Bitcoin Forum

Hi!

I just logged in my account some time ago to see this.

I thought that only admins had access to IP logs. Nevertheless, I've never used his service. I don't know what the point behind this accusation is nor how he could back his claims.

You are his alt and I have proof. The fact that you are denying that you are his alt only strengthens my arguement

/thread

How is this post strengthening your arguement? I couldn't just accept your outlandish accusation like that. I don't see any arguement posed by you in the first place.

My arguement against your other account. My claim on this this account is that you are an alt of worhipper which you are.

There is really no reason to post from two different accounts making the exact same claim against you.

I don't see any reason to post further on this thread as your other thread is just as pointless.

Your argument keeps getting shallower then. You don't have access to the IP logs of https://bitcointalk.org do you?

Perhaps since you are the one giving him a negative trust, and he is defending himself , you should post the proof of it being an alt, so atleast the other people know it as well.

Being an alt of a person who backs out from an escrow agreement also makes one to be a scammer? Even if this user is an alt, what's the big deal unless he has truly scammed someone using this alt account. If he has (tries to), there will be some kind of claim.


Now it just appears as a personal grudge against someone now and not a scam accusation. Anyways, this post should be moved to Meta (which is already filled with such claims).

If the OP wants to publicly deny that he is an alt of worhipper as I claimed in my trust report then I will post proof on the condition that he agrees to drop/lock all threads he has opened against me once I post proof.

If the OP wants to admit that he is in fact an alt of worhipper then there is no point to this thread and he can lock it.

If the OP refuses to do either of the above then well, I guess that is that.

---

since I do not this person's RL identity, I labeled him as being an alt of his handle that I know to have attempted to scam.

First of all, admin tools are the only way to prove that two accounts are used by the same user. Only badbear is known to have access to those tools.

Whatever your 'proof' about the account being used by the same user is, it's not credible. What's more ridiculous is that you over dramatize things saying that the other person attempted to scam while all he did was to refuse using your services. Why do you have to take things so far Quickseller? Even worshiper didn't ever scam anybody, your passion for revenge is leading you to mistakes. There's no reason to bully people like that.

If the op wishes to deny that he is an alt of worshipper , then why does he have to lock all threads against you ? Lets say he isn't an alt of the person accused, and goes about denying any relation , then are you saying you wouldn't post the proof to justify the negative rep you gave him ?

Notice there's no choice in there in which QS admits that he might be wrong.  This is his usual bullying style.  We've seen it before.  We'll continue to see it until he's no longer an authority.

Because he's not wrong. Quickseller asked me about Worhiper a long time ago when this started, because he had seen that I had sold him a account. Quickseller said that he didn't know if he was attempting to scam or not, that he was gathering more information about it. Now this was right when Quickseller had given Worhiper the negative feedback. Maybe 2 or 3 days after. Quickseller also said that I did not have to give him the info he requested. That he was not 100% sure that Worhiper was going to use the account to scam, but wanted the info just to keep a eye on it. Of course I give it to him. You got Quickseller in one corner, a highly trusted member of the community, and the other a senior member with neutral trust with a questionable trade practice against him.

http://imgur.com/05CPWhz

But with what you say and the information you gave, or posted here, it doesn't mean that worhipper scammed someone. People are not unhappy that worhipper has an alt revealed, but unhappy because firstly he got a negative trust for backing out of an escrow, and secondly despite backing out, he really didn't deserve a negative trust on all his alts or rather his main account itself.

Did worhipper not end up paying you ?  You also realize that by posting this info you let your other alts be compromised from the post history of gio3442 ?

If compromised means that they know it was mine? Then let it be compromised. I have never hid anything from the community nor will I. Now the post history of the account has absolutely zero to do with me. I bought the accounts, they sat in some random email til I could get rid of them.  Worhipper did pay me for the account. No escrow was used. Since it was such a low amount, I did give him the benefit of doubt and sent the info to him before any type of escrow details could be worked out. He did send the btc promptly to me after he had the info for it.

If he did pay you, then thats all I meant from the things already discussed. Quickseller is just giving the account a negative rep for a personal grudge. worhipper hasn't actually scammed anyone out of any trade.

I've sat and watched both sides of this fight. I have been into it with Quickseller before, that's how I got to know him. I can see both points of view in this case. Quickseller has dealt with enough scammers and attempted scammers so much that I do think that it becomes harder and harder to believe someone when cases like this appear. Now I'm in no way shape or fashion saying that Quickseller is wrong. OR that Worhipper is wrong. That's why I kept out of it as much as possible. But I had to interject when it was a account that I had sold was involved. Do I think that Quickseller is wrong with this case? I'm undecided. Do I think that Quickseller uses his default trust to abuse the forum? No, I do not. Sides have been set, lines drawn. The only thing I forsee happening is more argueing and fighting. I do not see a reasonable end to this no time soon unfortunately.

Sounds like you trusted worhiper_-_ and he came through.  Maybe you should leave positive feedback on his accounts as a trustworthy person who you sent first to and he paid with no issue.  Then again, that would put you on the wrong side of Quickseller and you'd be risking negative feedback from him because I'm sure he wouldn't have an issue with using your "support" of a "scammer" to say that you were a scammer.

Well that is not true. Negative trusts can be explained and usually happen for a reason. It is pretty evident that worhipper had no extent of scamming , and Quickseller is treating him like a scammer, and even going to the degree of contacting you and getting information of his alt accounts. Quickseller is not doing this to keep the community safe. He is only doing it to that extent because of his personal grudge.

Not against the forum rules. Quickseller is doing exactly what you're all doing, scraping out some change from this forum.
He's just better at it :-\

Twipple, while I don't think that you're wrong, I do think you're treading on dangerous ground.  Calling out quickseller for this kind of behavior is essentially why he went after me.  On the other hand, it's usually better to be on the right side of history because in the long-run, he won't be getting away with this stuff forever.

Its not, but he is in the default trust list. It won't be justified if someone like badbear or theymos goes about giving negative trust just because they want to. Being in the default trust list, has to make him take some responsibility.

I am just calling out Quickseller because he is wrong in some cases, and he should let go of his ego and make responsible judgements at times. You can't expect people to keep quiet if they feel they have been incorrectly given a negative trust. And just because they post, you will never have quickseller remove his trust for them, because it makes him look wrong.

I don't think he does a poor job of spotting scammers, Pointing out 10 scams, and getting 1 wrong doesn't make him look bad, but he thinks it does. And you will almost never see him agree to an incorrect reputation argument.

Also, he is not right, because he agreed to remove negative trust from someone else's account, who almost exactly, had the same thing like me. And he did it, just because while selling, he was used as an escrow.

To be clear, he's in "default trust" because badbear currently trusts him.  Badbear is away at the moment so we can't expect him to answer this until he returns and has a chance to see what's been happening.  The way the trust system works is that because QS is intransigent and doesn't answer for his actions, the responsibility goes upstream to badbear.  If, in an outlandishly surprising turn of events, badbear is okay with this, it would eventually go up to Theymos, who trusts badbear.  If, in a nonsensical turn of events, Theymos didn't care then the only recourse would be to live with the abuse or go off to another forum.  In the end, this forum is a privately run benevolent dictatorship, the buck eventually stops with Theymos.  But there are a couple of levels between Theymos and Quickseller.

Probably a neutral trust from quickseller explaining the issue would have been better........

Dodging the deal after suggested escrow is a good reason for a red flag, if QS has evidence that accounts are linked/alts of one another, then -iver is justified.
But i don't agree its ok to flag anyone without evidence. Since reputation is public, negative comment is public, then so should evidence proving claim also be public, and not something held back.

It's quickseller's mo.  He doesn't feel that he needs evidence.  He goes after the people he wants to go after and considers himself to be some sort of amateur detective at it.  He went after me without ever having done any trading with me and he tried to ruin my reputation with exactly 0 evidence.

Thats not exactly what happened with him. He agreed to an escrow, but didn't want to agree to the terms of the escrow(once QS sent him his terms) , and once he refused, QS wasn't able to get his 2$, so Quickselller neg repped him, and put in the excuse that he did so , to know the account details from the password change log.

Thought that we have moved on from this case? Truth is, the person send Quickseller his own term which is unsafe term according to Quickseller then Quickseller sent his own term which is much more safer for both party, but the person denied, Quickseller than gave him negative trust because the behaviour of rejecting a safe term for both party is a scammy behaviour. Period.

P.S : $2 is not much and you couldnt almost get anything nowadays with that amount

Is not trading at all scammy behavior "Period"?  Because it seems like that's exactly what happened.  No trade went down because people couldn't agree on terms.  QS negreps because he can do so with no consequence to people who are "below" him.

Why are you supporting him in every topic that he gets accused in?

Maybe he does support him. I saw that as well. That's the only conclusion that I can come up with. Other than just random posts for sig campaign.

He does support him for sure. Which is why I'm pointing it out, so many randoms come out of the blue to 'support' him. If it's not just sig spam I'm not surprised that others are having suspicions about this mob of supporters.

Quickseller feels himself like some kind of weird superhero who can predict future actions of persons and also read what they will do next. He gave me a negative trust without dealing with me, so I am not surprised.
I am surprised why no negative trust were given to him in response to his amateur deeds in here ??? I never have left negative feedback even to other people of accusing me without evidence, but I got really mad when I saw a guy like this saying (I am a scammer , don't deal with him etc) so I gave him what he deserved.

Probably he is just an alt of Quickseller or something. But as a reply to him saying


If Quickseller thought his terms were unsafe for both, then he should have denied the escrow, than rather saying it is for sure a scam. He could also have left him a neutral trust. But to top it all of, he went ahead to find his alts, by sending a PM to another account seller, just for his personal revenge sort of mindset.

It is true that your activity does make it seem, you might potentially scam someone with paypal, as you yourself were selling guides to chargeback, but still you could request them to change it to Neutral. As for selling illegal stuff like that, I think its banned on the forum, and that might be the reason for it.

I don't know the whole history with kingofbitcoin but I can say that tomotocage has aslo left negative feedback.  It's not clear to me whether this is something that tomatocage turned up and quickseller just echoed or vice-versa.  In any case, it seems a distraction to the issues in this thread, which are about quickseller's attempts to inflate his own importance by going after anyone who he seees as less powerful than him and offering no recourse.  When it comes to people more powerful than him, he's completely polite and understanding and doesn't in any way act disagreeable.  For those below him, it's his way or the highway or "you're an idiot scammer/spammer"!

Finally a hero member in which the logic speaks before his mouth. Regarding my guides it is true I was selling them, I just wanted to make a quick coin back then, didn't have much BTC, now I have and I stopped selling them, together with a file with 15.000 TOR/ONION websites in which you can cheat, scam people in an instant, even if you are a complete newbie. Still this doesn't give the right to someone to post negative feedback about me without the slightest evidence, just based on assumption, because quickseller, did left negative feedback for me much much later than the time of Tomato guy.

Same here, zero evidence, I don't even know the guy, and he goes out of his way to accuse me.

What a day Today , I can see a lots of Threads Revised in meta about Quickseller.

I think user turtlehurricane (http://turtlehurricane) is providing an equal opportunity to argue.

Sorry, probably a dumb question, but what is an "-iver"? I read this multiple times on the forums here, in different variants ("-ve"), but I don't get what it exactly means. Seems to be a synonym for negative reputation, but what's the abbreviation exactly for? " minusiver" or "negativeiver" don't seem to make sense to me.

Thanks in advance!

Hey people. My story is now irrelevant since it's old and outdated. Please create your own topic to discuss.