Bitcoin Forum

I stumbled upon WTB - Netflix trial 1 month ( need many) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5253472.0), where user SupremosKaiosama (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2750388) had deleted his posts (http://loyce.club/archive/topics/525/5253472.html).
OP claims he was scammed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5253472.msg54566394#msg54566394), and SupremosKaiosama has "untrusted" negative feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2750388) from 4 different users. There's no direct evidence, but removing his posts after posting his Telegram username doesn't look good either.
I'll use this topic for a neutral Reference tag.

If anyone wants to dig deeper, see all unedited (or deleted) posts made by SupremosKaiosama (http://loyce.club/archive/members/275/2750388.html).

Update:
A known scammer.

You don't need to dig in to this to figure out whose alt this is.

This post reference should say all:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5248157.msg54468108#msg54468108 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5248157.msg54468108#msg54468108)

Looks like good old scammer Humbertin19_ indeed:
But I'm not comfortable giving him a red tag for this, there's still a change it's someone else using a similar name.

I'm surprised there are still people who trust Newbies with funds!

This scam deserves a warning:

Hmm. Very likely with this post as well:


and here is a post from Timelord2067 talking about Humbertin being from somehwere in Colombia or Ecuador.

---

Anyway found out one connection linked with scammer here:


(Archive: http://archive.is/UkBkw)


(Archive: http://archive.vn/CJPWm)

Trust profile of TimesSquareNY: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2589532 (filled up with all likely alt of scammer : Humbertin feedbacks)



Yep, its Humbertin

I want to add something. Since I have run the blackjack.fun signature campaign and contest, Sometimes I visit the site for playing/other reasons. And sometimes I saw the user Hello I am Humb/SupremosKaiosama are trolling on the chatbox unnecessarily. that looks like very shady things.

So the proofs here and the chatbox trolling(that I have seen) helps me to believe easily this user is not trustworthy.

Tagged and I created flag against this scammer, if anyone wants to support it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1967

---

@LoyceV, can you update topic with "Humb" thingy? Technicalities for flag....

1. http://archive.fo/wip/kGnSw
2. http://archive.fo/7e1IO

Another account of  SupremosKaiosama. The user first tried to cheat the blackjack.fun winning contest with the fake winning amount. And now he comes again with another bitcointalk account PIBWORLD (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2816473) (though the winning amount is correct this time)

He always kinda pull of these kind of things: abusing promotional activities, taking and defaulting on loans, scamming newbies with some fake keys or digital goods he doesn't have.

Good one @sujonali1819, gonna go ahead and add a feedback. Thanks for reporting.

*edited* due to unfolding events.

Less than 24 hours ago I stumbled upon this thread and added


to my list of "bad words" in LoyceV's [Active] Finding spam and scams by keyword (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268608.0) thread.

Within a day blackjack.fun had posted the following, but when they presented their evidence, it became less likely there was a connection due to inconsistancies in blackjack.fun's "evidence"

Note: Post truncated.


blackjack.fun is claiming to be able to provide more proof after the 17th of December.

Who do you think you are? Some kind of almighty sitting here judging other forum members' fate?

Let me get the facts straight first: You turned on notification for 'Hello I am Humb' keyword and someone posted 'Webtricks=Hello I am Humb' (I really hate when someone writes webtricks with 'w' in uppercase). You thought you got the hit, exclaimed 'Eureka' in your mind and rushed forward to give me the red trust and reported me for ban evasion. What a "responsible member" of Bitcointalk community you are, I really envy you.

Now coming back to the topic, did you even read the Blackjack.fun thread before posting here the findings? I guess not because if you read, you knew that I am the one who's accusing Blackjack for irrational banning. In the defense, Blackjack.fun's admin provided evidence that I am using same browser and screen resolution as the other user! Yeah right! Alt accusation because I am using same browser and resolution, lol. Do you think as the "responsible member" of the community that this is enough for giving red trust? Didn't you think it would be wise to wait for my reply in the thread or wait for admin to provide more evidence? Nope, how could you! You had to do what "responsible member" of the community should do in such situation, isn't it?

I know it isn't considered wise to leave retaliatory feedback but I think you deserve at least neutral feedback for coming up with this shit and wasting my time. And since you aren't DT1/DT2 why the hell do I see your red trust as default, who in my trust list thinks you are worthy to trust with such feedbacks, is it Vod? @LoyceV, here's an idea for another tool: what about a tool which tells you who in your trust list trusts/distrusts a particular user, what you say?
Nevermind, congratulations for becoming the first entry in my distrust list. To use forum on positive note, I had decided to try to keep those two distrust columns empty but not everyday is Sunday and you have to deal with the situations like this.

PS: I hope you would understand the average sarcasm I used at places in the post. And you are welcome to give me another red trust for being sarcastic.

System is probably wrong. The evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106215.msg55809084#msg55809084) isn't very convincing:

I've "known" Humbertin for years, from my time as a chat Mod on Rollin. He's quite a character: he's sometimes funny, has terrible English, cries as hard for losing 1mBTC as for losing 18BTC, takes debts to gamble, rains 2BTC to get unbanned from chat when he's winning, and cheats to gamble whenever he's out of money.
I've seen webtricks on Bitcointalk, he's skilled, has good English, and is nothing like Humbertin. I've countered Timelord2067's non-DT feedback with a neutral comment from my non-DT Mobile account.

I wouldn't call neutral feedback retaliatory, I'd say it's proper feedback usage by not responding with negative feedback.

My Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124527.0) (which I haven't updated since May) explains the large recursive implications of a custom Trust list.

Whist overlooking the retaliatory DT distrust?

---

---

Yeh, that's what humbertin does, goes on a retaliatory distrust feedback spree - this time it's retaliatory DT.  A gambling website is protecting it's own financial interest by exposing scammers, but I'm the one being attacked?  I still remember that time DavidXXXX had the DT1 Trolls eating out the palm of their hands convincing everyone that they weren't an alt of Humbertin, then went on to scam. (Had a look, can't find it) Nothing changes.

I don't necessarily consider excluding someone from a Trust list retaliatory. In this case: you made a bad judgement call, so he doesn't Trust your judgement.
Have you looked at the red bold part in my quote above? That's what's used to "prove" they're alts!

I haven't seen Humbertin use a Trust list before, do you have a link that shows it?

I wouldn't call this attacking you. At least it wasn't my intention.
I pointed out their flawed evidence in their gambling thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106215.msg55812171#msg55812171).

Can you post a link? I'd like to read up.

Even the parts that match are quite questionable:


Basically anyone with the latest version of Chrome on a smallish laptop would be Humbertin according to blackjack.fun and Timelord2067. Ludicrous.

Sure, give me a minute.

---

---

While we're twiddling our thumbs, let's look at something.


UTC−05:00 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%E2%88%9205:00)  takes in Colombia (which has been established as being Humbertin's point of origin) and Ecuador.  (or are people going to say it's UTC+05:00 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%2B05:00) which takes in Pakistan  ::) )

There is no time zone -5.5  -  Why would Webtricks have a time zone that doesn't exist?

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob93533039cb24ba6c.jpeg

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UTC_offsets

---

---

A couple of mouse clicks can change a browser's spell checker (especially for someone as LoyceV points out has bad grammar) and then when they use their Humbertin alt revert back to their native Spanish??

Since you claim that this guy Humbertin is from Colombia, isn't that the evidence  that webtricks and him are not the same person? I see that webtricks is active in Indian local board and has few posts in Hindi.

Somehow I doubt that webtricks is writing there since 2017 as a part of the disguise.

edit: @webtricks apologies, corrected.

You still trying hard, aren't you? Okay, so to disappoint you again, logs blackjack.fun provided calculate timezone using this formula: (UTC - User's Local Time). Humbertin as you pointed is from Colombia so his timezone is showing +5 (although it should have been -05:00). Whereas, I am from India so my timezone is showing -5.5 (although it should have been +05:30).

And can you stop this shit until blackjack.fun admin provides so-called personal information evidence (which I am sure was his shot in the dark) so I can conclude this matter. I am giving him benefit of doubt for another day to reasonably explain the ban and credit me additional 1 mBTC as promised (so I can request a withdrawal from the site).

---

The language is called 'Hindi, not 'Hindu' but yeah, you are absolutely correct.

I'm not the one making the assertion they are connected.


Your attempt to further intimidate me has been noted.

Trust feedback has been updated:

You are not, although you posted their trust list and gave them a neutral feedback for the same, without knowing any solid evidence other than webtricks having same browser screen size as the other player ( that's a funny way to handle alts by blackjack.fun indeed )



I don't even think the above red feedback is valid as giving a retaliatory DT distrust to someone after you are personally accused by him without any evidence is acceptable. Anyway, I think you both should sort this out like a man ! _{( Side Note : webtricks is more friendly and open minded overall, FYI )}

My reliance on a gambling site placing their reputation on the line when they (not I) made the assertion that two accounts were connected won't be repeated given blackjack.fun now appears to be back peddling from their follow-up assertion that they have secret proof of a connection between the two.


I've always clarified or corrected posts.  Instead of sitting down to discus this "like a man" Webtricks first action by their own admission (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5253584.msg55812125#msg55812125) was to retaliatory DT distrust me - i.e. shoot first then ask questions later.  Archive [1a (https://archive.vn/OgHMV#selection-7823.0-7829.76)] [1b (https://web.archive.org/web/20201214024704/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5253584.msg55812125)]

This is their first post:


Clear case of (self admitted) retaliatory DT distrust by Webtricks against myself.

---

---

I've always been able to have good conversations with you, so you tell me: Would it sit more comfortably with you if my trust feedback of Webtricks were NEUTRAL instead of negative in that I would not trust this person to do a trade with?

This didn't require any trust ratings from you, let alone attempts to fabricate your own "proof" based on timezones. You should just stay out of things you don't understand but when has common sense ever stopped you from being an blithering idiot. Now you have a chance to whine about "abuse" again, congrats.

You are mistaken.

blackjack.fun came up with the timezones as proof.

No, they didn't. They showed some details of two browser fingerprints with timezones half the world away from each other and you tried to fabricate "proof" out of it.

Not to mention that there was nothing urgent about the situation to require immediate trust ratings. Nobody was attempting to scam anyone.

Wrong again.

blackjack.fun came up with the time-zones as proof.

LoyceV observed there was a discrepancy in the time zones.

I gave a break down of those time zones and their geographical locations.  (scroll up - it's in this thread)

Will you stop with this nonsense... here is the original post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106215.msg55809084#msg55809084

Nowhere does it say that timezone is the proof. LoyceV highlighted mismatched languages and timezones. You took that post and flipped it upside down as if those timezones prove something. They don't. Never did. Nobody except you claimed that they do. Have some dignity and own your words FFS.

The discrepancy was in the evidence, not the time zones.

Yes.

Why do you even call it retaliation? If someone leaves me unwarranted negative feedback, I'll probably exclude them too. If someone shows bad judgement, excluding them is the correct way to use the Trust system.

I'll share what I've posted before: before giving someone negative feedback, ask yourself: does this make the forum a better place? I've seen far too many negative feedbacks that don't meet this simple requirement!

Read the link that you've quoted and you will see that it's their words, not mine (self admitted retaliatory DT trust)

I think my following words are being misunderstood so I will rephrase them just for the clarification:


"I know it isn't considered wise to leave retaliatory feedback so I won't be leaving one but I think you deserve at least neutral feedback for coming up with this shit and wasting my time. "

I only consider negative for negative feedback as the retaliatory one. So me leaving you (@Timelord2067) neutral trust for your negative feedback wasn't retaliatory at all. It was the feedback on your poor judgement on detecting alts which eventually turned out to be true because you changed your feedback from 'red' to 'neutral' in my case and soon you gonna remove it completely when blackjack.fun will fail to provide any proof (provided if you are rational at all).

And as far as adding you to my distrust list is concerned, 'Trust List' is a private list of every member. Every member has complete right to add whoever he thinks is good in giving trustworthy feedback or bad when it comes to leaving feedback. Me adding you to my distrust list has no direct impact on forum reputation so there is nothing for you to complain about. And you ranting about it and further giving me red trust does nothing but justify why I added you to my distrust list.

That's how I handle similar cases too:
https://loyce.club/other/trust2.gif

You started this thread with the express hope that others would give the accused negative trust feedback, and they have obliged you:

(all four lines of "evidence" - ironically, you write: "There's no direct evidence" and yet these people gave the UID negative anyway on the basis there was no "evidence")


Now you want to frown at me because I have done the exact same thing these people have done?  That doesn't wash, not with me, not with anyone.

If these people were truthful, they will all admit they took your word and "evidence" (remember you yourself say there is no "evidence") and have then proceeded to give the accused negative trust feedback on the basis of your word. (If they were truthful that is)

Well, that's exactly what I did, took the word of a user who has placed the reputation of their entire website on the line when they presented their evidence.

You people are still stressing out over trust feedback that was changed to NEUTRAL more than 24 hours ago and now you are frowning because I have said in trust feedback that I would not trust this user in a trade?

Really?

Negative trust rating is for high risk in a trade. You not trusting someone because they excluded you doesn't necessarily mean high risk. It might seem high risk to you and you may feel justified posting such feedback... and you will likely get excluded even more by others who see it as sour grapes.

Please don't make up things about me. I started this topic for 2 reasons:

Or maybe they based it on further posts in the topic. For instance:

Sorry for bumping the thread again.

Humbertin is still active, still trying to scam,


archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220928142605/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413669.msg61024462


Nothing to say more, Just a warning and quoting for reference

It's amazing he still uses the same well-known name to scam.

Humbertin also uses the phrase


as I have referenced in my numerous reports concerning this scammer and have had that phrase in my list of keywords (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268608.msg54997837#msg54997837) since at least January this year.

See also

https://loyce.club/badposts/
https://loyce.club/badposts/other.html

---

---

PalermoMoon was Date Registered:    2022-08-08, 14:31:45

Mwinami (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3446817) uses Hellow on the August 18, 2022, 05:57:54 PM to seek a $1000 USD loan. (and was Last Active:    2022-08-22, 06:58:34 )

on the 2022-08-26 PalermoMoon is active trading accounts


and today is active on the forum

It might be a thin connection, however, they (Mwinami and PalermoMoon) were both active within a week of each other using the same turn of phrase Humbertin uses.