scammers

for this reason, my first part of investigation is close and i support YOUR flag against QuickSeller and i place a red trust

---

this ethic guy support scam BSV - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2371095

https://i.imgur.com/B12HOQo.png


by faketoshi, the LIAR aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Steven_Wright

----

this ethic guy

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138419.0

support the-one-above-all, alt of cryptohunter

http://loyce.club/trust/flags/37.html

-----


wow... ethics is good for one and is bad for another one.. strange

Its true, he's been PM spamming everybody in the LC campaign, unironically lecturing us about "ethics."  ::)

Regardless of how you feel about the flag against LC, QS's mass PMings are unnecessary and more evidence that he remains remorseless about his absurdly vindictive behavior.

i'm investigating on livecoin too

is pretty long, because i need to prove evidence.. and i dont use screenshot like clue
i'm not kid

Didn't he join the Yobit sig campaign just two weeks ago while supporting a flag against them? :D

edit/add


His moral compass seems to be stuck on the north pole. Completely broken and non-existent i'd say.


In other words, taking into consideration multiple reports that the payouts were not working, hence nobly removing a signature that wasn't even active. lol

I get it, LiveCoin pays a lot to advertise for them. I absolutely understand that you are upset that their scamming activities are being called out because it will probably mean the signature payment will probably stop. Don’t blame the messenger.

babo, you really need to cut that shit with your google-translated garbage, or at least contain it to one thread instead of spreading all over the forum. It's spammy, incoherent, waste of time for anyone trying to read it. If you're doing some "investigation" - get it done and post the results instead of doing a "diary" here.

i'll close my threads and ask for deletetion
gg

It's usually a bad idea to put yourself between a hammer and a hard place... so I will do it  ::)
Mostly because I do not understand one thing in all this commotion.

If this:

Then WHY?
https://i.imgur.com/lO99SIM.png

 ??? WHAT are we not aware of  :-X

Hhampuz wanted to quit with the DT drama  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161761.0) and asked the other members to remove him from their trust lists. Of course, not everyone agreed with him and that's why he left postitive feedbacks here and there to make them do it. He got himself blacklisted from the DT1 at the end but he is still in DT2.

Maybe next time the community will learn to respect people decisions, when they asked to be removed from any system. We should at least grant them their wish instead of turning them into something else out of desperation to leave. It happened to Vod (meriting in large amount just to get attention and now Hhampuz, giving feedbacks to drawn attention) Next time we (the community) should just respect these guys decision and give them some time to cool off, not everyone can handle the stress in the forum.

Part of the DT-system is giving each user their individual vote. I don't exclude users when I don't think they deserve it.
As for the positive trust on Quickseller: I don't think a few more red or green matter much on the grand scheme of tags he has already collected. Hhampuz has 36 DT2-inclusions. He won't be excluded any time soon.

As for the topic title: I'm not really afraid :P I'm perfectly capable of using my own judgement, and so are (most) DT members. Cryptohunter (or his alt) for instance has made accusations about me, but that doesn't make me afraid of him and I don't think anyone takes it seriously. I just don't really care, and ignoring his posts solves the problem of trolling.

Here is something crazy — perhaps Hhampuz saw what I was doing when I messaged the LiveCoin signature participants and saw that I really am looking out for others and for the good of the community.

Yeah, you are 100% right about that: your statement is genuinely crazy. Whose good were you looking out for when you opened the insane, totally unfounded embezzlement threat about him?

QFT


No, you're just proving once more what a narcissistic prick you are.

Others were able to participate in that discussion without making it a personal attack on Hhampuz. You're simply unable to step over your butthurt and you weaponize every opportunity for revenge.

---

Well, everyone supposedly knows I have really fat fingers so I'm gonna go with that excuse.


The facts of your butthurt retaliatory shitposting are all over this forum and this thread just scrapes the surface.


Not a bad attempt at trolling. Sadly I can't send merits to a signature.

---

It's just a wrongly attributed quote but you can call it anything you want if it soothes you. Any chance you'll contribute on topic today?

Anyone thought that QS changed his ways, well think again.... he accused me for lies, promoting and shilling Mercury wallet after I wrote only a few posts in forum mentioning Mercury.
Expecting from me to answer all his question even after I told him that I am not an expert or in any way related with Mercury is ridiculous.
I have him on ignore now and I would not trust him about anything.

I'm a bit surprised by his attack on you, on a tech board no less. Is there some history between you two that I don't know about? (or forgot, happens a lot lately LOL).

No, I never had anything to do with him and I certainly never attacked him in any way.
If this is what he considers to be an attack on him than I think that something is seriously wrong with him, and I hope he gets well soon:

My attack on him ::)
Below is when dkbit98 started attacking me for asking questions about the project he is shilling for:

Ok, well, he's touchy about his reputation, which he thinks is impeccable.

I made the mistake using Show/Hide on Quicksy's posts the tech boards thinking that he'd be less of a vengeful moron there than usual, but apparently not.

Watch out for doxing, that's his go-to move when someone disagrees with him.

dkbit98, I would just roll with this and let it slide off you like water from a duck's buttocks.  Maybe Quickseller is in a bad mood or on his period.  Don't get slick with sweat and anger over this, because it's just words.  A few of us have had beefs with him and other members of the forum just like you and QS did, and the best thing to do is not to escalate it--it'll never end otherwise, and it's just not worth the time and mental energy to argue continuously over something that to me seems extremely trivial.

Funny how you bumped this particular thread to air your grievance in public, by the way.  I'm amused by it.

Hey, if you have something to say about my thread, say it to my face ;D

I think it's a good idea to move the grievance here, instead of continuing the trollfeed on the tech board.

My bad, I didn't know that talking about reputation is causing this kind of side effects  :P

It's not funny, it's just facts and link that anyone can found in his profile reputation.
I am not angry at all at him, I wish him all the best in his life, and I am sorry if I offended his majesty or if I said anything wrong about defi projects.

I see things differently.  Assuming no posts were deleted from that thread, it appeared to me that dkbit98 refuted QS's comments based solely on his reputation.  QS's reputation aside, I've always thought of him as somewhat technically astute, and his questions in that thread were valid.  Perhaps the question about about dkbit98's involvement in the project was a loaded one, I don't know.  Even if it wasn't I can see how dkbit98 might have interpreted it that way.

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.  Maybe I deserved it, I was shilling spyware (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365227.msg58159317#msg58159317), after all.

The questions about dkbit98‘s involvement in the project came after his attacks. I don’t think it is u reasonable to conclude that dkbit98 is shilling for the project based on his attacks. The initial questions were reasonable as you note. In addition to the conclusion of dkbit98‘s inconvenient, attacks on someone asking basic questions should tell onlookers they should be asking more questions.

dkbit98 had a history of attacking people that disagree with him. See his interactions with Lucius, HCP,    ~DefaultTrust, and I would not be surprised if there are others.

Ah you are the Windows guy who created that WIN topic in Bitcoin section... that was epic I must admit :D
I never said that you shilled anything, IQ remark was obviously regarding Windows11 reduced performance for AMD chips (known fact), not about anyone personally, but I don't want to go more off-topic with that.
Sorry if I offended you in any way, it's true that I can have those days, but I don't want to have bad blood with anyone.

I agree that QS is good tech guy but he is much better liar, and I have full right to suspect anything he writes because of his scamming history.
I am sure that suchoom, babo, nutildah, marlboroza, yahoo62278, The Pharmacist and many others can say more about him than I can.
Some sadly people passed away so they can't speak anymore.

Haha.  Okay, but if that's your idea of "epic" I think you need to get out more often.


I'm well aware of Quickseller's reputation and the feuds that he's fostered, but none of that has any bearing on the questions that he asked.  Regardless of who asked the questions, if they're legitimate and pertinent they deserve measured responses.  I do agree with Quickseller that the way you reacted does indeed raise more questions.  I'm not doubting anything you said, I believe you that you're not involved and merely following an interesting project.  But again, your reaction was a bit odd.

Quicksy asked a question about dk's involvement, got an answer (not involved, which you can believe or not but you can't claim that there was an attack in response to that question) and then proceeded to talk about ponzis etc. Those were not questions at all, insinuations at best. Should dkbit98 have taken the high road here? Yes, probably. But the fact that he didn't doesn't make him a shill or otherwise responsible for bugs/backdoors/exploits that may or may not exist in that wallet.

And Quicksy keeps saying that dkbit98 is a shill with no proof of that, and made some other claims that are provably wrong, so at this point I would very much doubt any of his "technically astute" claims in that thread. That's what shit-stirrers like him do, put a few smart-sounding wikipedia words into a soup of bullshit and pretend that it smells like roses.


There you go, it's completely on-brand then :)

So is Quicksy's incessant trollfuckery.

Yeah, but than I would make Bitcointalk forum a much more boring place than it is now, and I honestly don't have all the answers on his tech question he got after few minutes of reading documentation.
I think that Mercury team is going to thank QS more than me (alleged shiller and ponzi promoter) for finding major BUG in their open source code, heck maybe they will even pay him few bucks even in some defi shitcoin if he prefers them now.

He is acting like a shill in attacking anyone who questions his project. Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see this. Unfortunately, you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at things objectively. To you, everything is about which 'tribe' someone is in.
This reaction shows this thread (opened by you) is personal in nature, and that you do not actually believe I am "dangerous" to deal with.

Is it? "His" project? Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see why you keep repeating this.


The first sentence can be considered an opinion and it would be for others to judge (e.g. via trust exclusions). The second is just plain false.

Doesn't stop you from repeating these fallacious claims as facts.


I do believe that you are dangerous to deal with, on the basis of facts listed in the OP. Note that I did not put your run-in with dkbit98 into the OP - I may reconsider if you resort to your usual shenanigans like doxing - so my opinion about it shows nothing of what you're implying. It's not trolling that makes you dangerous. It's your deceptive, purposeful, malicious actions that go far beyond forum disagreements.

Overall, I agree with the point that attacking someone else is not a good idea and it tends to be a sign of weakness to not be able to separate the person from the argument and sometimes to become too emotional about some kind of criticism that has happened that was not really an attack but was merely a criticism.

Surely, if the other person has attacked first, then it would be a lot more acceptable to attack back, but maybe still not necessary to get down into the off-topicness of person rather than substance. 

I know that sometimes I will attack others.. but my own rendition of those situations is that in my head I have concluded that they have attacked first, and maybe I had already given them sufficient chances on the discussion of the substance (or we have a prior relation)..  Anyhow I believe that I mostly will only attack after I feel that I have been attacked first and after a certain amount of attempts at addressing the topic..but I do understand and appreciate that there are some arguments and discussion topics that are not real and genuine talking points.. so in that regard sometimes there might be some instances in which I had determined that a pre-emptive attack might come in useful, even though I do not consider myself to have such a habit,.... at least not regularly.. but I could see how sometimes preemptive attack can be useful...  sometimes. perhaps?..

Sure, if someone is acting in bad faith, it might not be unreasonable to attack first. However, I don't think I was acting in bad faith. Others have noted that the questions I was bringing up were reasonable questions.

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

https://meem.link/i/7i6gs2ru.png

tl;dr: If timelord didn't have double standards, he wouldn't have any standards at all.

As DireWolfM14 mentioned, dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately....and I'd go so far as to say he's always burning a short one, because if my pathologically-constricted memory serves me correctly, he's been snippy with me a couple of times in threads about Ledger wallets, which I know he's not a fan of.  But I mean come on, QS.  You've been here a long time, and I know you've got a much thicker skin than this.

This is true, unfortunately.  I think a lot of us like a little drama mixed in with all the technical discussions and shitposts, as it makes this joint a little more lively--that's certainly true for me, as long as I'm not the center of the drama, but that hasn't happened for a while, and even then it was just some bitching by a group of zero-value members who I tagged years ago.

Man, if all the unhealthy threads got locked, where would all the fun come from?

Time to let it go.

---

---

Most of the posts in the last day or two or this thread have all been of the type "they started it, therefore I have the right to continue it on as I please - and I WILL! - RRRReeeeeeee !!!!!".

This is not healthy for the Forum.

Please. I'm letting you go and never return to this thread. If you have a meta complaint there is a board for that. Thank you!

Everybody who supports the flag against quickseller believes he is "dangerous to deal with." If its not because he's the kind of person who believes its OK to self-escrow, its because he's the kind of person that will accuse a highly-reputable campaign manager of embezzling campaign funds based on nothing but speculation, and then join one of that manager's campaigns under an alt account.

Did you ever apologize about that @Quickseller? I can't tell from the Scam Accusation you posted.