Bitcoin Forum

UPDATE 16 Sept 2015:

All the latest indications are that the Wardick account was taken over by an imposter---having been either stolen or sold sometime during or after the original Wardrick's "rage-quit".  Many have suggested that Tradefortress might have been behind the stolen account and that would certainly explain "Wardrick"'s suddent enthusiasm to inherit the Tradefortress legacy whole heartedly, as wel as some of his intimidation techniques and general unpleasantness.  At the moment, Theymos has locked the Wardrick account due to the suspicous behavior so it may be that the issue here has been resolved (finally). 

I don't know what precident there is for deleting the feedback and actions of an attacker who gains control of an account when the original owner is long-gone, but I'm looking forward to finding some reasonable resolution.  During the few days that the attacker had control of the Wardick account, he did do quite a few edits of the original Wardrick's feedback---having removed at least one positive on ndnhc, and having added a number of negatives to those who seemed to be opposing Quickseller/Tradefortress in QS's scandal.

The thread will stay open for now as Theymos continues to investigate, but I'm starting to be hopeful that this nonsense, nightmare saga from discredited Tradefortress and Quickseller is finally going to be put to bed.

---

UPDATE 7 Sept. 2015:

QS has joined Tradefortress in the realm of the completely discredited thanks to an escrow scam he was pulling off.  Surprisingly, a fellow who goes by the handle of "Wardrick" has appeared to inherit the Tradefortress lineage of lies.  Why?  Who knows, maybe he'll speak for himself in this thread.

---

UPDATE 25 August 2015:

Quickseller has recently removed one of the trust sockpuppet ratings he has left on my account.  Presumably he was responding to comments in this thread.  Thank you Quickseller for solving this.  There is one more sockpuppet account left for him to remove (it's unclear why he removed one but not the other).  Hopefully he will remove that soon.

Then there will only be the matter of the main abusive rating from QS.  But alas, maybe this issue will be solved one step at a time.


(Older OP content below hr)

---

The original content of this thread's OP is below the horizontal line.  What's happened is that there are really three issues at play here and I had locked this topic and started three separate threads.  However, the mods prefer to contain all of this in one thread so this has become a 3in1 of sorts.  

The first part of the thread is mainly looking for tomatocage to weigh in, although there is some interesting stuff where Quickseller shows up and makes a mockery of my concerns, laughing at me and saying that he'll give 0.1BTC to anyone who can convince him to leave me alone (a clearly impossible task).

The 3in1 section begins on page 3, here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12055206#msg12055206

---

It seems that tomatocage has re-added quicktroller to his trust list.  Which means his slanderous lies are once again reddening my reputation falsely.   Which means I have to chat with tomatocage.  But I find that I cannot send him a PM (PM blocked).

Is tomatocage's account okay?  Not been hacked or anything I hope.  I recall there was a moment about a month or so ago when he was shut out (I think).

TC, how do I contact you?  I found your email on your profile page, is that what you prefer?

---

Incomplete list of quotes from forum members regarding this situation:
(note, I have further support statements from many others who are off-the record in my PMs because they are afraid of retribution)

Pm blocked? Is that doable in this forum? He's online right now, and I'm not sure how can you approach him. Maybe quote some of his posts?

Pm is able to be blocked, someone who scammed me blocked my PM a time ago.
Just email him, or make a post like this, so he sees it pop up (if your names in the post he will likely read it)
Unless you are really that annoying, and he really wants to ignore you.
Quickseller is generally very trustworthy and is right 95% of his accusations, so maybe you are red for a reason.

tomatocage1@gmail.com is his email. Send him one or two emails. I highly recommend you not to message him a lot. He may have blocked you for sending a lot of messages. Did you do it last time when QS left you a negative trust feedback?

I'll send an email.  But as for you advice that I make a thread like this one, well (t's already done!).

I'm glad you think he's generally trustworthy, and I know he often cites himself as having these 95% accuracy rates, but that info generally comes from him (or did you do some quantitative analysis of his accuracy?  if so, how did you get relevant data?).  But even if you're right that he's correct 95% of the time, I'm in the 5%.  I won't rehash the story here, but if you check into it you can see how he's been trolling me using 3 different accounts for almost 4 months now.  I don't know how to get him off my back but his only accusation on me is that he says I defrauded a known liar, and he's using the liar's word for it as "evidence".  QS is angry as fuck and vindictive as a mafioso---I've heard a lot from people in PM recently saying to me "thank you for calling out quickseller for his temper, I'd say something in public but I'm afraid he'd come after me".  Dude is a huge bully and I just want him to leave me alone.


I have now sent him an email.  I did write to him last time he had QS on his list, but only once, and then he responded.  And it actually went well because he was able to convince QS to change his ratings to neutrals---presumably he was able to show him the reason in not blindly echoing tradefortress.  But as soon as QS was removed from his list he changed the ratings back to negatives and even opened a new account and trolled me with that.  As recently as last week he was making a threat against my---saying that "I would be stopped or else!".  In any case, now that TC has added him again, I'd like to speak with TC about getting QSs lies changed back to neutral---as he did last time.

You can block members from messaging you.

Serious questions, no trolling: Did he block you for harassing him about QS? Since Tomato acts as a escrow, I doubt he blocks many people so there has to be a reason why you were blocked.

Let's see how long it takes for this thread goes from how to contact Tomato to QS is a evil man and should be removed from the DT list  ;D

Serious answer: I seriously doubt it.  We discussed QS last time he was on his list and it was a very productive exchange of like 3 PMs where TC was able to convice QS to change his ratings to a neutral.  I would be very suprised if he decided to block me after those PMs.  Last once I received from him was saying "problem solved, please adjust your ratings accordingly" and I did so and changed mine to neutral as wellI would like to avoid that.  I found that public sparring with QS doesn't help and I'd like to resolve this nonsense.

Yes, TF is an untrustworthy person but at that time, you admitted to withdrew coins which were earned using bots and you named your bot "b0t" which makes me think you really know the rules. I also don't want to rehash my views/opinions here but you use "liar's word" every time which is not true.


Okay.


That's what I thought.

If you don't want to rehash then you're going to have to avoid writing these kinds of half-truths which are as good as lies in that they mislead.  What I admitted to was experminting with a bot using TF's approval and knowledge, he even helped me with it.  Then him booting me and making up various and arbitary amounts that he said I owed him.  I never figured out if/whether I owed him anything because he wasn't reasonable to talk to about it.  He just said "pay back X" but everytime X was a different amount and often it was more than I had ever even owned at the time.  TF and I walked away from this 3 years ago and that was that but then QS comes along, with zero knowledge of the situation, and makes TF's false accusations his accusations.   And we all know that he did this not realizing that (1) I would make a stink and fight back on this nonsense (2) it would actually cost him reptuation points because he's siding with a known liar.  Now, 4 months later, I'm still dealing with it and you tell me what I should do MZ?  When someone falsely comes after you quoting some lies of a discredited person, are you going to roll over and delete your account?  Or are you going to stand up and say that what's going on is wrong and that you're being attacked?  I'm under attack from this dude for like 4 months now, he only last week made some threat against me.  I don't know what I'm supposed to do.
If writing to him once, receiving a reply, him replying that all is solved, I write back with "thank you for your intervention" is some kind of harrassment, then you guys are from another planet than me.

I don't want to discuss about this in this thread but I like to discuss about that in your old thread which will be the appropriate place to discuss.

I think QS should change negative feedback to neutral but I don't know if there was an incident of changing negative feedback on scammer's/thief's* profile to neutral.

* Mentioning scammer/theif as QS thinks you are.
 

Xetsr's post and my "thought" were before you told about your 2 PMs. I(we) didn't tell those two PMs were harassment.

I think it should be pretty self explanatory regarding your inability to send TC a PM.

---

In the corporate world, it is generally seen as unprofessional when someone goes straight to someone's boss to complain about them without first trying to work out your dispute.

Since you are a pillar of professionalism, why don't you document your attempt to work out your dispute?

---

I have already explained my rating to both BadBear and TC. I have not been given any kind of argument from either of them as to how you are not a scammer.


The post referenced by Blazr is here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11163154#msg11163154).

---

If you (or anyone else for that matter) can explain how you are not a scammer based on the evidence (and convince me as such) then I will gladly remove my negative rating against you and send the first person to post an explanation in this thread 0.1BTC, I'll keep this offer open until the sooner of 48 hours from this post or when this thread gets locked. You need to convince me in order to claim the bounty.

---

If no one is willing to write a single post for .1 btc to explain your innocence within at most 48 hours then it will be appropriate to warn others to avoid interacting with you.

It's a strange distraction from you that you're offering some kind of bounty to "convince" you when we all know that you are unconvincable on this issue.

A major starting point if you actually wanted to work this out would be for you to admit that you have no direct knowledge of what happened at coin chat and that you are siding with a known liar in trying to defame me.  You should admit that you made a mistake when you tried to take discredited lies as evidence against someone.  You have now neg-repped me with three separate accounts, you should own up to this as trust abuse and remove the negative ratings.

With respect to tomatocage, it's not very clear to me why wouldn't hear a PM.  I won't post his private communication with me here unless he give me permission to do so, but the gist of it was that he would try to get you to change your rating to a neutral, given the ancientness of the mud you were trying to dig up and the lack of any firsthand knowledge by of you the situation.  Presumably you did this as he wrote to me the next day saying, "ratings changed to a neutral, please adjust your ratings", which I did.  I have not written to him since then.  I think it's not unexpected that I would write to him seeing that (1) you've changed your feedback back to negative---ie, undoing the peace he brokered (2) he's readded you to his list --- making your false accusations = real damage.  Why he wouldn't answer me is not something I can speculate about.  My guess/hope is that he merely has everyone PM blocked and wants communication through email.  I dunno.

Here's the thing, you started trolling me nearly 4 months ago now, and as far as I can tell, this was only motivated by the fact that you didn't like that I called you out for your hot temper.  At each stage in this saga, I've resisted, told the truth, made public what you were doing to me and at each stage of this saga, your reputation has gone down accordingly.  You keep getting taken back off these trust lists that you so dearly want to be on because you're needlessly fucking with me (and how many others?).  If you could calm down and focus on actual scammers instead of personal vendettas you might actually be able to achieve this power play you keep on trying for.

Me?  I keep wishing the damn thing was over.  How long do I have to be trolled by you and by how many random accounts?  When are you going to finally be either off of the default trust for good or be finally done with your needless  persecution of me.

Finally, your offer is a joke.  You may as well say, I'll give all my btc to the first person who convinces me to leave tspacepilot alone.  We all know you wont be convinced, so the offer isn't real and it provides some sort of strange diversion to the real issue which is this:  who the fuck do you think you are to make a 6 month mission out of trolling someone who is not doing anyone any wrong.  I hang out on the technical discussion pages and help people compile bitcoind for linux.  I write a bit in the gambling pages.  What on earth is your problem that you cannot swallow your pride and move along?

That means he added your name specifically as one who is unable to send him messages. He is actively trying to stop you from contacting him, I think that tells you everything you need to know. You should respect that and leave him alone. Your remaining options are, work it out with QS, try to get TC removed from DT (no), exclusions from other DT members (unlikely), or deal with it.

Dude, qs trust rating is perfectly fine to me, i checked the reference link and you can see that even the most reputated members and high rank members on this forum actually agree with tradefortress on the issue that it was being discussed there, you cheated, you didnt follow the rules meaning that you were cheating/scamming. Theres not much more to it.

Welcome to chapter 473 of the Quickseller Saga..
I want to really point this out, and I can not realize how people seem to persist:
I think that I've only had a negative rating once. I did not whine in this section like many do, but I've kindly asked the person who left it to remove it. Engaging in further, meaningless arguments with QS won't solve your problem. You either need to admit to being wrong and improve yourself, or deal with it. You can always make a new account and start over.

TC will read this thread and if he wishes, he'll reply. I don't mind QS being in the Default Trust list but am saddened by the fact he sells DT accounts which I hope doesn't go in wrong hands. Selling DT accounts is not only risky but unethical.

erm, as far as i know he stopped selling any accounts at all, you can even see it in his other account ACCTseller, his personal message says so. Im sure he will confirm.

Then why he is still making bids for accounts ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1127705.msg11913549#msg11913549

And you should say: he stopped selling accounts using his known alts.

I meant accounts on default trust, he stopped selling them, probably because he doesnt have any more, i thought he stopped selling any kind of accounts but i don't know, that's why i said i was waiting for him to confirm.

Anyone know what are the usernames of the accounts he sold are or want to help me find out?

If they do anything bad then he should get some negative trust too for selling them to scammers.

QS said that when he was removed from Badbear's list, he had a DT account which he doesn't own anymore. I guess he sold it and it means he is still selling DT accounts.

I am glad that you don't appreciate him selling DT accounts.

Thanks for weighing in, BB.  I guess I'm kinda shocked to find that he's ignoring me given our very short and cordial conversations in the past.  I think there's nothing personal in here, so I want to go ahead and publish it.  This is the entire contact history between me and tomatocage:




And the next morning:


We haven't spoken since.  Isn't it a little weird that he would have preemptively blocked me from asking him about this situation before adding QS back to his list.  It may be that when he added QS, QS told him that he had re-burned tspacepilot and that he wouldn't be changing it this time, I don't know.


I would love to "work it out with QS" but he's really not offering any chance to do so.  (1) He's appearing in this thread above, literally mocking me and teasing with money for someone who can "convince him" but it's clear that's an impossible task; (2) It's not even clear what he wants (except to cost me money and to hurt me)---he has no involvment or knowledge of the original situation he claims to be defending.  If he would come out with some list of things he wants in order to forgive, I'd try to do them.  I dunno, it's hard to imagine paying a bribe to make him leave me alone, but I really cannot figure out how he will be satisfied beyone my death or something.  Curiously, only a few days ago he was issuing threats to me on another thread about "making sure I would be stopped".  Do you guys need me to quote this stuff for you?  Maybe I should before he edits it, but I'm just not as workaholic at trying to bring down quickseller as he is at bringing down me.  I don't have any issues here except this dude attacking me.  Why can't I get anyone to at least justify the attack.

What your negative rating by someone on default trust?  Were you kicked out of a signature ad campaign?  Were you being smeared endlessly for months over something you didn't do?  If so, then I admire your ability to "walk away and start again", but after 3 years on this forum with absolutely no issues, I just can't accept that QS can walk up and start making up lies and take away my income.  That seems completely unjust.  And I think you know it.

What's terrible is this, I keep getting PMs in the last few days from people saying that they're sorry about what I'm going through with QS and this default trust nonsense (again!)---that they appreciate me standing up to QS.  When I say to them, why don't you speak up in public if you've got an issue with him, they just write that there's no way they'd cross him in public because they see what he's doing to me.  That he is online writing hundreds of posts per day and will take them down just like he's taking me down.  Basically, dude is about as big a bully as you can imagine, people are scared to speak up to him.  Worhipper was neg-repped merely for refusing to do business with him.  ndnhc was false accuse and possibly framed by him.  I am still being attacked by him.  He's neg-repped me with up to 3 alts (isn't this against the rules?).  What can we do to end this nonsense?

If this is true, then can you list the names of these people who have PMed you so that you can prove your claims here?

I won't neg-rep the people you name. Quickseller won't. TC won't. (Okay - I can't guarantee QS and TC won't but I make that claim based on the fact I'm 99% sure they wouldn't do that just for them stating their opinion)

How funny, so someone can't hate QS or TC? You will neg rep person that hates you? And if I say I hate theymos or badbear does that means I'm a scammer and deserve red? Very funny trust system, we are not allowed to hate someone on default trust, beware of negative if you do !

I can understand why people only say sorry to him, look what he did. Tspacepilot trolled QS . QS search an old thread just to give him red trust yay! So everyone that hate or troll or stand against QS will suffer the same fate. Perhaps QS search all transaction just to mark all your alt, who knows?

Anyway i like QS scam busting, he has identified a lot of scammer but this thing with tspacepilot is off the limit. Neutral rating is better

Wow this is really sad that he is in the default list again . It is definitely true that he doesn't do things based on whats real and whats not but heavily lets his ego influence his decisions.
I am sure TC would have read this thread by now , but no idea why he chose to ignore it .


I know I have repeatedly pointed this out but you should also make him aware of how he puts trust on 2 exactly similar cases.  pagalwana , proved earlier to be an alt account of a scammer was given as collateral for a loan . Quickseller initially added a negative trust to the account  . Later that person who got the account asked Quickseller to act as an escrow for the sale of the account and just because Quickseller was getting 1$ for the trade he agreed and removed his negative trust. I actually had an exactly same case where I purchased the account from the person who initially gave the loan . The trust got added just as the same way after 2 months but just because I didn't use QS as an escrow and criticized his trust , he didn't care about the case after that. I believe its definitely not right to have him in the default list .

Whatever, bro.

Why it does not surprise me that people who is against quickseller is 99% marked red by him? You, in this case, you have other neutral ratings by highly trusted members as well, why would tomatocage care about this thread? Nothing said here did in any way prove that quickseller has been giving bad ratings constantly.

I think that Tomatocage has already noticed this thread and maybe (like someone said) he doesn't want to conversate with you.

I could.  But I think it's only fair to contact them first, since what they said to me was that they don't want to be associated with criticizing him.  I would only reveal these people if they okayed it explicitly because they clearly told me they didn't want to speak up for fear of negative repurcussions.  I hope you understand.


I find it extremely surprising because I don't know tomatocage well at all, I have posted the entirety of my conversations with him above, and as you can see there was nothing but a short and civil exchange.  That he would have added QS to his list and then immediately blocked me seems weird to me.  For a moment I thought that perhaps he was pm blocking everything and simply looking for correspondence with email.  I emailed him at that moment but haven't heard back.  I don't want to start to many rumors, but there was this weird thing where QS was selling a default trust account, it seems too "conspiracy theory"-like to be true, but notice:

1) QS selling default trust account
2) QS making a public threat to "stop me" in a thread three days ago
3) TC readding QS and blocking pms from tspacepilot just after.

I would love it if anyone who does have contact with TC could confirm that he's aware of this situation and perhaps pass along some rationale about why he wouldn't like to discuss it.  I'm just finding his closed-door suspciously different from what happened last time I contacted him.


If I have trolled QS, it was only in defense of my own reputation, which he made threats against and trolled using many accounts across many threads for months.  If I were to document all of the insults and threads in which he or an alt of his has attacked me it would fill more a small book at this point.   He's not only trolled me, but cost me money now on more than one occassion.  We know that when I admit he has cost me money he sits back and laughs, because his ultimate goal here is to cause me pain because for some reason he has chosen that I am some kind of mortal enemy to him.  Belive me, I really just want the harrassment and lies against me to end.  And I am finding it shockingly unbelievable that someone who behaves this way is getting trusted by the real TC.

What can I do here, people?  How long can this kind of randomly stupid abuse be allowed?

I'm not against Quickseller (I've never even interacted with him/her) but I really feel this issue needs resolving.
tspacepilot is not a scammer.

Is there no way you can remove this negative trust Quickseller? For the good of the forum?

Please!

Be a good man & end this dispute.
I don't want to get too involved but this does need resolving once & for all.

Look at 'TradeFortress' trust (The guy at the centre of this dispute)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=67058

Tspacepilot did withdrew coins he got using "bot chat". See reference link -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11163154#msg11163154.

Don't mix things saying "TF is a scammer, so no words said by him can be trusted or is true" which is the exact argument of yours and tspacepilot's.

Even if he did use a bot in a chat room it's not really a scam is it?
I dunno, I'm out......

I just think this needs resolving. Could Quickseller at least change his trust on TSP to neutral? It's gone on too long.
Shake hands & move on?

Why would quickseller change his negative trust? Using a bot is not a scam or a crime, using a bot to SCAM its a scam, he broke the rules of that specific site to gain profit, its like using a bot to claim from the same faucet without waiting the necessary period of time, thats scamming the site's owner.

I just don't like to see confrontation. This was supposedly 2 years ago. Is there even any definitive proof or is it just TradeFortress vs TSP? One mans words against anothers?

TradeFortress looks to be the biggest scammer on here except Karpeles - he 'lost' over 4000 bitcoin.

TSP doesn't even trade as far as I can see & this one indiscretion looks to have ruined him.  

That's the one thing about the trust system that bugs me, a user can have 99 positive trust feedbacks but 1 negative from somebody on default trust & it's game over for them.

You don't mix things, MZ.  I admited that I was experimenting with bots using TFs approval and help.  I admited that there were a million bots on that site and that I was merely one of many people experiminting and learing about the API. I admitted that it was my first time dealing with asynchronous code and that I made mistakes.  I never found out if or how much I might have gotten from any mistakes because TF was making up numbers (lying!) about how much he wanted repaid.  If he had been more reasonably, it's completely possible that I owe him 10Ksat or something like that.  However, he wouldn't be talked to about it.  He merely said PAY BACK X OR BE BANNED.  And every time he said X it was different.  His first X was like 1.5 bitcoin which I didn't even have at the time (it was waaaaay more than I had withdrawn from his site, ever), then he started picking other numbers but wouldn't say how he was generating them.  Sounds a lot like a scammer himself, right?  Well, what has history shown us here?  And what would you do in such a situation?


You have no idea what happened on that site or what my motivations were and neither does QS. That is the whole issue here, QS has spammed my trust rating with 3 separate acccounts (trust abuse?) over something which is merely an unsubstantiated allegation from a completely discredited source.  You don't know anything about that site or it's rules and neither does he.  He just found something which he thinks is okay to make some kind of smear attack on me with and he's clinging to it for months now as he tries to do as much damage to me as possible.  He goes on and off of default trust because of these vendettas and anger-sessions.  XinXan, if you want to participate in this topic helpfully, try to stick to things you have first hand knowledge of.  When you spread a lie started by TF, echoed by QS, echoed by QS's alt, echoed by you (are you one of QS's alts?) then that's a rumor mill and it has nothing to do with the truth.

I re-added QS to my list because he's good at weeding out the scammers. While I realize that there may be some ruffled feathers because of this, I feel that it's better to prevent people from losing potentially a lot of real money than it is to have a handful of people upset about it. In the end though, your grievance is with QS, not with me.

I'm glad to hear from you.  I guess I'm mainly surprised that you would have taken the time to block pms from me, I don't know if I offended you ever, but I certainly have no grievance with you, as far as I know.   In fact, last time you put QS on your list I recall that you very smoothly brokered peace in this unneccesary situation very effectively.  When I saw you had QS back on your list, I was actually happy to see it was you for figuring that you would have him remove his attacks once you saw he had readded them after you had let him go the first time.  Thus my surprise at PM block.

Anyway, as I said, it seems unfortunate that we're doing this publically rather than privately, but here it is: can you talk to quickseller about how he might be appeased to remove his negative rating upon my account?  I have a long reputation of being helpful and causing no harm and the last 4 months of fighting with him over some false allegations has really taken a toll.  What can I do?  Can you help?

--TSP

There must be a way to resolve this like gentlemen. No more arguing etc.
Quickseller what say you my friend?

Virtual handshake with TSP?
Remove that negative trust that is ruining TSP from 2 years ago?

A fresh start?

And TSP remove your negative trust on QS?
Come on guys, none of you 2 are scammers, we know the truth. Let's catch the real bad guys :)

The thing which makes me hard to believe that was a mistake is your bot's name, "b0t". See the bolded part of SaltySpitoon's post -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3270393#msg3270393.

However, as you did not have any scammy/shady behavior, I think its good to change negative feedback to neutral.

Edit: I guess BadBear does not think violating TOS deserves a negative trust.


Edit 2: Well, whether returning coins or not also shows honesty of the user.

So, where do we go from here.

I have an issue with tomatocage for adding a known trust-abuser (three separate neg-reps on my account, none of them valid, all alts of the same person) to his trust list.

He says that he's worried about people losing "real money" but it's not clear that quickseller is helping any more than he's hurting.  See his history of adding neg-rep to worhipper for merely refusing to use his services, see his false accusation of ndnhc (and the potential that he's the one who planted the "evidence"---that whole scandal).

At this point, several people have spoken up in this thread saying that QS should drop his attack on me.  Basically everyone who looks into this agrees that what's going on here is some kind of personal vendetta from QS against me.  I've gotte several more messages from people to that effect, supporting me, in my PMs but those people have explicitly asked me not to bring them up in this thread for fear of repercussions from QS.  If you ask me, they have a point, I certainly wish I could make this nonsense attacker leave me alone.

Furthermore, there's the very strange behavior of TC in this situation.  Only 2 days before QS was readded to TCs list, he made a public threat against me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1125296.msg11903743#msg11903743


It seems almost too much to believe, but this threat, along with the fact that QS recently sold a default trust account, along with the fact that TC had me PM blocked before I even said anything to him makes me wonder if TC was the account which was sold and/or if QS has control of this account.

Given the unexpected taciturn behavior from TC regarding this, and the conspiracy of events surrouding it, I think it would be really great if TC could sign a message from his staked bitcoin address to prove that he's still the same guy who was kindly convincing QS to let go of this nonsense a few months ago.  Once he signs this message, I hope he'll address my questions above to him?  Will he stand by QS's slander of me and other innocent people?  Will he reach out to QS in reason to get him to drop his false charges as he did before?  If not, why not?

Beyond that, people, I ask you, what can I do?

I don't want QS to persecute me forever.  I have never done him any wrong other than calling out his bad-attitude and confrontational style.  I have never had any business with him and almost assuredly never will.  He has no trust-spammed me with three alt accounts and makes threats at me.  Surely something can/should be done.

QS, will you drop this fight?  To be completely honest, your reputation will actually improve greatly if you can show people that you're willing to admit when you're wrong and walk away from personal vendettas.  What on earth do you want from me?

QS, TC, mods, please reply.  This situation has gone on long enough, let's fix this problem and move on with our lives please!

Count me in the same boat. Really don't know what to do next. It sucks when you know you are not a scammer , and show him every proof of it but he disregards it all making weird impossible theories.

Although quickseller is the only one to give you negative trust rating, you can see that you have also 2 neutral but bad ratings from highly trusted people so maybe quickseller is not so wrong after all?

Tomatocage did not add a trust-abuser because quickseller is not one, he would have negative ratings by now if he really was one

You should read carefully before posting to increase your post count. One of them is just saying that its a bought account which I have always said. The other one is a different issue which I have already proven to be false and is not a scam accusation.

This kind of comment is a little bit like standing around while someone is being shoved into a police car and shouting out "the police aren't abusers, if they were they would have been stopped by now".  It's all well and good that you shout your ideas from the sidelines, but you're not the one under attack (at the moment) and you don't know anything about the facts of the case (apprantely).  In point of fact, QS has trust-spammed me (using sockpuppets to add extra negative ratings), this is on its face trust-abuse (and this kind of behavior has been called such by quickseller himself).  And he has received many negative ratings, but the hegemony of the default trust regime means those aren't seen very often or considereed.

QS is trying to climb a power-ladder.  The issue is that he's as volitile as a bag of dynamite.  If you're looking out for your own interests you're quite right to do nothing but praise him as criticising him is likely to get you in the same trouble with him that I'm in.

Here's another, more important question: if quickseller isn't a trust abuser, why isn't he explaining himself in this thread?  All he has done is pop in and make a joke about offering money to someone who could convince him.  This mockery isn't helpful and it does nothing to resolve the conflict.  If you look at what TC wrote, he is all but admitting that QS is wrong in my case but sems me as some kind of colateral damage which is outweighed by some kind of perceived god that QS can do.  But again, how is it right that QS is allowed to damage and burn his way to the top and the innocents that he hurts are just some kind of collateral damage?

Why won't TC answer my questions?   Why did he pre-emptively block PMs from me?  How is this related to QS's personal threat on me?

Why won't QS right this wrong?  How many people are afraid to speak up after seeing what's happening to me?

I don't think you're going to win this one tspacepilot, I just don't know what to suggest. I feel sorry for you. I know you're not a scammer but I don't think QS is going to remove that negative trust. Is there anything you could do to ask him to remove it? What was the supposed amount you scammed (I know you didn't) , maybe paying that amount to where it was supposed to have come from is the only way he might help you? Failing that getting on your knees & begging could be the only option :(

I appreciate your reply, LFC_Bitcoin.  I'm going to offer some in-line replies:

I honestly think that QS got into this mess with me thinking he would squish me immediately and that I'd disappear or go make a new account or something.  I don't think he expected me to hang in here and keep on questioning (in public) what he's done to me and what he continues to do.  I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that we're going to see a tradefortress style fall-from-grace and then QS's false ratings will be just as quaint as the one from TF that I have.I have asked, in a lot of ways it's the main point of this thread to try to find out what QS wants done in order to resolve this.  At the very least I think he should address the fact that he has trust-spammed with 3 accounts.  This is against forum rules, as far as I know.
Actually, nobody knows.  This was one of the main sticking points two years ago.  Tradefortress was saying that I scammed him for all kinds of exorbitant amounts, amounts I didn't even have to my name.  I could never get him to nail down how he was coming up with these numbers and each time we talked, his demands changed.  I think his current demand on my account (by current, I mean the one he seemed to have settled on is like .5BTC, but this amount is outlandish.  If I do owe him anything for mistakes with my bot experiment, it's on the order of kSat, not BTC.  But he won't talk to me about this, so we walked away (years ago).  QS picked up this nonsense and started attacking me with it in March of this year.I guess I would beg if that would improve things.  But I really think it's important to make public the kind of damage that QS is doing. I'm not the only one he's done this to.  His volitility combined with his ambition can be very dangerous.  Only recently he threatened me with some kind of "measures" which would be taken against me.  I have to wonder if the current TC/QS situation is a part of those measures and I have to wonder how many accounts he's controlling at the moment.

I'm at a loss mate, I wish I could help. You helped me a few times with advice on techie stuff in other threads. I've enjoyed interacting with you since we enrolled in the Da Dice campaign & still do. I just have to wish you good luck with it all. I'm a nobody on here, QS wouldn't listen to me any way but for whatever little it's worth, I trust you fully.

I appreciate the kind words, and I hope that QS doesn't exact revenge on you for speaking up in here.  I've been contacted by several others who weren't so brave.

In theory, if you want to express your trust for me, you should add me to your trust list.  However, I don't really have much of a trust list to speak of myself---I'm not active in this trust-wrangling game that goes on here, so you wouldn't actually get any information by inheriting my trust network.  Anyway, I guess it would show a small vote of confidence.  But the kind words are probably more meaningful.

I'm also at a loss.  TF's accusations against me are nonsense, and were shown to be such over history.  QS latched onto this and I think it's just making him look worse and worse---I'm quite surprised that someone as notable as TC is willing to vouch for his behavior.  Too bad that TC and QS seem to be ignoring this thread at the moment.  TC's only comment was to the effect that I'm probably being burnt here but "sorry", there was some greater good to be served.  And QS's only reply in here was a mockery about paying someone to convince him that I'm "innocent".

Meanwhile, trust is unregulated so other big-wigs will most likely just stay out of this and do nothing.  Alas, the default-trust regime.  The best thing that could happen would be for everyone to remove default trust from their trust lists and start building their own networks.  Then we wouldn't have these trust-wranglers trying to work their way into power via scorched-earth strategies and self-promotional tactics.

I'm not worried about that. I don't trade, I don't offer any kind of business or service so there's not a lot he could say. Anything he said would make him lose credibility.  There is nothing bad or untrustworthy about me. I'm a good guy.

QS does do a lot of great work protecting people on this forum but in your case I think he's wrong.

I've just looked in from afar & seen your pain. I just hope it all works out soon.

As I have said what feels like a long time ago, I dont think this should still be an issue. Yet it is. Im not entirely sure what Quicksellers motivation is and in fact I dont need to know. I know QS is very strict regarding the removal of trust. The idea that an account can be washed clean and thus a scammer can get away with a scam is something QS is against strongly. I mostly agree, yet still think that anyone should be given a chance to redeem themself. On top of that I remember to have read the thread that "proves" tspacepilots scam and I came to the conclusion that it does not deserve a negative feedback[1].

I also stated and I still think this is true that the rating by QS is fine and that they should stay on DefaultTrust.

Its seems though that neither of you two (QS & tsp) can just let this be and get on with your lives. Is it that you tspacepilot are hindered by the rating in any way or is this an ego/honor thing?

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11167058#msg11167058

I would love to let it go and move on, last time QS was on TC's list, TC kindly convinced QS to change one of his ratings against me to neutral rather than negative.  I changed my (only) rating against him to neutral rather than negative as a guesture of good-will (noting that his rating is seen much more widely than mine and has much more impact).  I think this demonstrates the fact that I am willing to bury the hatchet and move on.

However, shortly after TC removed QS, he changed his ratings back to negatives and then added a new negative with yet another alt.  I thought it was only fair for me to change my one rating on him back to negative.

Then TC has readded QS just in the middle of a signature-advertising campaign so my account get's a red "WARNING" flag for those who use default trust and while the campaign manager was understanding that I wasn't at fault in any way, they didn't want to continue to rent my signature space as long as I had the WARNING.  So, in this way, the rating hinders me.  Very muchly so.

I hope that TC or QS can take the time to respond to what you and I and LFC_Bitcoin have written.   Almost everyone who has commented in this thread has said that they think that QS should remove his rating or change it to a neutral.   I add that he also ought to delete his sock-puppet ratings from his alts, as trust-spam is supossed to be against the rules.  Overall, I would like nothing more than to see the end of this. I feel like I've been under attack for no reason for the last approx 4 months.  However, as long as the slanderous ratings stand and are considered "default trust" ratings, then I really have no choice but to keep drawing attention to them and asking why.  One of the really strange issues to me at the moment is how taciturn tomatocage is regarding this---in contrast to last time when he added QS and was able to convince him to let the issue go for the greater good.

I believe threads which are intended to draw attention are allowed to do one daily bump, mods if this isn't true, please let me know.

I'm bumping this because every respected member who has looked over this situation is calling for QS to remove his negative trust on me.  Tomatocage seems to be suggesting that I'm sort or collateral damage which shouldn't happen but he's "trusting" QS for some greater good.  I require QS to address these concerns:

1) Everyone around you who you respect is asking you drop these false charges against me.  Why not do so and move on, it will only help your reputation to learn to admit that you can be wrong.
2) Leaving multiple trust ratings from alts is considered trust spam.  Please consolidate your trust ratings from your alts.  You have currently left me negative trust with three separate accounts (note the only other negative I've received has been from tradefortress, who's lies you're currently echoing).

I guess what I want to ask the wider world is also this:

Have you guys noticed how all the dudes jockying for power echo each other's trust ratings like it's a job?  They see that Vod (formerly) or Tomatocage leaves a negative trust then they drop in an echo.  How is this helpful to the community as a whole?  I see how it's helpful for the individuals---they can leave boastful posts saying I've neg-repped N scammers, but really they're not knowing anything about the situation, they're just echoing what others have found out in order to make themselves look good.

Then there's the self-promotion, because this forum often acts like an echo-chamber, we have QS shouting out about how good he is at catching scammers, but what scammers has he actually caught?  I've seen him be wrong many times (me, ndnhc, worhipper_-_, possibly Twister, idk) and I've never seen him back down once he's been shown wrong.  But weekly he posts about how when he's not on default trust, scammers are getting away with it.  But what evidence is that this is actually true?   It works like a rumor mill, he posts 1000 times a day, 10% of those posts are self-promotional, he leaves a million negative reps a day, most (all?) of them echos of what others have said or figured out, and then people start believing it.  Tomatocage: you say you "trust" quickseller (despite the many times that he's obviously been wrong and depsite his intransigence and inability to admit mistakes and his fiery temper and vengeful attitude and his abuse of the trust system (by trust-spamming using alts)) because "he's good at catching scammers".   Can you give us some evidence of this?

Quickseller: can you please leave me alone so I can stop having to defend myself against you?   Please listen to reason and the voices of your peers, everyone on here is asking you to drop this fight.  Ignoring the fact that you are wrong here is making you look bad.

Others on default trust: if TC and QS refuse to engage, I think it's time to ask you to weigh the evidence and consider putting ~Quickseller onto your trust lists until this can be resolved.  It's completely unjust to have a guy with a scorched-earth policy who's been shown to be falsely accusing people more than once and who acts in such an immature and vengeful manner on default trust.  Many people are scared to speak up against him just because of the power he now has and they don't want to end up like me with alts appearning every month to troll them and with false charged painted on their accounts.  At the very least, if TC and QS will not continue the discussion in this thread, please speak up here if you're on default trust to discuss why you will or will not add ~Quickseller to your trust list.

Mmm. I don't believe you can apply this logic to people who are already on depth 2 or 1 of DefaultTrust (we're on DefaultTrust to do things like that), but with people who aren't on DefaultTrust you definitely see that a lot. I wouldn't put it as "jockeying for power", but more trying to get on DefaultTrust.

But meh, the event in question for the negative trust happened 2 years ago. I see the reasoning for the negative trust but after that long it probably should just be let go. It wasn't *scamming* per se either like how EAL didn't *scam* Stunna by (allegedly) abusing the PrimeDice giveaway, just shady.

This whole thread in general from all main participants is ridiculous though. How the hell have you guys let this go on so long? Try an alternate route rather than all trying to scorched-earth (yes, your favourite phrase tspacepilot, but you do it as well) your way to the top by destroying each other's rep.

to echo each other robotically?  How is that a good thing?  Doesn't this make default trust network into some kind of thoughtless monolith?  I have to admit, I don't understand what you meant by this parenthetical.Closer to 3 years, actually, but anyway, This is exactly what I'd expect you to say to tradefortress, were he around and listenging to reason "hey, tspacepilot and you seem to have had some misunderstanding, maybe it's time to let it go".  However, tradefortress isn't even involved here.  What's going on is that QS is using tf's false accusations to try to smear me.  QS has no knowledge of the original situation and shouldn't be prentending to.  What's happening is that he's taking the word of a known scammer and using alts to trust-spam me with it.  It really should be making him look very bad.  I'm quite surprised that anyone with such an MO would be added to a default trust list.
I appreciate your sentiment, DC.  The only thing I'd like to add is that while it may seem like I'm also doing some sort of "scorched-earth", my motivation here is merely defensive.  Yes, I've been fighting back against QS for months now.  But crucially, I'm not jockying for power (or trying to get on default trust).  I'm just trying to defend myself against an unwarranted smear campaign.  When I say that QS is trying to do a scorched-earth strategy on his march to the top I'm referring to his quick-temper, his intransigence and unwillingness to admit he's been wrong.  He neg-reps and walks away.  Then makes mocking posts saying he'll offer money to anyone who can convince him he's wrong.   While I am indeed fighting back against QS's attacks on me, I'm not doing any scorched-earth strategy because I'm not going around picking fights and neg-repping people.  I basically spend my time on here chatting about the technical details of bitcoin, trying to help newbies (especially with linux-related topics) and learning a lot (I invite you to look through my post history of the last 3 years for evidence of this).  I don't trade and I don't scam and I don't fight with people (unless they are attempting to smear me, in which case, yes, I *do* fight back).

I think that QS really, honestely expected to be able to steamroll me off the forum (or at least into creating another account, or purchasing a new account---maybe from him?!).  That seems to be what happened to the other people he's attacked.  But I'm not going to give him that satisfaction.  I haven't done anything wrong and I'm not going to let a bully force me off here.  QS has cost me time and money but I'm going to keep on defending myself until he leaves me alone.

You say to try an alternate route, but what alternate route is there for me?  Guy has left me 3 neg-reps using 3 accounts and was only recently making direct threats against me.  What else can I do but call him out in meta for this behavior and ask him to stop?  The real surprising thing to me in this situation is TC's silence.  Last time he brought QS onboard he made an effort to fix this (and it was fixed, for a while).  Why would he pre-emptively PM-block me?  I find it very weird.

Anyway, QS/TC, yet another respected community member is calling for you to fix this.  Please listen to reason!

QS and TC are still not responding.

I'm considering locking this thead and breaking it out into separate threads for the separate issues at play here:

1) TC is responsible for the actions of the people on his trust list.  If he trusts someone who is abusing others, then he is abusing others.  He says above that my gripe is with Quickseller, not with him.  However, as long as he's vouching for Quickseller's actions, I think it's only fair to ask that he engage in a discussion with me.  Given that last time he put QS on his trust list he was very very open and helpful and this time he's got me PM blocked before I even tried to write to him, I consider this to be very fishy.  Given that QS was recently selling a default trust account and that he threatened me openly just two days before being readded to TC's list, I think this is extra fishy.  I don't want to put on a tinfoil hat yet, but think it's only fair to ask that TC respond to trust abuse that's happening in his name.

2) QS is trust spamming.  He has attacked me with three separate accounts.  Even if his gripe against me is valid, he should consolidate his negative ratings under one account.

3) QS is trust abusing.  His gripe with me is clearly personal and puntive and has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of this forum.  He needs to come up with some kind of evidence that I did something wrong sometime if he wants to leave negative trust.  Leaving negative trust for personal reasons unrelated to anything is abusive.

Mods, should I lock this thread and make these three separate threads in an effort to better separate the issues at play and try to get some response?

As someone recently said to me in a PM, dealing with QS is next-to-impossible, he either comes up with a valid reply to something you say or else he ignore you completely and goes off-topic.  Literally his only reply to this thread was to openly mock me saying that he would pay BTC to anyone who could convince him to leave me alone.  Clearly he's enjoying the fact that (1) he's currently on default trust and he doesn't want attention drawn to all this abusive stuff he does so he's ignoring this thread (2) he's celebrating the fact that he's hurting me by being allowed to stay on default trust and keep his false and abusive ratings against me active (last time he was here he was forced to modify them to neutrals).


Edit: Given that (again) no one is responding, I have gone ahead and split this thread out into three separate threads for the separate issues:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142352.new#new
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142353.new#new
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142354.new#new

Please comment on these issues in these threads, depending on your topic. This topic is now locked.

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.


Topic I (tomtatocage MIA):


I hope that Tomatocage will respond soon to this topic I.


Topic II (Quickseller Trust spam/sockpuppetry):



Topic III (Quickseller leaving false ratings based on known lies):


On this last topic III, there is a minor update which is that I have written a personal message to Quickseller to try to see if we can talk in private in order to come to some agreement over this.  I have to admit that I am not extremely optimistic that this will work, but I think it's worth a try.  Literally everyone on here is tired of hearing about this issue (I think) and perhaps even Quickseller is ready to admit that I'm not a threat to anyone.  If he and I can work something out privately, it may be that Topic III will soon be resolved.

He has also done this to me refer to signature.

Your signature is inaccurate!


~BCX~

Of course. They control the default trust system, allow it to be abused left and right, protect their clique, and throw everyone else to the fire so they can maintain the image of legitimacy. When I was dealing with VODs abusive ratings I received several threats of a permaban from Badbear claiming I was off topic, some times in my own OPs even. Yet anyone arguing against me off topic was allowed to go on for page after page after page, regardless of it being reported. They protect freedom of speech here, that is until you question them or if it makes their pals look bad. In that case you'd better STFU and fall in line or else suddenly you will find yourself breaking rules you didn't even know existed, and all their lackeys vying for a position in the default trust list will line up to take pot shots at you to earn brown nose points, or to protect their existing privileged position in default trust.

If you ask others to speak on your behalf, then suddenly you are accused of "shilling" or using sock puppets. It is an organically formed coordinated effort to protect their position of control based on self interest. They have a direct monetary incentive to do so, because people seek to trade with those on the default trust more because if they rate you it will raise the trust they have visible by default. If you are new making a complaint, you are just a sock puppet or a scammer and dismissed. If you have a reputation, then they have something to take from you. Either way they still control the situation to their own benefit via selective enforcement of all these unwritten, unofficial rules that change depending on who it is being enforced upon.

There is little concern for the individual here unless it serves some higher use to them. If you are rocking the boat to get some right wronged, you are more likely to get the hammer than help unless it serves them. Your situation with Quickseller appears to me to be a very similar scenario, and no one of much note will speak in your defense for fear of retribution from Quickseller or the staff.

Lets be honest tecshare your comments are always against the trust system so they dont really add much value to any conversation, why make it such a big deal that you got a red trust anyways? You can still use your account as always, you dont seem to have any kind of business anyways here, selling stuff or anything so whats the big deal? You can always take loans or trade if you use escrow

I don't get it, how can you say he can use his account normally with red trust ? He cant even join campaigns and his account is worth virutualy nothing now, in comparison to what it was before. Many will agree with techshare that trust system as it is sucks. At the least it should be moderated to some extent. Centralized trust on a decentralization forum - mind blown.

cheers

What tspacepilot posted does not need three threads as all 3 was basically talking about one thing. That's why, they were deleted.


He was once in default trust list and he got removed and probably, will never return. Plausibly, that's why, he is angry(?)!


Vod removed his negative feedback. Now, he does not have any negative feedback from people in default trust list.


He does trade here. Check his trust ratings and/or post history.


He does not have negative feedback from people in default trust list.


Wrong!


I don't think so but if you think it is not needed, then come with a better one. If it is better than current trust system, theymos will replace current trust system with yours.


Massive trust spam can be removed by contacting theymos but he does not do it always.


This is not a decentralized forum. Why does people think this forum is decentralized? This forum is absolutely controlled by a central authority.

First of all, some campaigns accept neg trust people and yeah maybe his account is virtually worth nothing now but my point still stands, he can still use his account and do business just as easy, using escrow of course, gaining the trust back but he would be able to do so and use the forum normally

Because staff here are Gods and should be followed blindly like sheeps.


It is not the question of motive, the question is weather he makes a valid point or not.


We were talking about op here, who does in fact have negative feedback from people in default trust list. (QS)


Read answer above, he does.



With red trust ? Yeah right..



I did not say this is decentralized forum. I said it's a decentralization forum aka forum about decentralization.

Seems like your only motivation on this forum is to participate on signature campaigns because you are making a big deal out of it and as i said he can join to some campaigns anyways, if he points out any reason of why he wouldnt be able to do X thing because he got that negative trust rating i would change my mind

If that was my only motive i wouldn't be here in meta pointing at things that almost noone wants to. I'm in a campaign because it's convenient. Anyways it's hypocritical of you because you're in a campaign as well.
In regards to "things he can not do" because of the -ive, you should talk with him.

cheers

Wrong!


He mostly posts against staffs and trust system but does not necessarily post valid points.

Is autocorrect active?


XinXan was talking about TECSHARE. He was replying to TECSHARE and he mentioned "you". Read carefully!


Weird! That does not make sense.

Wiki - Decentralization (or decentralisation) is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.

People, TECSHARE is welcome to drop a comment in this thead.  As his comment has to do with trust issues, it's relevant to the topic.  However, filling up entire pages abotu what TECSHARE's motivation might or might not be is getting off-topic.  There are three topics here: Tomatocage vouching for a trust abuser and not willing to discuss it; QS's trust spam (many ratings against one person using sockpuppets); QS's false rating against me.  Please stay on topic.  At this point, private discussions are going on with QS which I have smallest sliver of hope that they will lead to some resolution---this is with respect to QS's false ratings.  The other two topics are not currently being addressed in any way.  They are also really important and need to be addressed.

This shows how completely ignorant you are of the situation, yet you still have no trouble claiming authority on the subject.


Thanks. It gets a bit old that every time I try to make a point about the trust 3 or 4 of the same brown nosing lackeys go right into accusations of various types trying to discredit my point some how as if what I went thru is an isolated incident that has nothing to do with all the other similar incidents of abuse here.

The reason I am targeted so heavily for this is because unlike 90% of the people who make these complaints, I have an extensive trade history here with good ratings, making it very difficult for them to marginalize me as a scammer or sock puppet, so they have to resort to attacking my reputation, or threatening administrative action. This is also part of their strategy to bait me into having an off topic discussion so they can then report me and get my posts removed, as well as potentially ban me.




I posted here in this thread because I find it relevant as I see many of the same patterns of behavior happening against tspacepilot. Yes he is very vocal, but considering the fact that the system is design to narrow his options to practically nothing except making posts, as long as he is not abusively spamming up the forum with endless topics, he should be allowed to talk for as long as he likes regardless if anyone likes it or not. In reality, this isn't hurting anyone.

I find the fact that Badbear is trying to limit his ability to speak is telling and behavior I recognise from my own interactions when my words became inconvenient for him. When you catch his ire suddenly all kinds of rules that were never a problem before suddenly need to be enforced. As I said previously not only was I threatened with a permaban several times for being "off topic", even in my own threads, he even blocked me from sending him PMs in spite of the fact I have only sent him a handful of messages the entire time I have been here. He is just that annoyed with me and will do anything he can get away with to take punitive action in order to get me to shut up and tow the line. I find people here in general don't give a shit about anything until it effects them personally, or they can get some kind of entertainment value out of it, and I don't see any reason why this case is any different.

As far as Tomatocage, I find his ratings are usually accurate, and he is reasonable in general, but unfortunately he does not apply the same careful attitude to his trust list. This is not the first time TC has given authority to trust system abusers and allowed them to continue with their behavior.

I have to admit that I don't trade on here and I don't really keep up with who's a scammer and who's not a scammer.  I do try to warn people to be careful when I see people talking about doing some thing foolish.  I'm saying this in order to emphasize that I don't really know much about tomatocage as a whole.  I have had very limited interaction with him.  What stands out to me very starkly is the difference between this interaction and the last time.  (The PMs are posted upthread on like page 1 or 2 if you're intersted.)  Last time he was very cordial and made a big effort to tell QS that he needed to be sure that he wasn't putting up personal vengence ratings---within less than 24 hours he was able to convince QS (somehow) to change his slanderous ratings on me to neutrals.   When I saw that QS had returned his false ratings to negatives after being kicked of TC's list, I thought "oh well".  When I saw that TC had readded QS, I honestly expected that things would go as before, that TC would tell QS that he needed to fix his shit in order to be allowed on default trust.  I was quite shocked to find the PM block.  To me, it seems very suspicious.  And I realize that this is speculative, but given QS's open threat against me only 2 days before being readded and given QS' selling of some account on default trust and combining that with the stark contrast between TC's behavior this time and his behavior last time, I have to wonder if this is the same TC.

This is a strategy often used by those in control of the default trust list to protect their pals. They wag their finger at them, remove them for a short time, then re-add them again knowing no one will listen to the complaints a second time. VOD loved taking this strategy with his own ratings removing them after public pressure is applied, then adding them back later after everyone moves on.

I'm sorry, but who else besides myself has ever been added to Default Trust Network after being removed? The only other example I can think of is TBZ, however he was put back on because he had removed the negative rating that got him removed in the first place.

VOD was temporarily removed by one or two people who were responsible for him being on the default trust. He was never completely removed, but then he was quietly re-added later by some of these same people. Additionally I explained how this strategy was used to abuse the trust system by the individual abusers themselves. It is a process of temporary appeasement until the crowd stops looking, then continuing with the same abusive policies once they are not.

UPDATE:

Private talks with Quickseller to try to resolve this 6 month long trust-abuse saga have ostensibly broken-down.  QS has not replied to a simple request that he explain his negative feedback.  I honestly don't know the etiquette with respect to prosting private messages, so I won't do that unless QS has okayed it.  Instead, I'll simply summarize the conversation.  If QS objects to this characterization, then hopefully he'll allow me to simply publish his messages and my replies.  What I'm doing for the moment is trying to summarize his replies without quoting them, and I'm publishing my comments to him in full.

My first message to QS:


2) QS replies that "the fact" that I've stolen from coinchat means others must be warned about me.  And he says something about paying back one of TF's victims as some sort of retribution.



4) QS replies that if I can explain or have someone else explain how I didn't steal from coinchat then he will remove his rating.  He brings up the fact that he offered money to have someone explain to him how I didn't steal from coinchat.  He says he thinks I will always troll him.  He says he will not remove his rating for no reason. 

My reply:


I never heard back from him after this.  3 days later, however, I wrote to him again:


Now, several more days have passed and I still haven't heard from him.  I think that leaves me with no choice but to go back to the sisyphean task of asking the rest of default trust (and others) to look closely at this matter.  Quickseller has left me a negative feedback which interferes with my ability to use the forum and he is on default trust.  He literally refuses to explain his rating.

Furthermore, it's quite a shame that three topics have to be shoved into one thread, but the other two topics here are also crucial:

Quickseller is trust-spamming me, having left 3 negative feedbacks from 3 accounts.  This is a bannable offense in other threads, why is QS allowed to use sockpuppetry to continue his smear campaign against me?  More to the point, why is someone who does this kind of thing on the default trust list?

Tomatocage is normally quote judicious and fair with his ratings, but he is literally vouching for this abusive behavior.  Why is he so nonchalant about the damaging behavoir that's being perpetrated in his name?

I also note that I have written to a collection of 7 mods/staffs/default-trusters about this issue 3 weeks ago and I have not received a single reply.

What can I do to resolve this?  Am I going to have to spend the entirety of 2015 fighting against Quickseller abuse?  How can you guys go on supporting someone who behaves in this way?  Let's bring it back to the beginning, what started here is that I told quickseller he was being and asshole for calling people idiots who disagreed with him.  I told him this is not the way to behave.  6 months later i have 3 negative feedbacks from 3 of his accounts and he has been promoted to default trust.  (Note that I have asked QS to please let me know if there's some other motivation for this, he has not replied).  Note clearly that I am not trying to get onto any trust list, I never trade on here and my goal is simply to stand up for myself in this random, abusive attack from a guy that at this point, bitcointalk default-trust is vouching for.   Why are you guys supporting this terrible, childish, vindictive behavior?  If QS cannot explain his magical knowledge of something that happened on coinchat in 2013, something which no other forum member who was active at the time took issue with, how is it okay for him to use that as a proxy for starting some kind of a sock-puppet smear attack that's now lasted half a year?

It's time to end this issue, if QS cannot explain himself, default trusters needs to exclude him.

Why don't you and Quickseller shake hand and make up. Endless strems of text and explanations. I doubt anybody read it. Come on, life is too short for this type of fights.

Make love not war <3

Interestingly, you had to remove a false negative rating in order to be added, then after being removed, you replaced the rating which you originally had to remove in order to be added.  It sounds a little like the opposite of TBZ's situation.  It certainly is a curious situation that TC allows the false rating to stand this second time around.  I can't explain it and TC's only comment on it suggests apathy.


BrainM:  I'd love nothing more than this.  QS has no real grudge against me (that I can tell).  And I have no real grudge against him (other than his attack on me).  I'm standing here holding out an olive branch and asking him to stop and fix this (really for his own good as much as for mine).  But if he's not going to withdrawal his attack, what can I do but continue to draw attention to it.

I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that it's time for him to end this.  But I have to emphasize, he's the aggressor here, not me.

What would you do if you were in my situation, BrianM?  Imagine that QS suddently turned on you and started neg-repping you left-and-right using sockpuppets and false charges, what would you do?

I would turn off the computer, open a bottle of rum, smoke a cigg and say fuck' it.

Hope you guys find a way to bury the hatchet. Peace, over and out.

BrianM: maybe you would.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what QS expected me to do about 5 months ago.  As far as I can tell, he makes his way to the top by slashing and burning and not looking back.  I believe he thought he could smear me off of the forum and just use me as another stepping stone in his power-trip.  I'm pretty convinced he's a dangerous guy.  But anyway, I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of just going away.  If he's going to persist in throwing false accusations that even he can't explain, using sockpuppets to bump my negative feedback once every two months, etc, then I'm going to have to persist in calling him out.

His stated goal when he started this with me was to get me kicked off a signature ad campaign.  Again, I ask you, would you really let some random guy who buys and sells (default trust) accounts hurt your hero account in the pocketbook?  You would just say fuckit?  I guess I'm not willing to let him get away with it and while I'm sorry that I have to drag everyone else into this, it's really the default trusters who are vouching for his behavior who ought to answer this thread.

Still, I'll register you as yet another in the long list of people asking QS to listen to reason and drop the false accusations (or at least explain them).

This sums up the problem with asking people on the default trust to help in situations like this. No one gives a shit unless it personally affects them, and they will not risk their position on the default trust or their reputation to do what they know is right because they know these people will attack them as well. Like a Mexican standoff they all have their guns pointed at eachother, so they all tow the line right or wrong.

It is like a perfect recipe for nepotism. All the ones on the default trust have all the sticks and all the carrots, so they literally have zero incentive to enforce uniform rules. You have no problem telling people with no sticks or carrots to just let it go after they have been whipped with that stick for no reason though when literally their only option for resolution is to make such disputes public. If you don't like seeing these public disputes, then maybe it is time to change the trust system and time to support the removal of the default trust list. It is pretty shitty to suggest people just let it go after the trust system literally gives them zero influence in the first place, and those with influence actively use it as a tool of retribution.

Never really got why you were so upset with the DT list as it never really hurt your score or anything. Being in the trusted network does not make any difference for your trades (you have excellent history... and I have, and would send to you without escrow any day of the week). What do you expect other DT members to do for him? QS is added by TC and BadBear - they are the only ones who can help.

Back on topic:

Your situation is unique tspacepilot with that scam accusation from so long ago. I can not really say if you scammed TF or not back then, but it does sort of look like you did. Back then TF was not so questionable so his ratings were pretty valid for most of us at that time. I personally would not have left you a negative, but I am not really a scam buster here either. QS does do a good job with scammers here so I do feel he is good for the DT network. He does sometime ruffle some feathers (as expected for what he does). I think you have done pretty much all you can do in this situation. You have also handled it very well by keeping your cool, and overall you seem pretty legit to me. I think you getting a neutral rating from him would be a good call for both parties as everyone here is pretty aware of what went down back then. Anyways good luck with all this.

Anyone on default trust who sees this kind of abuse going on can add ~Quickseller to their trust lists and that fixes the problem.  TC is the only one vouching for his bad behavior at this point.  There may be some kind of gentleman's agreement on the default trust list not to question each other's judgment, I don't know.
That may be the case.  However, what actually happened on coinchat so many years ago is that I was working on an answerbot for the first time, with TF's explicit help. I was new to asynchronous coding and something went down which made TF think I was trying to scam him.  I reached out to him to try to figure out what happened but all I got from him was "pay me back __ BTC or go to hell".  As the figure of BTC he was demanding changed literally every time he asked, I certainly was not very amenable to this.  On several occasions he was asking for more BTC than I even had to my name, it was clearly not calculated or careful in any way and I wasn't even sure what had happened.  I tried to ask him how he was coming up with these numbers but he would not talk to me.  So, that was that, we walked away from it.  Two years later you can see what kind of person he was and I'd like to say that you can see what kind of person I am.

 In fact, nobody at the time who reviewed the discussion thread gave me a negative except for Tradefortress himself.  This stood as my only negative until 6 months ago, when QS decided to try to murder my account.  Since then, I've received 3 more negatives, all from him.  Does he actually do a good job with scammers?  I know he self-promotes like crazy.  It's not hard to find him tooting his own horn every 10 posts or so and whenever he gets kicked off of default trust he shouts about how many people have been scammed because he's not on the default list.  However, I haven't seen any definitive proof that he's actually catching anyone.  I know that he echoes whatever negative ratings other people come up with.  But when it comes to his own "discoveries" it seems there are more false positives than actual scammers.  See the case with ndnhc, who he neg-repped twice and twice was proven wrong.  See the case with worhipper, where he neg-repped a guy just for refusing to work with him.  As far as I've seen, every single time that QS was the one coming up with the neg-rep, it has turned out to be either a mistake or else it was a newbie who clearly decided that it's impossible to try to war with QS and they merely created another account.  I think I'm the first person to try to stand up to him for my own reputation and you can see where it's gotten me: 6 months of trolling and sockpuppet ratings.  You say this is good for the DT network?!


I think it's important to note that last time TC added him, QS was forced to change his rating on me to neutral in order to be put onto TCs list.  It's very strange to me that TC was so proactive in fixing this the first time and so absentee this time. 

Anyway, I do appreciate you weighing in.  And I guess I can add your name to the ever-increasing list of people calling for QS to end this.  As far as I can tell, nearly everyone on the forum is now falling into three distinct classes:

1) People calling for QS to end these shenanigans.
2) People who are ignoring the thread (Tomatocage, Badbear, Quickseller)
3) People who don't care and never will.r

Crucially, I can't seem to find anyone in a fourth class who is saying that QS is right, that it's okay for him to use sockpuppets to neg-rep many times, that he should keep his false rating against me until the end of time.  For me, the most shocking thing is that someone who acts as QS has acted could be put on any trusted list.  Anyone who looks at this case can see what QS was doing here, he went after me with a vengence because I called him a hothead and and asshole.  I said to him directly that he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him and his response was to open an all-out arms race against me.  You guys remember the original scenario, right?  He logged in as his alt, "ACCTSeller" and threatened me,  then he went trolling through my past looking for something to hold against me.  He finally found the Tradefortress negative and necrobumped a 2 year old thread on it with ACCTSeller so that he could log back in as Quickseller and "find" this necrobump and neg-rep me with his main account.  It's crucial to realize that this was before ACCTSeller was outed as a QS alt.  Does this kind of dirtly little sockpuppet game really fit with someone on default trust?  Logging in as an alt to make threats and do dirty work just to log back in as a trusted account and "find" the problems discovered by the alt.   I have to admit, when I saw him doing this, and all of it based on the word of a known scammer Tradefortress, I basically thought to myself "well, he made a mistake there, his reputation is going down the tubes for this one".  The clear vengence, the lack of any wrong by me, the lack of any prompt to attack me, and all of this for nearly a half-a-year and somehow people are putting him onto a default trust list?!  To me, this seems absolutely nuts.

Nevertheless, I'm not out to fix all of the problems of the world, I'm merely fighting for my own reputation against a false accusation and a smear campaign that has lasted waaaaay too long.


Again, thanks Blazedout419.  I wonder if you could send QS a PM and try to get him to listen to reason.  As I posted above, he will not talk to me, apparantely.  He has posted in the past that he respects you so perhaps you can place the peacemaker here as Tomatocage is apparantely not interested in fixing the collateral damage he's causing at this point.

I expect people on the default trust to not just stand by silently while this kind of abuse goes on. Usually it is the complete opposite and they join in on the abuse to earn themselves brown nose points, and occasionally actual positive trust. The default trust is a broken system pretending to be distributed while in reality operating for a centralized position of authority unwilling to enforce or publish uniform rules of use, and some times actively participating in the abuse. I don't think other users would be allowed to use multiple alts to spam a users trust, and people have been removed for far less.

Being on the default trust is like a magnet for money, because people have a direct incentive to trade with those on the default trust in order to increase their own ratings, but that would be invisible to you if you don't trade or until you are removed from it. Additionally, when you are on the default trust list it increases the number of ratings that are counted as positive towards your total visible green rating because of the people in your own trust network rating you (making you appear to be a more appealing trading partner). Then if that is not enough centralized control, all it takes is two high ranked users to make sure no one else can add you to the default trust. That doesn't sound at all decentralized system of merit to me, it sounds more like a political party where those that speak up suddenly find themselves on the outside with little or no explanation.

People who are on the default trust list will not open their mouths when they see abuse like this, because as I said it is like a Mexican standoff, no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out for something that doesn't directly affect them. As a result the system is abused over and over, and no one gives a shit until they are the target, then they get ignored like everyone else does. The ones who have influence are afraid of losing it, and the ones who don't are completely dismissed. This is exactly what is happening in tspacepilot's case.

Since the introduction of neutral ratings, I see no excuse whatsoever for people on the default trust being allowed to throw negatives around like candy without some kind of factual basis or personal involvement in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The excuse of warning other users of potential issues holds no water any more, because a neutral rating can achieve that perfectly well. The "trust list" no longer has anything to do with trust, but is simply a popularity contest and a ranking of the biggest ball-washers, because anyone who doesn't polish those balls gets removed or excluded at the drop of a hat regardless of how long they have been trading, how much they have been trusted with, or how honestly they transact.

It does seem like this is exactly what's going on.  Not a single peep from anyone high up in the trust list on this---despite the fact that it's clear abuse.  Only a few brave souls who are daring to sheepishly say "why don't you guys just shake hands and make up" (well folks, I'd like this as much as you would).

I've sent a message to high-ups and mods, not a single reply.

Here's what everyone else gets told when they cry trust abuse: "don't worry, just bring it up in meta, the person will fix it or they won't be on default trust for long".

Here's what's going on with me: Quickseller is ignoring this thread with all his might because he really can't explain his behavior.  As you said, no one else will step up because apparantely there's some kind of gentlemans agreement that you don't fuck with someone else's trust choices.

Without retyping the whole saga, the current state of affairs is that everyone who is willing to speak up is calling for Quickseller to stop this behavior.  Quickseller is ignoring this thread and my reasonable request that he explain his negative feedback, that he consolodate his sockpuppet ratings, and that he leave me alone.

If you weren't completely flabberghasted that this guy is allowed to do this to someone with no accountability, you might or might not find it shocking that it quite shocking that someone who engages in such puerille and vindictive shenanigans would be put into a position of responsibility.

After all of this, if his behavior is somehow defensible, why won't he speak up to defend it?  If those who trust him really vouch for his actions, why won't they speak up?


EDIT: OP updated to include list of people calling for Quickseller to end this.  If you're brave enough to publically call for Quickseller to end this saga of childishness, feel free to PM me or post in the thread and I can add your quote to the OP.

Like I said in my earlier posts, I think QS should change negative feedback to neutral. If he suspects tsp that much, it is probably better for him to keep an eye on tsp. But for now, although tsp did withdraw those coins, he is not worthy for a negative trust feedback/score.

Thanks again MZ.  I believe I included you in the list of quotes in the OP.

The only think I have to take issue with is this:


In fact, if TradeFortress had been able to talk calmly and rationally about whatever mistake happened when I was working on the bot with his approval, we might have been able to figure out if there were actually any coins which I should have returned.  What actually happened was that he demanded varying random amounts (including amounts I didn't even have to my name) so there was no way to figure out if he was actually interested in making this right or if he was just trying to blackmail me.  Because I couldn't figure this out, there was no way to move forward.  Nearly three years later, we know what kind of person he was and I think people can imagine why I wasn't able to work with him.

I hope that if people keep on unanimously calling for a resolution to this, eventually QS and Tomatocage will have to address it.

Since you're here, I wonder if you'd like to comment on one of the other outstanding issues.  For example, do you think it's okay that QS is using sockpuppets to leave me many negative feedbacks?

I believe we're allowed a daily bump on these types of issues.  Mods, please correct me if this is wrong, I'm not trying to cause trouble.

However, I can't really understand how someone on default trust is allowed to use sockpuppetry to trust-spam me with alts, is allowed to accuse me based on the word of a known liar, and is not required to explain himself.

As someone said to me in a private message recently "I don't know how to deal with quickseller, either he has a valid response to my points or he ignores them".  We can see which mode he's in now.

It's quite clear that he wishes this would just go away without having to explain himself---I can imagine why he doesn't want to be drawn into this.  But then again, if he can't explain his negative rating and everyone is calling for him to remove it (see list of extensive quotes in the OP) then isn't that a clear case of abuse?  Why will no mod or staff speak up?  Is techshare right that there's some sort of backroom club whereby no one on default trust will ever cross another one publically.

To refresh everyone's memory, the last question addressed to quickseller was this:


It's been nearly a week and a half.  If Quickseller has some sort of extra-sensory perception to see into my mind and my actions back in 2012 such that he knows what I did better than I know myself, isn't it time for him to go ahead and tell us how this is the case?  It's been a week and a half, surely he can at least speak up and say something.

If Quickseller refuses to take responsibilty for his smear attack (and you'll note how he's never once addressed the issue of his trust-spamming alts), isn't it time for a mod to question his role on default trust?

I don't want this to go on forever, but QS simply shouldn't be allowed to wage this kind of unrepentant war on someone for so many months using so many accounts without having to say something for himself.

I do believe tspacepilot deserve to get the negative trust feedback removed and QS has not been right in doing this.

Edit: Post was restored. :)

I guess it's time for me to do my regularly scheduled bump of this discussion back to the top.

Mods, isn't there a thing where someone abusing the trust system is supposedly supposed to be required to make some sort of answer to an accusation that his ratings is abusive?

Here we have a guy who would not explain his rating either in PM or in this thread.  And he's left sockpuppet ratings too.  Quickseller, I can see that you're trying to avoid explaining yourself, please look at the OP of this thread and consider doing the reasonable thing that everyone is calling for you to do.

It's time to listen to reason and walk away from this stupid attack on me.  You may get away with this for a time, but this kind of action isn't going to help you or your reputation in the long run.

---

Even more shocking, apprantely the mods are disallowing people to comment in this thread now.  ndnhc wrote to me in a PM that the tried to post this in the thread, but was deleted by a mod?!




^^^Thanks, ndnhc, I'll add your post to the ever-growing list of quotes in the OP.  I hope that QS will start listening to reason soon.  @mods, why would you delete such content?

@tspacepilot


You thread title is misleading.

Everyone is not calling QS to end your imaginary war.

You're just pissed over some well earned negative feedback.

It might have been two years later you were indeed running bots on Coinchat.

You got caught, deal with it.


~BCX~

I think the negative feedback should be removed. It appears that tsp made attempts to resolve the old coinchat issue with tradefortress at the time, but that tradefortress was unwilling to discuss it.

I'm now told that tsp has been banned from posting on this forum for 5 days. That also seems unfair, but I'm sure I don't have the full story.

Is there more to this than the bullying of tsp? What's the motivation for banning him like this?

maybe from QS's perspective, the fact that tsp tried to abuse coinchat in the first place is enough to warrant a lack of trust, but either way, there are multiple  threads started by tsp regarding this issue, which might be the cause for his ban.


not everyone frankly cares all too much either, and yeah, there isnt a war, except in tsp's head.

In this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3254844#msg3254844) post TF claimed that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew .5BTC from coinchat. As much as I dislike taking TF's word for anything, that was the only amount ever presented and tspacepilot never disputed the amount he stole (note: the conclusion that tspacepilot stole money from coinchat was based solely on statements made by tspacepilot and my understanding of the rules of coinchat, and the words of TF were relied upon 0%).

I had suggested to tspacepilot that he could return the money he stole from coinchat however he was not interested in discussing this but rather claimed that he never did anything wrong. (A very good explanation as to why it is appropriate to conclude that tspacepilot stole from coinchat is here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11163154#msg11163154).

Assuming that tspacepilot were to repay one of TF's victims (which I would highly doubt he will ever do based on his previous statements, and his apparent ethics), there would still be the issue that he used intimidation tactics to get m to remove my rating, which I am unsure how he can resolve. 

Regarding tspacepilot's ban: he was (most likely) banned for posting many off topic posts, derailing threads, and creating multiple/duplicate threads when the conversation of the first thread didn't go his way (he would lock threads when others did not agree with him), and overall trolling. He has been doing this for months and I would say that if this is his first ban for this behavior and if he was only banned for 5 days then he has gotten off very easy.

I talked to them and yes they have been banned for "offtopic posting". Nothing else. 5 days is a typical duration if BadBear is under the impression that something like this will not be needed again. I dont have a quote ready.

As I remember it, coinchat was a site that paid you coins in exchange for posting chat. That's clearly a silly idea and will only lead to people posting nonsense to earn money. The incentives are all wrong and encourage just what you don't want on a chat site. It's much the same as companies running "signature campaigns" which pay forum users for each post they make. You end up with thousands of garbage posts and the quality of the forum drops as a result. In other words what you reward is what you get. TF was paying for chat, so he got it. And of course people are going to automate that if they can.

I don't think writing a bot to take advantage of a poorly thought out incentive scheme is "fraud" or "dishonest" and certainly doesn't require punishment years later. What needed fixing was the incentive scheme. Stop paying people to post crap and they will stop posting crap.


I don't spend enough time here to have noticed any of that (other than a bizarre tendency to defend DaDice, but that's probably a result of them paying him for his signature). Do you have URLs for offtopic posts?

Edit: tsp messaged me on Just-Dice as follows. If what he says is true it certainly doesn't sound like he is deserving of any kind of negative trust rating:

The best solution is for TC to put TSP in his trusted list. That way both QS and TSP can fight between them on level ground and not trouble anyone else.

As far as I read dooglus's post, the TM doesn't seem to have robbed any money from the website but he broke the TOS. Similarly there are many others who get fake referrals and fake views to their YouTube accounts and they get banned for the same. Banning them is the punishment they deserve but that doesn't make them a scammer. Just like spamming here earns a person a ban, the ban doesn't make the member a scammer nor can a person from another forum call the banned member a scammer or leave the person a negative trust because he was banned there. It's more like an unethical thing to do but isn't selling DT accounts too called unethical? I don't find anything different over here as one broke the TOS of a website (that isn't related to this forum neither can be accounted as scamming) while the other is taking a risk which can help scammers to scam newbies (on this forum itself). Who's wrong and who's right here? I support none.

My understanding of coinchat, which was corroborated by others in this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all) thread is that you were allowed to use bots, however if you did then the bot needed to post from an account with "bot" (all letters) in it in order to avoid receiving payment for messages from the bot.

The name of the account that tspacepilot's bot was posting from had the substring "b0t" (notice the number instead of the letter), which is something that I would argue shows malice on tspacepilot's part, as I believe it was designed to make a casual onlooker believe that it was properly named while the mechanism that excludes "bot" posts would be tricked into not excluding posts.

I would speculate that coinchat sold advertisements which were priced according to how many messages were written.
Many of his off topic posts have been deleted (that is what happens to off topic posts), however he created two threads about posts of his that were deleted (one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153175.0), two (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085041.0)). In both of those posts, he even acknowledged that he was posting off topic in the post itself. There are others that have not been deleted if you really needed to see more.
Based on what happened in this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all)thread, it looks like TF had originally claimed that 1.5BTC was stolen, and then here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252100#msg3252100) it was updated to .503BTC with the explanation that this was the amount that tspacepilot withdrew from coinchat, this matches the risked amount in tspacepilot's trust rating from TF. Later in the thread the .503 amount was generalized to .5, however I don't think this is truly a different amount. In this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3254884#msg3254884) post, it was explained that the original 1.5 BTC amount was an estimate and that the .503 amount was accurate based on TF's records (again I do not like relying on what TF said, however I doubt that tspacepilot has any interest in paying back what he stole).

I don't see any other amounts that are claimed to have been stolen by tspacepilot and I do not see a .54 amount anywhere. I also do not see tspacepilot claim that he withdrew a lesser amount in the above thread, but rather was claiming that he was not allowed to receive a trust rating over something that happened outside of the forum.

Although I do believe that I can prove that tspacepilot had more then .5 btc at the time of the original claim against him, I am not going to do so because it is a red herring, plus I would hope that you would well know it is possible that anyone can have btc in addresses that are not known to others.

Tspacepilot is also grossly exaggerating how long ago the incident was. He had opened a thread complaining about the negative rating from TF in September 2013, and I originally left him a negative rating in April 2015 which is closer to 18 months later.

In the chat message that you posted, he seems to outright admit to withdrawing funds from coinchat that he was not entitled to. Only that he now says it was much less then claimed originally.

I was asked to add another point that I noticed in a recent exchange about this.

Quickseller you left negative ratings with several of your alt accounts. While they are not on default trust, I think its still considered spam.

TC should maintain his trust list and remove any user who abuses his/her power. I don't want QS to be removed from default trust list because he does a good job and I think that's why TC is not willing to remove him. Maybe TC can talk with QS but the best he can do is either tell QS his opinion or remove QS from his trust list. Latter is probably not gonna happen.

See below about QS' multiple feedbacks.


I agree. IIRC, his explanation was that tsp does not deserve a negative trust score because of that feedback but still deserves negative feedback. IMHO, if he thinks his score should not be affected, that means that action does not deserve a negative feedback.

I suggest him to change negative feedback from QS to neutral and sum up other negative feedback in 1 neutral feedback and delete negative feedbacks.

TF seems to have been quoting the whole amount that tsp withdrew, but only a small fraction of that was due to the malfunctioning bot.

You reaction to his bot accidentally earning a tiny amount of dust seems way over the top. How do you justify leaving multiple angry trust ratings for this? I think overall your contribution to the trust system is a net positive, but in this case it feels to me like it's borderline abusive.

I would agree that TF was quoting the entire amount that tspacepilot withdrew, however I am unsure that the amount he withdrew due to the bot was only a small fraction of what he withdrew. I would also say that it would be entirely inaccurate to say that he earned anything due to a malfunctioning bot. If you wanted to run a bot on coin chat, you were suppose to have the substring bot appended to the end of your username in order to prevent that username from earning any money, however tspacepilot named the account the bot was posting from wikib0t, and I would find it hard to believe that it was a mistake to name it this. I am not sure what tsp was talking about when he said his bot was stuck on a loop, however this was not the abuse, his abuse was the fact that he used a bot on an account that did not have the substring bot appended (although it is possible that the loop is what caused him to get caught).

Additionally, up until now, tsp has claimed that he is completely innocent. He has repeatedly said that I am wrong about him and that I was taking the words of a known liar:

I stopped quoting tspacepilot after about halfway through this thread. There are many others in both this thread and in others that I did not quote.

I would make it very clear that if tspacepilot did in fact use a bot to withdraw money from coin chat (regardless of the amount) then I am not wrong. Period. The issue of if tspacepilot's actions are something that warrants a negative rating is separate (and will be addressed below).

I would ask, if tspacepilot has lied about fraudulently withdrawing any money in the past (I believe that he has), then why should his word be trusted regarding the magnitude of how much he withdrew because of his bot?
I would dispute the fact that his bot accidentally earned any amount. The fact that he named his bot b0t shows that him earning money with his bot was very much intentional. People have scammed on here for well under a dollar (likely with the hope of being able to scam multiple times, which would add up), and scamming for a small amount does not make it any less wrong (as mentioned above, I doubt his claim that all he earned was a few thousand satoshi).

Tspacepilot was also inquiring as to how people abuse the faucet on Prime Dice here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg11515169#msg11515169):
I believe this shows that he is interested in doing similar things in the future (e.g. using automation to receive money from websites that he should not be receiving.

What tspacepilot did was fraud, when he was originally called out on this fraud, he tried to get out of it by twisting around words and claiming that trust ratings are not appropriate if a trade did not take place within the forum.....this was instead of attempt to return the money that he received that he should not have.

Furthermore when he was called out on his fraud, he responded with intimidation and trolling. Would you consider someone to be trustworthy if after you left them a negative rating, they started trolling both you and JD (without any substance other then the fact that you left an "unjust" rating)?

Knowing that tspacepilot fraudulently withdrew some amount of money from coin chat, and knowing that he lied about it, would you trust him with a small amount of money, say 4BTC? What about an amount similar that was claimed by TF that tspacepilot stole, say 0.5BTC? What about half that amount, say .25BTC? What if there was a way that would guarantee that you are in fact speaking to tspacepilot but had no way to prove your agreement (e.g. only you would know that you got scammed), would you trust him with any of the above amounts?

What do you think would happen if you accidentally sent any of the above amounts to tspacepilot? What about a greater amount? Do you think he would quickly return the money?

Are any of the above answers impacted on the fact that you know that tspacepilot withdrew money from coin chat that he was not entitled to? Does the fact that tspacepilot lied about withdrawing money from coin chat numerous times affect any of the above answers?

I think a lot of people would trust a hero member who they know is the original owner of their account with .25BTC (I don't think tspacepilot has been sold), but I do not think it would be smart to trust tspacepilot with that small of an amount.

not really aiming to get into the discussion itself, since I really don't care about tsp, but I haven't seen a comment from you on the neg ratings you were giving with sockpuppets like ACCTseller.

at the time of giving your rating to tsp for example,  afaik it wasnt public knowledge those were sockpuppets of you and you never disclosed that fact without being pressured.

I do think that is very shady/malicious behaviour that should be dealt with accordingly, though I'm not sure if there are any rules on that topic, like only one rating per living entitiy allowed.

would be nice if you could try to explain that a little.

Kindly point to a rule regarding only being able to leave one trust rating per person and it will be addressed (again). (there is no such rule)

I had made a post in one of tspacepilot's threads, however I was unable to locate it after a brief search. The tl;dr version was that the issue that ACCTseller left a negative rating for was something that did not warrant an overall negative rating, however it was something that was appropriate to warn others about when dealing with tspacepilot while the issue that I left a negative from this account from was something that warranted a negative trust score.

I don't think he thinks of it as fraudulent. I don't either. Using a bot to automate boring tasks isn't fraud.


I don't think so. I'm interested in all kinds of scams. Not because I want to be scammer, but because I want to understand how they work. I find them interesting, and I find that understanding them is a good first step to being prepared to defend against them too. You seem to be condemning him for asking questions and being interested in the subject.


I don't think so.

"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"

He ran a bot, aiming to provide a service to fellow chatters. The bot earned a small amount of commission for being active on the site. That's not fraud, even if the T&C said that bots had to have "bot" in their name and his didn't.


No, I wouldn't. How did he attempt to intimidate you?


No. I don't really trust anyone with anything. I very rarely have to. I'm in the fortunate position of having a good trust rating here, and so when I trade with people they are almost always willing to go first. I don't think I would hold it against him that one of his first attempts at writing asynchronous code had a bug in it, or that he was unable to come to a resolution about it with TF.


My gut feeling is that he would. But I'm not about to test it out. I have no need to. You'll notice I haven't left feedback about his trustworthiness. That's because I have no experience of him in that regard.


I'm not aware of him having lied about anything. Is there some example you can quote?


"Hero member" simply means that he's posted a lot doesn't it? I don't see why that implies anything about trustworthiness, in either direction.

The TOS of coin chat was something along the lines that if you are running a bot then you must include the substring "bot" in the account you are posting from, tspacepilot named his bot "b0t" to trick the mechanism that awards money for posting into thinking that his bot was not actually a bot, and to trick anyone casually looking that he properly named his bot.

In other words, he agreed that any account that did not include the substring "bot" would not be using any kind of automation to post/chat. He did not honor this promise. 
He has a history of using bots to earn money from websites when doing such would be against the rules and fraudulent. I believe that stunna would consider someone using a bot to claim the faucet on PD from multiple accounts to be fraudulent. I would also say that faucet farming that occurs on PD is likely to somehow include the use of bots.

His inquiry is similar to a convicted rapist asking a victim of rape how the perpetrator got away with the crime against her.
You have this backwards. The TOS would have said something along the lines of that by accessing coin chat tspacepilot agrees that he will name any bot with the substring "bot".

This would be similar to if JD had a rule that when people make bets they should verify the bet and submit the outcome of the bet so JD can debit/credit their account accordingly (and JD would not check all of the results to ensure that everyone was reporting honestly). This would obviously be a very poor implementation and would be asking for fraud, however it does not mean that anyone who lies about their bet result would not be committing fraud. 
He created multiple threads trolling me, and was posting in various threads for months trolling me. He made it clear that unless I would remove my negative rating against him that I would continue to receive such trolling. I have spoken to a number of people regarding this matter who have expressed feat of being trolled if they were to speak on my support or to leave a negative rating against tsp despite their support for me.
Fair enough.
The bug (assuming he was telling the truth about this) is not the issue. The issue is that he agreed to name any bot with the substring "bot" and did not (then subsequently withdrew funds that he should not have).

See that last post in which I replied to you. I gave several examples in this thread in which tsp said that I was wrong in my rating. My rating is factually accurate as he did deceive coin chat when he told coin chat that he was not using a bot (when he was posting from an account that did not include the substring "bot), when he was using a bot. He also routinely said that TF was lying when in this case that does not appear to be the case.

Tsp asked me to rethink my opinion about the issue and I did.

My overall assessment of the situation is (boiled down):
- the issue is from the ancient (in internet terms) past
- there has been no other issue since
- there is no concrete proof, just assumptions and interpretations
- the circumstances under which QS dug up an old post as well as the behavior[2] after the rating was left, indirectly removed (BadBear removing QS from DT) and reinstated (TC adding QS) along the several[1] ratings make me question whether this is personal or not.

Yes, there are no rules regarding the DT List, but I would suggest to remove the rating or at the very least change it to neutral.


[1] @QS Im not sure whats wrong with that word, but you left 3 ratings, as QS, as ACCTSeller (now removed) and as FunFunnyFan.
[2] Both sides seem to be locked in some sort of vendetta now. This is does effect other threads and posts.

Yes you are right, there is no solid proof and even if it is, as dooglus said, it´s not really fraud? I mean after all quickseller was selling accounts with DT, which i would consider fraud. He should change it to neutral and leave it like that.

But no one can really force him to change his negative feedback, maybe one day he will retract and change it to a neutral one or better delete it.  No one remember this sentence : Trust system is not moderated.

---

However I don't think that tspacepilot is a 'bad' person and the -ve trust is not necessary in my opinion (Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.)  Maybe Quickseller thinks that tspacepilot IS a scammer, but I think he is wrong.

It's not fact that no one can force him. Last time when TC forced him he did removed neg feedback. Or TC can easily remove him from DT list and then his feedback will not matter like lasst time when Badbear removed him from DT too.

Everyone know even TC and Badbear too Quickseller negative feedback on Tsp because of personal grudge. He first did dug up all tsp posts and necro post to very old thread from his alt account accountseller and then gave negative feedback from AS acc and base of that acc he gave negative feedback from QS acc.

That time no one knew AS acc also belong to QS and it was simple abuse/spam of trust feedback from multi acc to Tsp profile.
Even he later try to defend himself from his alt like FunFunnyFan and even we don't know how many other account.

When tecshare gave wrong feedback to armis everyone know how badbear and other influenced the guy who put tecshare on DT list.
They forced them to remove them on their list or they will be gone for DT 1st level.

So it's just virtually true that feedback not moderated, Admins need to understand sometime they have to interfere (like they did on tecshare case)
on matter otherwise drama will be going on and on.

If they did interfere before it was closed almost at the time when it was started but they did not and this chaos continue.

I know Tsp also exaggerated this method so much but if he did not then everyone not talking about this.

Quickseller feedback mostly time correct but it's also true when he got on DT list he behave like different person then normal QS.

P.S. TC need to understand that TC account is not his main account. He has other main account and he created TC acc to give feedback to scammers and for escrow work. So he should avoid adding controversial members to his list. Otherwise what is the benefit of his TC acc when he also created this account for just giving feedback or escrow.

I don't think that's true. When the API was first introduced the ToS didn't mention anything about naming bots. That came later.


Not that I know of, unless you're referring to the misunderstanding with coinchat.


Stunna is offering free money for people to visit his site. He knows that people will try to game the system using bots. He's free to try to fight against it by using CAPTCHAs and such like, but to cry "fraud" when someone successfully games the system isn't accurate.


That's just silly talk. To compare a guy who wrote a malfunctioning bot to a rapist? It's just wrong to judge people for their curiosity. I was watching the movie "Cop Car" recently. The killer used a bag of Lime when burying a body. I was curious as to why, but was too scared to Google about it, because I didn't want "using lime to help body decompose" in my search history. It's a sad state of affairs when our curiosity can bring suspicion upon us. "Why would he be Googling that if he didn't kill somebody?"

Edit: I couldn't resist any longer:



Such a system would be inherently broken and need fixing ASAP. Of course people are going to try to game it. But that's not relevant here, since tsp wasn't trying to game anything.


It sounds like he isn't willing to roll over and let you leave your multiple unfair feedbacks stand against him. He feels like you've taken a stand against him for some reason, and doesn't want to just forget about it.


What makes you think that is true? It seems your entire persecution of tsp stands on this point and yet the point is false.


He disagrees with your rating of him. What if that's because your rating is unfair? That wouldn't be him lying now would it.

What if your rating is based on a misunderstanding of the T&C of a site you weren't a user of and have little to no experience of?

In other words, what if you're wrong?


I agree.

Normal trust may not be moderated but default trust is, in a way moderated and when someone abuses it they are kicked out, so it is moderated and he could be forced to change it in the future or forced indirectly if he gets kicked out of DT again

I'm very glad that this situation is finally getting the attention it deserves, both from others and from Quickseller.  I'm also very pleased that Quickseller decided to remove one of his sockpuppet ratings.  I hope that he will go ahead and remove the other one, so that we can offically say that one of the main abuses here has been resolved (that of trust-sockpuppetry).

I have added several more of you all's comment to the OP, the list of quotes calling for Quickseller to end this attack has grown quite large.  I sincerly hope that Quickseller is willing to listen to his peers on this one.  As I said directly to Quickseller months ago, the more that people look closely at what happened here, the more that is going to harm his own reputation and his ability to contribute to the "scambusting" team, which seems to be a very strong motivation for him.  Using a position of default trust to try to smear someone you don't like is not the way to build your own reputation.  It won't work in the long run.  People make mistakes and lessons can be learned and I'd like to think that Quickseller is ready to learn a lesson here and move on.

As things stand, we've made some real progress this week with the removal of one of the sockpuppet ratings and the fact that QS is finally engaging to try to publically explain himself.  I sincerely hope that we can all be moving along soon as this situation has gone on for way too long.

Ahem, uh, quickseller, hello?

You seem to feel obliged to reply to dooglus and others, do you think it's okay to ignore this and hope it goes away?  It's much better for your reptuation to go ahead and solve the problem.  At this point, you know the right thing to do.

You have removed one of your sockpuppet ratings.  Can you please take care of the trolling from FunFunnyFan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts) so that we can say that part is resolved?

It would be a great step forward for you to eliminate your trust-spam in this situation and you and I will apparantly only have the matter of your unsupported allegations of me at coinchat to talk about.

These forums have become toxic. From Theymos all the way down.

But with respect to leaving negative reputation points, you're not supposed to "trust-spam" or continually use your alts to leave many negative ratings.  That is against the rules and people have been banned for it.  QS left me three ratings with three accounts.  He has recently deleted one of them (presumably responding to commenters above) but it's not clear why he hasn't removed the more trolling comments from his alt FunFunnyFan.

I agree that it's absurd and as you can see in the many quotes in the OP of this thread, everyone who has looked into this situation is calling for him to withdraw his abuse on me.  Yet he ignores it.

From what I've seen, QS' strategy is to argue with distractions and overblown comparisons (he literally compared me to convicted rapist just a few posts upthread?!).  Often, given the mob-mentality of "justice" that often develops in pseudo-anonymous internet fora, this is enough to exhaust his victim and that's that.  Other times the victim has stamina for the onslaught and continues to ask QS to explain the rating and the reason for the attack, when QS cannot answer, he simply moves on.  He can easily draw everyone's attention elsewhere by attacking a new person (scammer or not a scammer).

So that seems to be what he's doing now with me.  As he couldn't answer dooglus' points, he's just gone on to something else.

I think it's clear that the Default Trust list is massively flawed. I hate reading stuff where people get negative trust & are labelled scammers when they just don't seem to be scammers at all.

Can I get this right - If somebody on Default Trust puts another poster on their trust list then that person is also then added to Default Trust?

I think the only way to sort it is for bitcointalk.org to employ one poster whose only job is to patrol the forums scam busting & controlling the Default Trust list & leaving people negative trust. There are just far too many people who can ruin good posters/peoples reputations if the Default Trust list is left how it currently is.

It's one big, sorry mess as far as I'm concerned, what's stopping a scammer paying somebody on Default Trust to include him/her on their trust list so they then become a Default Trust member? They could then hit somebody or some company for a lot of bitcoin. It's all a load of crap, governed & controlled by nobody in particular.

Its not massively flawed. Only one or two bad cases are there. Now, only this one IMHO.


The person who adds another one should be in default trust depth 1. Else, no.


Yes, there is one. Theymos. I don't know if BadBear has access to 'DefaultTrust' account.

P.S. Theymos is only controlling 'DefaultTrust' account. He is not a scam buster and I don't think he should be one unless he likes to. Users in default trust list is already doing a good job so far. Some people do make mistakes and sometimes, they are intentional. If they do it for more than a few times, they get removed quickly. This is not the case with QS, he is doing a great job but this one is a very exceptional. I don't know why QS is not ready to change it to neutral.


It will be reported sooner than you think. If user who included him does not remove the scammer, he will also be removed from default trust depth 1.

When it comes down to it Theymos has all of the control over all of the trust. Theymos decides who is depth 1, and those guys have all of the power. I am added by a few people that are depth 1 making me a depth 2 user. Depth 2 can make people red, but can not add others into trusted status. If I mess up somehow the depth 1 guys can easily stop my ratings from being trusted by removing me from their lists or using the ~.
Overall this trust system works well as you only hear about a few cases, but I bet 20+ ratings happen per day here with no issues. Someone like QS will cause some drama doing his thing, but the positives out weight the negatives by a lot. I guess you could say some collateral damage is bound to happen a long the way. The fact that we can publicly dispute things here in meta makes for a decent checks and balances.

The point of people being trusted by default is supposed to eliminate the chance of a paid to be added scenario... Those people are supposed to be the most trusted here.

@LFC_Bitcoin and @Blazed, it's not that I don't value your comments, but I think they're better off in the thread(s) about how to improve the trust system to prevent abuse.  Here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0

Unfortunately, with all the attacks and drama that quickseller and his attack-dog alts produce in the forum, it's become very difficult to keep it all straight.  I have been told in no uncertain terms that this thread is the only place where I'm allowed to discuss Quickseller's abuse of me, so I want to try to keep things on topic here at least since this is the only place to discuss it.

---

This thread is about getting quickseller to somehow justify his long-lasting abuse campaign on me, or to withdraw it.  He's recently withdrawn one of his sock ratings, I hope he's going to be withdrawing the other one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts) very soon, as it's clearly even more trolling than the one from ACCTSeller which he has removed.

Blazed, the one thing you said which is relevant here is this:


But I called out quickseller for his abuse immediately when he started doing it back in mid April:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

Yet his attack didn't abate, badbear was away and he merely added more negative feedback from sockpuppets in the interim.  It's clear to anyone who looks into the situation that it was a personal vendetta gone wrong.  QS thought it would be easy to smear me because I didn't do trading so I didn't have a long list of people to tell him to stop.  He banked on the fact that he's well known and feared and that people wouldn't cross him.  The sad thing is that for the past 5 months, this basically worked.  Even now, he cannot explain his rating other than as a personal attack for crossing him and at this point, he's just quit trying to do so.  You'll note that he hasn't replied directly to me in this thread for approximately 6 weeks now.  Surely that's enough time to forumlate a response if he has one.

You say that "some collateral damage is bound to happen along the way", but what if your account and your reputation were part of that collateral damage?  For the record, I quite disagree.  I have think the default trust system could be improved drammatically, and should be.  But even under the current system there's simply no reason to keep someone on the elite list who acts first and tries to rationalize later.  Some people are known temperstorms (the ironic thing is that all this drama started because I had the balls to call out QS for his temper), but other people are known for calm, rational, deliberate action.  I would argue that if you're going to have a centralized trust system where any single person can destroy another person's reputation at the push of a button, that's a very good reason to only put calm, deliberate, rational people into that position.  With great power comes great responsiblity.  I ask you too look at the post history of the known alts of QS (ACCTSeller, FunFunnyFan, and many others) and then to ask yourself whether that's the kind of person who you would hand a badge and a gun to.

Yes, QS knows how to look up addresses in the blockchain.  Yes, he spends an incredible amount of time on the forum, but there are others out there who do meet those criteria without the reflexive attack-dog mentality of Quickseller.  Even now as the OP of this thread fills with people asking QS to withdraw his false attack on me, the best he will do is remove one of the sock ratings and disappear.  His strategy is to drum up the next controversy and the next controversy as fast as possible, so that people will forget about this or call it "solved" in their own minds.  It's really not solved until QS does the right thing (removes the false attacks) or the community does the right thing (removes QS from power).

bump.  (time to resolve this quickseller, you can't just ignore it and make it go away)

Others have confirmed that the TOS of coinchat was setup so that *people* would get paid for posting.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11163154#msg11163154
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3256646#msg3256646
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3260505#msg3260505
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3266976#msg3266976 (never have heard of him, however one more person expressing his opinion)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269384#msg3269384
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269884#msg3269884

Look at salty's post that I quoted/linked above.

What is one reasonable explanation why someone would use leet speak with his "b0t" as he did? I would find it hard to believe that someone would seriously think it is a "misunderstanding" when they name their bot "b0t" when it should have been named "bot". It is ridiculous to say this was a misunderstanding. 

The comparison was between two types of people who have a history of a specific crime who are trying to find ways to execute their crimes in ways that avoid detection and increase success. 

The point of it being broken and needing fixing does not matter. You cannot aruge that tspacepilot was not trying to game anything because the rule said that all bots should be named "bot" and his bot was named "b0t". I cannot think of any example how it could be any more clear that he was gaming the system.
No, it sounds like he was trying to intimidate me. It would be one thing to speak his opinion, it is another thing to troll across numerous threads.
There are several examples of reputable people saying (at the time) that the rule was to use "bot". I also see zero reasonable explanation as to why someone would name their bot "b0t" if they were not aware of restrictions on naming bots.
I am not wrong. I carefully considered the facts prior to leaving my rating.

I can however give another example as to how he was lying.

Take a look at this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all) thread. Why don't you point to where tspacepilot tried to resolve what happened? That message seems to imply that he is admitting that he took/received money that he should not have received (which also invalidates your arguments above saying that it was a misunderstanding and that he was not trying to game anything).
Noted.

It was explained in one of the many other threads why I left a rating from ACCTSeller, it was because the substance of the rating was not such that it would be appropriate for a "trade with caution" tag to be applied, but still be necessary to give a warning to others. However after further research, it seems that tspacepilot actually invited the negative rating from ACCTseller:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11140044#msg11140044

The 3rd claimed rating, from FunFunnyFan, has no connection to me. The only claimed connection is from a troll who has relied upon nothing more then speculation to say that I am the same person as him. I would not find it unreasonable to say that one more person simply does not like tspacepilot, and he does have a history of claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet of the person he is "fighting" - see his original thread when TF had left tspacepilot a negative rating. I think it is offensive that you would take the speculation of a troll as fact, when evidence and facts have been presented by someone who has a history of extensive an accurate research, as not facts.

---

I am glad to hear that this is your opinion. Based on this comment, it sounds like you are considering to add me to your trust list.

dooglus 139: -0 / +15   2015-08-24   1.00510000   Reference (https://i.imgur.com/PXqfNQ1.png)   I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems.
https://i.imgur.com/PXqfNQ1.png

Tspacepilot posted the address 12d2dfgi1cz77mxFkHA5Gf9PdpwLVzfGKK here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=216854.msg2944042#msg2944042) among many other places. As of block 367976 that address had a sum of 5 BTC worth of unspent inputs and has not spent any of those inputs since then. Block 367976 was found on 8/1/15. The claimed loan happened several weeks after that (and was repaid on a gambling site).

Why would someone who has so much bitcoin need this kind of a loan? Why would you think it would be a good idea to lend someone with tspacepilot's trading and trust history 1BTC worth of an altcoin?

I have no answers to the above questions. What I do have however is what this certainly looks like. This looks like that this is an example of selling trust, either for the entire 1BTC amount (assuming there was no loan, only a "repayment"), or for whatever the interest amount was (assuming there actually was a loan). For a number of reasons that I am not going to call you out on (yet), I am leaning towards the former. The selling of trust is highly frowned upon within the community.

I would ask you, are you really willing to stake your reputation on this person? He admitted to you that he received money that he should not have (he claimed it was a very small amount, but he still confirmed that he received money). This person has a history of extensively trolling anyone who disagrees with him (or more specifically speaks ill of him).

The first and easiest example of this is tspacepilot trolling TF. TF had given tspacepilot a negative rating in September 2013 (despite tspacepilot repeatedly claiming that the incident happening over 3 years ago), and in September 2014, tspacepilot was still trolling (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755795.msg8848377#msg8848377) TF. (there are many more instances of this trolling around this time, however due to TF's repeated name changes, I am having difficulty finding them. IIRC they were in various meta threads regarding TF leaving negative trust for continuing to advertise for dicebitco.in.).

As mentioned above, bitcoininformation (aka Mitchełł) had said many times that tspacepilot was in the wrong and that tspacepilot was deserving of negative trust (but did not leave a negative rating himself). This also happened in September 2013. Then, in October 2014 (until at least January 2015 - at least 3 months!), tspacepilot used one of his alts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.msg11154444#msg11154444), which has the handle sed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=139512) to be extremely critical (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10274712#msg10274712) of bitcoininformation's selling of advertisements on his Overview of Bitcointalk Signature campaigns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0) thread. (Here is another (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10238982;topicseen#msg10238982) example of his harsh criticism, here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10216612#msg10216612) is another[/url], and another (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10207680#msg10207680), and another (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg9200215#msg9200215), and another (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg10274712#msg10274712)). There are only some examples of this, however I am fairly certain there are more. Although he could argue that he actually felt the opinions he expressed in those posts, I think the extreme level of trolling that he used would make it reasonable to conclude that those (and the others that I was not able to quickly find) was vengeance for bitcoininformation speaking against tspacepilot well over a year prior to those posts.

I was a frequent advertiser (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=918663.msg10210963#msg10210963) on bitcoininformation's thread that tspacepilot (another example of me advertising on that thread, among others (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897141.msg9972865#msg9972865)) did not want bitcoininformation selling advertisements on. I suspect that the reason I became a target of tspacepilot was because I was doing business with someone who he had a vengeance for.  Tspacepilot's trolling against me started when he asked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018585.msg11034922#msg11034922) me to sign a message from an address that I (accurately) claimed to be holding escrow funds for a signature campaign that he was not participating in. This is extremely unusual because the escrow for the signature campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973949.msg10647762#msg10647762) that he was actually participating in similarly did not sign a message from the address funds were being held in (this was prior to him making the inquiry regarding my escrow address), and not only that, but he has consistently stuck up for DaDice despite their refusal to sign a message from their cold storage address(!). I had explained here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg11927591#msg11927591) (among other places) that this is why tspacepilot got on my radar, and I was able to quickly find evidence that tspacepilot is/was a scammer, and left him a negative rating after carefully considering the facts and evidence. Despite his efforts to make it otherwise my negative rating is not personal (nor is it incorrect).

I really do not think it is a good idea to be endorsing someone like tspacepilot, nor do I think it is a good idea to be associated with someone like him. I think that leaving your positive rating on tspacepilot and leaving the ~ next to my name on your trust list will end up severely damaging your reputation.

I think it would be advisable to remove the positive rating you left on tspacepilot and to remove the exclusion next to my name. Both of which I think it is reasonable to conclude were sold.

I guess this gigantic novel of a reply is what you've been saving up towards?  As far as I can tell this reply can be divided up into a couple of major sections.


Section 1: Quickseller rehashes a thread from 2 years ago, tries to dig into the minutia of an agreement which he never saw.

Section 2: Quickseller actually tries to defend his comparison of me to a rapist?!

Section 3: Quickseller says I am a troll.  Here I would take the time to point to numerous threads in which QS and his alts go trolling hard against anyone and everyone he disagrees with.  I don't think it's necessary to look up the links because I think everyone has seen it by now.  QS has even made direct threats against me using his main account.  Some of the stuff he's pulled with his alts has been absolutely despicable.


Section 4: QS, surprisingly, brings up troll account FunFunnyFan.  You'll notice that he attempts to suggest the account isn't his without actually denying it.  I have evidence that it is his account, and at least one other person on th forum can do so as well, so QS doesn't want to go on the record as definitively saying that it's not his, but he doesn't want to explicity deny it.


QS: are you explicitly denying that FunFunnyFan is your account?  Be careful!

Section 5: QS transitions to attack dooglus.  Claiming that he's "selling trust".  Very interesting that again we have QS making claims and speculations about stuff he knows nothing about.  Also, shows the MO of QS, obfuscate and attack with minutia, look up a bitcoin address on the blockchain and offer wild speculations about the motivations of this or that person.  I'm going to let dooglus speak for himself, obviously, but the vamp to start going after dooglus is definitely upping the stakes here for QS.  I really thing the guy just doesn't know how to gracefully admit he's wrong and back down.  Instead, he keeps upping the stakes for himself and those involved.  Months ago QS could have listened to his peers and to his own rational brain and removed the negative trust ratings against me.  Now, he's been excluded from at least one trust list on default trust 1 and it looks like he's still trying to up the stakes.

---

I'm quite happy to reply in more detail to any particular point, but I don't think that going point-by-point when QS has basically copy-pasted an entire thread in here is helpful.  My reply summarizes his attack.  None of the four sections makes any defense for his attack on me, his use of alts to troll me, or his refusal to go ahead and make things right.  Even now, this latter solution is there for him (QS: look at the OP of this thread and listen to your peers), but instead of looking to fix damage he's done, he just keeps trying to up the stakes.  Alas.

I don't think he needed it. I loaned him the 1 BTC worth of CLAM as a test to see if he would pay it back, like you suggested. I have no reason to believe he isn't trustworthy. Sure he has some negative trust ratings but they mostly seem to be from you or suspected sockpuppets of yours. You seem to have some kind of a grudge against him.


I loaned him 123 CLAMs and he repaid it. Other than that nothing of value changed hands. I wouldn't "sell trust" under any circumstance. Call me out on whatever you like. I have nothing to hide.


I'm not staking my reputation on him. I left positive feedback after he repaid the 1 BTC worth of CLAM I loaned him.


I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion at all, since (a) it never happened and (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it did.

You can't imagine why tsp would take a 1 BTC loan when he has 5 BTC already, and yet you think it's somehow possible that I would risk my reputation selling trust to tsp for 1 BTC?

that is a very weird way under the given circumstances to test tsps trustworthiness  ??? not sure what you're really trying to prove there, doog. but it appears you're trying to teach QS a lesson using tsps "case".

anyway, publicity stunts like this are exactly why everybody should manage his very own trust list  :)

edit: I have neither doog nor QS on my trust list, so tsp appears neutral to me, which is probably the most correct display of his actual trust.

Once again, I don't believe tspacepilot is a scammer (obviously. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise) and he honestly does not deserve the negative trust given to him. Also he probably just proved that he is trustworthy to a reasonable extent and the trust feedback is misleading now that since he repaid the 1BTC value loan from dooglus.

Thanks :)
ndnhc

Testing his trust with a small amount of money was QS' idea. I did as he suggested:


tsp has been on the forums for a long time without apparently ripping anyone off. Other than some trumped up charges from QS over an accident years ago involving a bot and some dust I don't see any reason to suspect he's at all scammy.


There's no publicity stunt. The loan happened about a week ago, and nobody even mentioned it until QS noticed a screenshot of it linked from my feedback on tsp's profile. If QS is justified in leaving negative feedback about a malfunctioning bot taking some BTC dust against a defunct scam site's terms and conditions that didn't exist at the time when the alleged "crime" happened then surely it's OK for me to leave positive feedback about the fact that I trusted him with 1 BTC worth of value and he didn't attempt to steal it from me. I'm not saying "this guy is great, trust him with your life savings". I'm saying "I loaned him 1 BTC worth of value and he repaid it". That's all.

@tsp - Do you think it is strange that you are accusing QS of sock-puppetry when you engaged in that very practice earlier this year in your interactions with Mitch?

@dooglus - I don't see any evidence that tsp ever received the loan, only that he paid it back. Is there some kind of evidence that he actually received ~320 CLAM from you? I also see that tsp paid you back via a tip on Just-Dice, did he *actually* have the ability to not repay you if he tried not to (if he tried to withdraw the ~320 CLAM, or if he tried to gamble some of the CLAM, would he have been able to?).

@tsp - Did your months long harassment of Mitchell have anything to do with the fact that Mitchell said that you were in the wrong ~2 years ago? (full disclosure, I have traded with Mitch in the past and he was very pleasant to work with)

These questions are on-topic to this thread because the answers to them would be evidence of the ethical morals of the person who is claiming to be unjustly harmed.

I do want to avoid this drama as much as possible, but I did see a few points that you did not address.

I do think there's some irony in you, Quickseller, using this alt to accuse me of sockpuppetry.

Your timing is a little uncanny, my friend:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169243.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077982.msg12232400#msg12232400
others

The more alts you pull into this, this more it's going to end up costing you in your long-run scheme.  It looks like you've been given positive feedback by Panthers52 and vice versa and now you're using the account to do dirty work on Meta that you don't want to do under your own account.  Are you sure pulling another alt into this was a good idea for you?

It's really starting to seem like the personal side of your grudge against me is overtaking your judgment completely.  When you were logged in as FunFunnyFan, newbie, anonymous account you had one task: sell an account on default trust.  A lot of people would find this shady in and of itself, but that was your goal.  However, you couldn't resist to mix business with the "pleasure" of taunting me.  So, we have https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts.

Now you wanna take your Panthers52 account, which you've been using to escrow for yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1167247.msg12291275#msg12291275

Isn't this sorta thing how you got your ACCTSeller account linked?  You really are upping the stakes pulling in this alt account which you seem to have been keeping in the shadows for so long.  Don't you realize how desperate this make you look to try do defend your bad behavior?  You think I didn't know who you were when you PMd me a month ago asking for transaction details of a particular transaction which I said had failed to confirm?  QS, you think you're so clever trying to play private-investigator on here with your account selling and sleazy sockpuppetry and demagogery.  You're not going to be able to pull the rug over everyone's eyes forever, and the more you enroll your sockpuppet army to try to persecute me the less you're going to be able to use those accounts to positively rep yourself and otherwise to the sort of "trust farming" you were clearly describing from experience here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.msg12303630#msg12303630

---

Please, QS, leave your alts out of it.  Your shenanigans with this thread are all too obvious: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169243.0

And, for anyone who has a google search, your panthers52 account has been linked to you in the past.  As if we didn't know ...

I would like to note that Panthers52 does not have a positive feedback given by Quickseller. (Yet.) Personally, I disagree that Panthers52 is an alt of QS (although if sufficient evidence rises then I will switch without hesitation).

I would like to note that I have not yet taken any sides of this discussion to avoid pulling myself into this.

I am unsure as to what you are talking about. I am not surprised that you responded the way you did. I think you might be intentionally ignoring my questions and instead accusing me of being a sock-puppet because the answers would make you look bad. Would they not?

Did you not invite me to discuss my opinions in this very thread not many days ago? Did you not invite me after I expressed my opinions of this situation to you? I do not think it should be a surprise to you what my stance on this situation is.

I will kindly repeat my prior questions presented to you. Do you feel that my questions are somehow unreasonable to be presented?



Kind Regards
Panthers52

I think you're cute.  I love the few little twists you do with the "posting style" under this account to try to differentiate it from your main accounts.  The evidence that this is your alt is out there, and it seems quite clear that you're not willing to deny this being your acount because you know that if it comes down to it, Badbear has ways of alt-checking which will reveal your attemtps to use yourself as an escrow.  Yikes!  Are you sure you want to keep pressing on this?  Seems that when you got called out with your FunFunnyFan acount you suddently had to disappear that one.  Presumably this account is more valuable to you as it seems to be the account you use for all your trading.  Again, I think that the more alts you pull in is the more you're going to get yourself into trouble.

I do not think it's strange that you're using a sock-puppet to try to distract from the issue at hand.  That's pretty much exactly what you tried with ACCTSeller in the first thread about this months ago (note: that was before ACCTSeller was revealed publically as his alt).

I've got no problems with bitcoininformation/Mitchell.  Somehow, it seems like he and I have been able to disagree without it coming down to a trust-system abuse war.  Presumably, that's just not his style (it's not my style, either, but I gotta defend myself when you falsely accuse me).  When Mitch has something to say to me, I'm sure he can say it for himself.  Your use of a sockpuppet here is transparent.

So, QS, you seem to be going a little crazy here.  You're pulling in your most closely-guarded alt accounts to try to distract from the topic at hand.  You're starting to attempt to attack dooglus---that's a big fish to pul down dude, I don't think you can do it.  I'm a minnow here, I never hurt anyone and never did any trading.  You decided that you could end me but I've stood up to you.  I think if you try to make this about dooglus you're going to find that you've bitten off more than you can chew.

Again there is no basis for you claim, and again I believe you are only trying to distract from my questions.

After I was critical of your opinion regarding the trust summary of maidak, an opinion that would have allowed maidak to continue to scam, you had sent me a number of Personal Messages, and one of them invited me to participate in this thread.

I question why you would ask me to participate in this thread if your only response to my posts is to accuse me of being QS. I had also told you that I believed that you are a scammer, a fact that you disputed without any kind of evidence. I asked you to not hold it against me for thinking that you are a scammer, a request that you obliged until I posted here.

I intentionally did not state my opinion because I knew the chances were high that I would be on the receiving end of trolling and accusations of sock-puppetry. This is what you did to Mitch when he told you that you were wrong, and this is what you did to others who said that you were wrong.

You were not simply stating your opinion on Mitch's thread, you were harassing him for months, to the point that multiple people said that you were being a dick, and similar. This did not take me hours to dig up, I only had to click on a few references a few posts up. Those references contain posts where you respond to and agree with what appears to be one of your sock-puppets. I also look at another reference that does show very strong evidence that the other person you were agreeing with is your sock-puppet.

I would again repeat my questions to you:


Why don't you pretend for a minute that you could somehow prove that I am QS. What rule exactly do you think I broke? None of the trades I have been a party to ever had any kind of dispute. I didnt state any opinion publicly, I only poised a few well throughout questions.

When you answer my poised questions, please pretend that it is QS poising them to you. This way there would be no reason to try to distract from what I asked.

Your interactions with Mitchell was anything but friendly. I would describe it as a war, one in which only you fought until you got your way.

After your automatic false claim of me, your attacks against me and after your twisting of the words of many others in this thread, I will very clearly and publically state my opinion:

tsp - I think you are a scammer and I think you should repay the money that you stole. I cannot leave you a negative trust because I have never traded with you and AFAIK I am not allowed to leave a negative trust if I have never traded with you and are not on anyone's Default Trust list

Kindly add my quote to the first post of this thread. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can say that I was intimidated against speaking in this thread out of fear of harassment.

I think maybe if you cannot respond to my inquiries like an adult then maybe I should start to open a hundred threads about your sock-puppet abuse and start to troll you for months. I cannot do that because, unlike you, I do trade in the marketplace and I do have a reputation that I wish to maintain.  If you do respond like a child again then you will only get added to my permanent ignore list and I will forever leave this thread.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

To poke my ugly nose in here, what you did was engage in a reputation building loan. Not only it is the wrong way to go, it is also grounds for receiving -ve rating. Clearly no one has the guts to do that to you, so be a dear and pull me in Level 2 so I can give you one. You're setting a bad precedent here and it will only encourage other to openly declare now 'Hey, the great Dooglus gave a rep building loan so we can engage in it now'.

If you truly believe Tspace to be trustworthy, why not give him a loan which is really risky, instead of some token amount? Give him 100 BTC and see if he returns. If you shy away from doing that it means you were only treading comfortable waters and angling for an excuse to provide trust which is almost as bad as selling trust.

[/retracts nose]

It's too transparent what you're doing here to engage with it any further.  You tried this very distraction technique right at the beginning of this nonsense.  I called you out here in mid april for abusing me but I had to wait until badbear returned from holiday in order for you to be corrected.  When the thread wasn't going your way and people started to ask why you were doing such shady things to me, you tried to distract by saying "wait, this guy has an alt!"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.msg11150432#msg11150432

Such distractions didn't work then and they won't work now.  The fact that you're using a sockpuppet to try this distraction is certainly an interesting gambit, given what you have to lose with the fact that you've been using yourself as escrow for the trades this account does.  QS, you're digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole here.  Eventually you're not going to be able to distract your way out of it.

If you can characterize my interactions with Mitch all you want to.  But until Mitch himself gripes at me, I'm not going to really talk to you about it.  How do you know what PMs me and mitch have traded?  Is he going to appreciate your trying to pull him into the middle of a personal dispute that he has nothing to do with?

Quickseller, leave your sockpuppets out of this.  It's all too transparent what you're trying to do.  No one is going to be taken in.  I'm not going to go over the mountains of evidence I've already collected showing that Panthers52 is your alt because 1) it's too obvious already to anyone who looks at what you've written using the two accounts 2) it's a distraction from the topic at hand---or maybe it's not.  In some sense, it shows that although you removed the feedback from your alt ACCTSeller, which you originally used to try to smear me (used it for the trolling in the dadice campaing, used it for the necrobumping of an old thread)  You did these things to try to do shady behavior without having that behavior associated with your main account.  The fact that you're still trying these shenanigans really just shows that although you're willing to remove these kinds of things when you're backed up against the wall, you haven't learned your lesson and you're still willing to stop-at-no-cost to try to win a dispute.  It's scary the way you operate man.

@tspacepilot


You're wrong about QS being Panters52 LOL


~BCX~


Added: Appears to have been correct.

Sure? I do see something really common. (the attitudes and style in the least). There is, if true, a very good attempt to differentiate the posting style and IMO, it is a quite possible speculation.

If they aren't the same guy, they most certainly got the same way of thinking.

The loan happened on Just-Dice.com. What evidence could I provide that would satisfy you? The loan and the repayment both happened off-chain and so could easily be faked.

He *actually* had the ability not to repay me. He could have clicked the 'withdraw' button and taken the coins off-site. I really did trust him with the coins, and he really didn't attempt to steal them.

For what it's worth, here's a screenshot of the relevant section of my History>Withdrawals report on Just-Dice.com:

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

tsp will be able to show something similar from his History>Deposits report, no doubt.

I don't know whether he would steal 100 BTC given the chance or not. I suspect he wouldn't, but am not willing to take that risk. I was pretty confident he wouldn't steal 1 BTC, and was correct about that.

1 BTC is much more than he is accused of stealing from coinchat.  Why would he steal dust from coinchat but not steal a whole Bitcoin from me?

@dooglus:
Indeed, I can create a screenshot showing me receiving the tip and one showing that I paid it back if anyone would like to see it.

I think the loan you offered to me has put QS' final claims to the test.  As far as I can tell, the last concrete appeal he has made regarding this rating was that I shouldn't be trusted with even the smallest amount of money.

It's pretty clear from what's happened since that now he's going into full-on distraction mode.  It makes sense that he's pulling in the alts now because his arguments against me aren't holding water and there's not really anyone who seems willing to stand up for what he's arguing for here (except perhaps panthers52, or ACCTSeller).

The unfortunate thing about this situation is that QS has blown up the matter so large that there's not really a graceful exit strategy for him.  I tried to PM over a month ago to see if we could get this sorted out more discretely but he refused to discuss it.  Clearly the right thing for him to do is to say "hey, maybe I overreacted" and to remove the negative rating, pick up what's left of his reputation, and go on with his life of "scambusting".  I sorta thought we were headed that direction when he removed one of the sockpuppet trust ratings about a week ago, but alas, he only removed one of the two and it seems he's recently pulled another account out of the closet to try to distract from the topic at hand.

QS, even the best people can be wrong.  The crucial thing is to recognize when you're wrong and go on.  I can't recognize that I'm wrong in this case because I didn't do the things you accuse me of.  I know because I was there and I remember what I did and didn't do.  And, as far as I can tell, you weren't there, so how would have any idea?  In your heart, you know how you started this and that it's time to let it go.

There are a good number of people who create new accounts to scam in the lending and currency exchange sections. I am not yet an expert of reading minds, but something tells me they do this to avoid having their primary identities revealed as being a scammer.

Or maybe because he knew that he had no choice except to return the money, or thought that you would not process any withdrawal request as long as he owed you money.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

I don't understand your point. Are you saying tsp is someone's secondary identity? I've never seen him in the lending section.


He did have a choice. He could have withdrawn the money, or he could have returned it. He chose to return it.

I gave him no reason to suspect that I wouldn't honor any withdrawal request. Nobody has ever complained of being unable to withdraw from Just-Dice.

I am saying that the offense where which tsp had stolen money involved tsp's identity not being known at the time of the offense. From what I have reviewed, it was only until some kind of an investigation (maybe into IP evidence?) that it was discovered that tsp was the one who was stealing money via bots.

If someone thinks they can hide their identity being associated with a scam they will pull off, then the threshold for how much money they would need to be able to take given the chance to scam will be less then if your identity would be clearly associated with a scam.

You should review this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=873361.0;all). Scammer/troll Candystripees (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=325115) had created a brand new account to try to extort some amount of money from someone and clearly did not believe his "Candystripes" identity would be associated with this extortion. It was only until later, after BadBear (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=41911) conducted an investigation that the two were linked together. I have been told by someone who was familiar with the matter that Candystripes had tried to extort somewhere in the range of .2 BTC, and I am also aware of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=768276.0;all) in which Candystripes returned ~.21 BTC to someone who overpaid him.
There has been at least one instance (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1119956.0;all) that resulted in someone being unable to withdraw money from Just-Dice when they were in possession of money that was not rightfully theirs.

Do you really think it would be unreasonable that someone receiving a reputation loan would not have their account frozen until they repaid such loan, especially considering that there is precedent to freezing such accounts?

How much interest exactly did you earn from this loan? 

OK, so if that's what he was up to he would have changed identity once he was caught, and made a new one.

If someone thinks they can hide their identity being associated with a scam they will pull off, then the threshold for how much money they would need to be able to take given the chance to scam will be less then if your identity would be clearly associated with a scam.


He never complained. He understood that I had frozen his funds while I investigate a scam. That's quite a different case.


Your triple negative is somewhat confusing. Do I think it would be unreasonable that he would not be unable to withdraw? ie. do I think it would be unreasonable that he would have been able to withdraw? I think it would be unreasonable to leave positive feedback based on the fact that he didn't withdraw if it was impossible for him to have withdrawn, yes. In order to have evidence that somebody is trustworthy I think they need to have been given the opportunity to abuse trust, and not taken it.

You(*) asked me not long ago whether I would feel comfortable lending tsp various amounts of money. I wanted to test it. It turned out I did, and my feeling was accurate.

(*) You are QS, are you not? You write just like him and have a specific unique tell-tale 'tick' that I've never seen in anyone else. Why the continued use of sockpuppet accounts?


You saw the loan payment and the repayment. They are for the same amount. I didn't charge interest.

Who says he did not do this? TSP has ~200 posts when he was caught, and posted almost exclusively from his TSP account for a while in the thread of him trying to get $username to remove his trust rating. I do not have exact dates when $username was removed from Default Trust, I do believe that there is a good chance that TSP mostly abandoned his TSP account (with the exception of trying to get his rating removed), then by the time $username's ratings no longer showed up by default, he started using his TSP account again.  

I think it would be reasonable to say TSP started a new account then resumed with his TSP account once his rating was neutral again.
I think you are just repeating what i am saying here.
If you usually freeze funds until you investigate scams, then why would TSP expect anything other then you to freeze his account until you investigate if he has repaid you or not :D

I did not ask you anything of the sort. I don't see any suggestion by QS for you to give a reputation loan either. All I see is QS asking if you would trust TSP with various amounts of money when conducting a trade. I did not see QS say anything about conducting trades conducted for the sole purpose to build reputation/trust.

I have also yet to see any evidence that TSP had actually received the loan that you both have claimed that was made, only that it was repaid ::)

It might be one thing if you gave a rating saying that you disagree with QS's opinion, but a completely different thing to say that you trusted him with 1 BTC for no reason other then for a trust rating. Are you willing to cover any losses that someone else will incur when he scams in the future?
I am Panthers52. I don't see the point to your question. Does me being QS (if true) make any of my points any less valid? I intentionally did not initially give any opinions in this thread out of fear of being flamed (I did give my opinion after being flamed by TSP), and I only asked questions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12312657#msg12312657) that were previously ignored. Do you think my questions should continue to be ignored regardless of who I am or am not?

Almost everyone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0;all) in this thread was accused of being $username that (correctly) agreed that TSP is a scammer. It appears that TSP's ways have not changed in this thread. Does this have anything to do with the number of people opposing TSP in this thread? ::)
Where did I see the loan payment? How much time exactly was between the loan payment and the repayment? Did TSP do anything with the money between the time he received the loan and when he repaid it, or did it just sit in his account?

@dooglus - both you and TSP are the only one's in this thread claiming that I am QS. You are not the same person as TSP are you?

You're refusing to answer my question?

Using a sockpuppet account to try to make it look like someone other than you supports your crusade against tsp seems dishonest to me.


I am more than happy to answer your question. I am not tsp. I have no other accounts on this site, other than one called "Just-Dice" or "Just Dice Support" or some such, which I created a couple of years ago but decided against using.

Edit: I found it. This is "his" only post:

I answered your question directly. I am Panthers52, and that is who I am. I am unsure how else to put it. As I mentioned in my last post, I did not state any opinions when I first posted in this thread, I showed support for no one. I did nothing other then ask questions. How could that possibly be dishonest?

You have not addressed the majority (any) of my legitimate concerns in my previous post. You have not addressed PistolPete's concerns about giving a reputation loan. You have not complied with PistolPete's request to add him to level 2 so he can give you a negative rating.

I believe you should in no way be trusted after giving a reputation loan. Someone who engages in the practice of giving reputation loan should absolutely not be trusted enough to be in Level 1 Default Trust.

It always surprised me how revered you are. Yes, we all heard the stories about how Dooglus sat on a cardboard box in his hotel room, while sending back the investor funds one by one on his laptop, with the feds closed him on in. Your his entire reputation seems to have been derived from that, where everyone conveniently forgets that you simply couldn't have disappeared with that bag of Bitcoins. Your dox is available on 8 pages of the first page of google SERPS searching for "dooglus"

Obviously you are Panthers52.  We all are who we post as.

What he may be asking (I am not him) is do you have any other accounts on this forum that you use regularly?

I have no reason to use any sockpuppet account. If I have something to say then I say it. If i am afraid it will harm my ability to conduct business then I will keep my mouth shut. I have no idea how else to answer this question.

A lot of users who use sockpuppet accounts are just scammers who make themselves look to be trusted when their intention is to pull off a larger con. When I trade, I always assume the person I am dealing with wants to use escrow, but often times they decline escrow and offer to send first. This fact baffles me, but this is not something for me to question as long as I am protected in a trade.

You (like QS) keep bringing up unrelated points. I've no idea what the cardboard box in hotel room is relating to, but you're clearly trolling. Can you try to stick to the matter at hand?

Re. PistolPete, I'm not going to add someone I've never heard of to "level 2".

Did I miss any questions that need answering? I skipped a bunch of your long-winded post.

The question of me being a sockpuppet is nothing more than a distraction from the points I am making.

My concern is that TSP was using a sockpuppet for 3+ months (and using his TSP account to agree with his sockpuppet) to harass staff member Mitchell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=113670) because what I believe was over Mitchell's argument that TSP was in fact a scammer when $username initially left a negative on TSP.

TSP has still refused to address this issue, and instead decided to start a flame war based on zero evidence and nothing more then speculation.

It's clearly relevant and highly ironic because the main thing you seem to be doing with this sockpuppet is claiming that I did sockpuppetry.  But this is a claim that your main account, Quickseller, tried to diverge us into about 5 months ago when people were asking you why you were going after me.  When you couldn't reply to these questions, you started grasping at other things to try to keep pressure from turning to you.  Now you're going back to that same strategy but using an alt to do it.   Yes, it's relevant that you're not using your main account for this.

Here's what's surprising, it seems like you've been using this sockpuppet account to create trades where you're both a buyer/seller and an escrow.  I'm not a trader but I would think that many who are would be quite disappointed to find out you were doing this.  At this point, you're risking your entire business here on the forums, not to mention any "scambuster" cred you have left just to try to smear me because you think I incorrectly withdrew some dust from coinchat 3 years ago.

I knew you were up to shady stuff long ago when you flipped out on me and tried to smear me.  I had no idea that this would culminate in exposing your own escrow scam.  Yikes!

Hmm I just got some "proofs" that panther is probably quickseller here,  or vice-versa, I was following up a thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169865.0;topicseen .
Panther seems to be replying quite often here, and quickseller as his personal message claims is off the forum until saturday. But I just noticed quickseller gave a negative rep. to paypalbusters regarding the transaction. And quickseller is highly coincidentally agreeing with everything panther is saying.
And lastly QS hasn't actually replied in the thread, which he seems to do often during his scam-busting. Not against QS or anything but seems like the statement tsp is making here is quite grave, if true.

I have no reason to suspect tsp of being a scammer, and so didn't feel any need to freeze his funds.


I posted a screenshot of my tip to him here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12315759#msg12315759).


I think a valid question is a valid question whoever asks it. But it's hard sometimes to pull valid questions from the surrounding noise.


I don't know.

I think we can put to bed any question of whether Panthers52 is QS's alt.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12330041#msg12330041

Now, lets get back on topic here, QS, please go ahead and return to your main account.

Odd that this account dropped the previous pretense of appearing different from Quickseller, and turned into a Quickseller emulator with the multiquotes, inline links, etc.

Quickseller as I'm sure you'll be dropping by my post history and finding I have an interest in clams and thus assume I'm some alt account, I'll tell you I'm not, I just followed a link tsp sent me.

Well, depends on interpretation. You can be excused of breaking the rule thrice.

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0



But, there is a disclaimer: (this is probably the only thing that defends your case)

My interpretation is the rule was created so that a banned user cannot do anything, but still retain the right to question the reason of the ban, etc. and discuss it, etc. That would mean you shouldn't have posted those 3 posts, esp. the scam accusation ones, unless may be you have clarified it already with mods or admins?

Well honestly now i kind of think the topic should be about quickseller and wether or not he should recieve negative trust if that is really his account, the last time he said the same about acctseller, that it was not him but he finally had to admit it, we will see this time

I made the loan to see whether he would pay it back, not to give him positive trust. If he hadn't paid it back I would have given him negative trust.


I'm not aware that it is against the rules to test people's trustworthiness. But I don't think I've ever seen a list of rules, so maybe it is. That would seem like a strange rule though. It seems to me that it is better to give ratings based on evidence than on heresay, which is what I did.

Fantastic (and correct) sentence, this is the proper function of the trust system.

You are thinking in a correct way, the banned users don't have the right to post in the forum (but only to ask about their ban). Now I don't know if Quickseller was really banned....

I fully agree.

This is for QS, not you guys above.

Hey QS - You need to learn when to fold your hand and be an actual honest person/man. WTF. You are Panthers52. I know this, and so do you. Give it up already, you are just making yourself look immensely ridiculous at this point.

I may be a newbie, but I'm really not. You can go ahead and mark me as a scammer or "possible alt of "insertnamehere" if you like, it will only make you look stupider than you think we all are, and just further illustrate my point that you should not be on DT anymore - you have abused your powers and caused a shit-ton of stupid drama for yourself. 

Just do the right thing already. Own up to your errors, admit Panthers is your alt, make TSP's trust neutral, perhaps actually listen to dooglus, instead of attacking him for being honest, and start owning your own messes you create by trying to be the forum's top "policeman". Have you ever heard the quote, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"?  Apparently not, as you are too hot-headed to admit any mistakes that I can see, which is sadly ironic, considering that is also another of all your alt's "common traits". 

I see you are really mad at TSP now. You let your emotions control your actions, and now you are angry that TSP has proven you that panthers is your alt. (It's pretty f'in clear to me as well - you both sign every BTC address and both write pretty much the same way) - I'll even leave out the part about where you both reside, because you know that as well.  ::)

And because I know you are just going to accuse me of being TSP's alt, I'm absolutely not, nor anyone else in this matter or thread, just an honest trader and former customer of yours who has been following this silly drama for a while now, however, I will never do any type of business with you again, because I now think you are just a disgrace to the forum due to all your multiple-personality shenanigans.

BTW, I think you are full of shit about being banned for 3 days, if not please prove it. ;)

Regards,
Coinonomous

@Coinonomous, you might want to post your thoughts about QS' escrow procedures over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12336733#msg12336733

There are no rules regarding when you can and cannot give trust (neither positive nor negative), only generally community accepted guidelines.

In the past reputation loans (which there has not been an explanation as to why the loan was given other then so tspacepilot can prove he will repay) has been something the community does not appreciate and others have received negative trust for both giving and receiving such reputation loans. The reason for this is that there is no reason for the trade other then for the trust rating. This causes their trust rating to reflect that they have had more of a history of trading honestly then is true because they would have one trust rating and zero honest trades (and no receiving money and then instantly giving it back is not an actual trade).

To respond to your implication that my rating is based on hearsay, as I mentioned several times in the past, my rating is based solely on what tspacepilot said, and what my understanding of the rules of coinchat are/were. However I really did not even need to rely on the former because tspacepilot admitted to receiving money that he knew (at the very least after the fact) did not belong to him:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252748#msg3252748 (he locked/censored the thread, so I cannot use the "quote" feature of the forum)


I don't see how it could be any more clear that he received money that he should not have......would a signed confession be enough? How about an admission in open court?

I don't read that as he received money he should not have.  I read that as he received more than the site owner wanted him to.  You could say the same about any gambling site - that doesn't mean the person cheated or scammed.

I would read that as him cashing out more then what he should have. His quote implies that he was sent some amount of money in error (and has refused to return it).

tspacepilot admitted to being given an amount that was claimed he needed to repay:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3250689#msg3250689

There is precedent for people to be labeled as scammers when they receive money in error.....KoS comes to mind when describing this kind of situation. Although both situations are BS (IMO), I would personally buy KoS's explanation (that the received BTC was a "tip" for busting scams -- and that he cashed out of the BTC in error, ended up in the hospital almost right after receiving he BTC, then the price skyrocketed, and "offered" to repay the fiat value), then tspacepilots explications (that what happened at coinchat has nothing to do with bitcointalk.org marketplace trust).

TF is a thief and a liar.  He would backstab his mother to get a bitcoin.  If your negative trust is based on anything TF, I would naturally urge you to reconsider it.   :-\

At the time of the original dispute TF was somewhat reputable, although my rating is based on tspacepilot's words, and to a lesser extent, on the words (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg11163154#msg11163154) of Blazr (who is someone who I very much trust). However as I said in my previous post, I can confirm that tspacepilot received money that he knows was not intended for him based solely on tspacepilot's words.

Based on the overall facts, I think that both the .2 and .5 BTC amounts would be reasonable amounts to believe that tspacepilot received that he should not have received. Although both of these amounts require TF's words to be somewhat believed (although the conclusion that tspacepilot received money he shouldn't have is not based on TF's words). If I really wanted to, then I could look at the blockchain closely to get a more solid figure that tspacepilot received, however I don't see any real point to this as tspacepilot has previously indicated that he has zero interest in repaying what is not rightfully his.

I would hope that you agree that the amount of money stolen should not matter when deciding if someone is a scammer or not. If someone stole a penny or a million dollars, they would equally be deserving of a negative rating (although someone who stole larger amounts should probably never have a negative rating removed....depending on the circumstances...while someone who repaid the single stolen penny should have the negative removed).

I would argue that unless tspacepilot were to come out and say that he received x amount of bitcoin, and can document that he sold some kind of goods/services to TF/coinchat for that same amount of bitcoin, then his situation is almost exactly the same as that of KoS (KoS received money that he should not have and refused to repay it).

I would say the primary difference between tspacepilot and KoS is that tspacepilot is only trolling me (although he has recently extended his trolling to panthers), while KoS trolls a much larger audience. (the person who KoS stole from is also not a scammer, however I don't think who was stolen from makes a difference)

This case is the opposite. There is no reason for the trust rating other than the trade.


Then that doesn't apply in this case either. My trust rating of him is very explicit. It says:

  "I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems."

I'm not suggesting that I'm basing my rating on a long history of successful trades. I explicitly state that it's based on a single loan of 1 BTC worth of CLAM.


Nobody's claiming that tsp didn't receive more than TF wanted to pay him. That much is clear. What is being disputed is whether tsp is "a scammer".

As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money.  tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done. I'm sure you've heard this version of events many times yet you continue your attempt to paint tsp as a scammer. Why is that?

Because:

!. QS has very fucked up multiple personality disorder, obvious as fck.

2. QS has vendettas against people who out out his alts. Plain as fck.

3. QS Can't ever fess up to errors. Or disputes. Has to double-down x2, using alts, forevermore.  ::)

4. Has proven to be unworthy of being on DT, yet TC says: 1. Thinks that TSP's rating is wrong, but 2. Thinks its right,... because... well, Quickseller.  ::)

This forum is corrupt as fuck, and you all just proved it tonight, congrats.

 :P

This. Exactly, thank you vod.

Correct me if I am wrong, however from what I got from your prior posts about the loan is that you sent/tipped him ~1BTC, he did nothing with that BTC (CLAM) that he received from you and then repaid/tipped the same ~1BTC back to you. Or did I miss something?
Reputation scammers (and trust farmers) will generally start out with smaller amounts, and then will say something along the lines of "dooglus trusted me with with 1 BTC here, so you can trust me with 1.5 BTC" Then when I^* decide that I can trust them with 1.5 because you trusted them with 1, then they can say "dooglus trusted me with 1 BTC and QS trusted me with 1.5 BTC, so I can be trusted with 2.5 BTC". Then the next person gets scammed when they run away with 2.5 BTC, and both myself and you (in this example) would partially be to blame for the third person's loss. (The amounts may not escalate as quickly and there may not be as few "steps" in these kinds of scams, but I think this example gets the overall point across).

*I don't think I would fall for this kind of scheme, but you never know if it was in a more complex form.
From what I understand, you concur that tspacepilot was due n from TF/coinchat (with the possibility of n being zero), but instead received n + x (with x being a positive integer).

Another way to put this is that tspacepilot received x amount of money in error. The best (and most professional) way to resolve this would for him to have said, "I was due n + x in exchange for goods/services and here is the documentation that I delivered my end of the bargain", although in the US defendants are not required to present a defense. Another potential defense would have been something along the lines of "I was due n + x, but I don't have any evidence to back this up", this would essentially result in a push and the "tie" would go to the defendant (tspacepilot).

There is precent to calling someone a scammer when they receive money they should not have received. A very notable/high profile example of this is KingOfSports (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=87310) (aka KoS). The tl;dr version of what happened with KoS is that someone agreed to lend him 2BTC to place a bet at a sports book, the lender sent the loan to an incorrect address (that a- KoS has confirmed as controlling, and b- is/was strongly associated with KoS), then when the mistake was pointed out, KoS asked the lender to send an additional 2BTC to his deposit address of the sports book. KoS only ended up repaying 2BTC and claiming the other 2BTC was a tip/donation.....KoS eventually acknowledged receiving this additional 2BTC but claimed he (automatically) cashed it out to fiat, ended up in the hospital immediately after the BTC was cashed out until after the price of BTC shot up. KoS has not repaid the 2nd 2BTC, although he has offered to repay the fiat value of what he received (but has not followed through on).

When I look at his trust score using my trust list, I see a trust score of -1024: -10 / +0, and when I view it from an account using the default trust settings, I see -128: -7 / +0. Either way, very deep into scam territory.

There are other examples of this being a scam as well:

After acting as escrow, Kluge (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11671), accidentally sent ~3BTC to deeznutz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=161565), requested the money back, but never received any kind of a response.

Also, somewhat similarly (although, there are more differences between this case, and tspacepilot), segvec (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=166177) directed someone to send ~17BTC to an "incorrect" address because of a "copy/paste error" and never ended up returning the money that he caused to be lost.
I would dispute that tspacepilot attempted to discuss the matter in a way that would result in tspacepilot repaying money that was sent to him in error. If you look at
]this (http://[quote author=dooglus link=topic=1129059.msg12339880#msg12339880 date=1441505001) thread closely, you will see that, although tspacepilot did "dispute" the amount that he owed, that TF providing an accounting of the amounts owed would be a waste of time because the overall consensus was that tspacepilot did not have any intention of paying anything back. I counted 5 people saying something along the lines that they did not think tspacepilot was going to repay anything back, which included 3 staff members (tysat apparently is no longer a staff member, but was counted as one in this case).

Additionally, tspacepilot demonstrated his willingness to repay by saying that the amount he stole was closer to 0.01 (then .5), and then later said if the amount demanded was 0.001 that he would pay just to make the issue go away:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3270672#msg3270672
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3272489#msg3272489
Also, IIRC, you had posted that he told you the amount was something closer to a few thousand satoshi (0.00002), so the amounts he is willing to admit to stealing keeps getting smaller ::)

While yes, 0.001 is closer to .01 then .5 is, however this is generally not the way that people will speak/argue a point, so I think it is reasonable to say that tspacepilot was admitting to stealing at least .01, but was only willing to repay .001 (which is 10% of the amount stolen). Additionally, I was not able to locate any reasonable attempt to repay any amount, even the ".001" that he "offered", and I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the .001 BTC remark was similar to the remark that he made saying that he might be willing to pay me to remove the negative rating but was unsure what amount to offer (something along those lines was stated either upthread or in another thread regarding this issue, and was clearly an attempt to misrepresent my ethics).

See above

It's kinda nice that QS has given up the panthers52 alt shenanigans.  Thanks for re-engaging with your normal attack account, QS.  I'm happy that your outlandish claims against me have finally caught the attention of reputable forum members dooglus and Vod.  I'm looking forward to your addressing of their concerns.  If you can't address them, maybe it's time to reconsider your smear campaign against me (for your own reptuation's sake). 

By the way, can you please remove the sockpuppet rating from your troll account FunFunnyFan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts)?  It seems a little strange that you took the communty's advice and removed the sockpuppet rating from ACCTSeller, but left the other one.  Can you please address this?

I cunt believe what im reading. If there is one thing that i learned in cryptos is that you https://i.imgur.com/8oo2gMih.jpg .

Pd: if you become an arse people will eventually gather up and take your rep to the ground :).

Really  ::)

This who last few pages is hilarious.

I'd go out on a limb on this one and say the chances of Dooglus being TSP are about as good as QS not being Panther52.

@BayAreaCoins- do you have any IP evidence of this? If this is true then it would mean a major Bitcoin Mongol is actually someone who scammed scraps from one of the biggest Bitcoin scammers in history. This would be a major breakthrough and your name would be remembered forever.

How do you even know this? Are you an admin of this section or something?

Kind Regards
Panthers52

I totally agree. :)

Else QS wouldn't be pretending he was banned.

Edit: and panthers wouldn't be trying to change his style every now and then. Check this post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1167947.msg12300600#msg12300600
No "@insert_name_here".  He quotes it. He uses ">" to refer to a part. Uses both bullets AND numbers... It is kind of obvious.


lol, IP can be easily masked. :P

I am reasonably certain QS's alts cannot be connected in blockchain or by looking at IP addresses (assuming he didn't want his alts known).

Are you implying that there is some evidence that is more advanced then IP evidence that links tspacepilot and dooglus ??? Can you kindly disclose this information?

Have you disclosed these methods to the NSA? I am sure they would be willing to pay a pretty bitcoin for these methods!

Kind Regards
Panthers52

You are clever QS, I admit it. :P

No, as per the terms I have with NSA, I cannot disclose the method esp. considering how noble your intentions are.  8)


Edit: lol, you are making me all the more suspicious.
User 'Panthers52' has blocked your personal message. lol.:P

So you admit to working with the NSA?

Are you trying to use a Trojan horse type deal with the scammers associated with DaDice? How close are you to being able to bust them?

I think you should tell thermos your method so he can stop scammers!

Kind Regards
Panthers52

I'm pretty sure NSA has better methods.
Anyway getting back to topic(avoid going off-topic though), I think the evidence I would give would be :
1) Registered date
2) Writing style
3) I'm pretty sure doog(or say tsp according to your conspiracy theory), wouldn't try "working" so hard for 0.2btc(the claimed amount tsp has taken from coinchat) while he makes quite much amount from his own dice site, or even by finding bugs and actually reporting them.
4) Have you noticed how doog avoids going all-out on a long expalanation for a simple one?
5) They have no reason to be linked while you on the other hand have plenty to be listed as QS's alt
6) They have not been known to have alts(at least not known to me), while QS on the other hand has been known to do so. While QS even tried to hide his past alts(like ACCTseller) using the same evidences you are trying(As far as I understand) to forge.
And the opposite goes for you and QS which makes people suspicious as to you being an alt of QS.
And a last "proof"(I can't verify if it is true though) as presented by coinomous.
And all of my post again is off-topic try getting back to the point why you(QS) haven't removed tsp's negative rep.
Although I think I'm going quite off-topic with this but:
http://snag.gy/Pf5QZ.jpg
http://snag.gy/6IHgV.jpg
http://snag.gy/nRxt3.jpg

Yeah, I admit. :)

No, sorry, I don't bust non-scammers. Quickseller is the expert in that field. Profile link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357487 :P

theymos is really busy, I wouldn't bother him with stuff.

Kind Regards
ndnhc

1) I havwe no control over when QS registered his account!
2) What so am I guilty by association? I have not seen any evidence that is rock (http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141120133208/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/4/4b/A_Rock!.gif) solid saying that we have the same writing style.
3) Hey man money is money. You know what they say that beggers can't be choosers. I only ask because BAC said that tsp and dooglus are the same person
4) I am confused regarding what that means.
5) What evidence is there exactly that I am QS? I do not want to be implicated in the event that QS turns out to be a scammer, so kindly advise how I can prove otherwise.
6) I am not sure what you mean by this ???

I don't know why QS has not removed negative rep, but he is still a scammer, so I think that might have something to do with it.

This is "only" my "opinion" though

Thank you for "your" attention

~Panthers52

BTW who are you calling a scammer here, tsp(for "stealing" btcs from coinchat) or Quickseller for using himself as escrow, and wouldn't that mean you are scamming here as well?
Mayne you are one heck of a confusing guy(lol some guys had a consipiracy you(Quickseller) were a girl here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139518.0 have fun).
EDIT: Have a look at my earlier post for an updated post, hope you understand it now.

I am saying that tsp is a scammer for stealing from coinchat.

I am concerned that QS is selling antimatter to random people on bitcointalk.org.

If you want proof of who I am then review this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMqMCMub3x8)[NSFW] and you will see for sure that I am not QS and who exactly I am.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

What has the video to do with your identity ??? It is just a football game.

And it is not NSFW too.

 ::)

QS, now don't post more stupid things to prove you are not him. :P


@Panthers52 and solely Panthers52, there are two things, and I am not sure which one of them is true.
One is, you are Quickseller's alt.
Two is, Quickseller wants everyone to think you are his alt.

You blocked my PMs, making all this all the more suspicious to me.
User 'Panthers52' has blocked your personal message.


Edit: To clarify, the ONLY person here who is saying you are not QS's alt is just you.

I unblocked your personal messages. I did not want to engage in any kind of flame war via Personal Message with you.

I am Panthers52 and that is my name. Anyone else claiming to be is impersonating me.

@NDNHC - I only ask as a question, but you are not trying to derail this thread are you? I "only" ask for your "opinion"

"Thanks" for your "attention"

~Panthers52

Are you an alt of me?

http://i59.tinypic.com/2cz53jm.png

Looks like it :P

Oh No!

The honorary Blazr is an alt of the scammer Turtlehurracane :(((

Kind Regards
Panthers52

P.S. - I do not know why so many people think I am an alt of so many people. I have asked good questions regarding this topic and expressed my opinion when I was pressed, that is it! Just because I have the opinion that you do not like does not mean I am an alt of the person you hate

LOL! nah I ain't that Zachary guy.

BTW I think the topic is derailing(I have done a bit of it too), maybe discuss this in the "official" thread where tsp claims panther is an alt of QS. Take it as a request.

I think maybe, and this is just a guess, that we both use the camera of an iPhone. I don't think there are very many of these sold in the US, only around 85 million throughout the US

Kind Regards
Panthers52

No, honestly, the pattern suggests you are at least in different timezones or active in different time periods. :P

The other one shows a pretty clear pattern.


Edit: lol, sorry for being off-topic. Difficult to follow two threads in two boards. ;D

Indeed.  It's quite transparent what's going on here.  When QS ran out of way to try to defend his actions he brought in an alt.  The alt got outed (ironically, he used the alt to accuse of sockpuppetry  ::)).

Now that the alt has been outed he's using it to fling nonsense at this thread as quickly as possibly (mods, please delete off-topic replies) in order to distract.

QS, please stop flinging nonsense at this thread, leave your alt out of it.  If you can't defend your actions, go ahead and admit you were wrong.  It's actually an important part of being trustworthy---the ability to admit you were wrong.  At this point, it's looking like your inability to defend your actions has resulted in some sort of pyschotic break!

I don't think Quickseller has that many accounts anymore. I know that there are other people here who have orders of magnitudes more accounts than he ever did but somehow never manage to gain the level of trust Quickseller has. Even you have more than 1 account right? Maybe it has less to do with the number of accounts and more to do with the person operating them. Maybe if you act in a trustworthy way then you too may get on DefaultTrust.

Is this the kind of "acting in a trustworthy way" that you're talking about: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

Isn't using an alt to provide escrow for your own deals pretty much the opposite of trustworthy behavior?

Oh yes, that would be bad if he specifically told the other person that it wasn't his alt.

That kind of behaviour (if true) should get you booted straight off the Default Trust list.

(I meant Dooglus isn't TSP)

I dont see the sense of him trying harder, its hitlarious.

Yes, but Panthers52 isn't expected to understand that since he is not (supposed to be) Quickseller. ;D

It's entertaining to see what a stubborn nut this Quickseller guy is under the surface of his personas. Thread of the year.

See how QS/Panthers twists people's words:




It was obvious to everyone all along that BAC was saying that the chance of me being tsp is zero - the same as the chance of QS not being Panthers.

I made a pretty insightful reply to your reply here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12340353#msg12340353) before the thread got somewhat derailed.

"insightful" eh?


That's pretty much how it went.


Cool story, but what does it have to do with this thread?

The way that people build up trust is the same whether they are scammers or not. Nobody is going to trust you with a large amount until you have shown that you can be trusted with a smaller amount.

It is possible that tsp will scam in the future, and that my report of him paying back the coins I loaned him will have facilitated his scam. The same can be said of any positive trust rating given to any account by anyone.


No, that is wrong. I think that x is a small non-integer closer to 0 than to 1.


Those cases are quite different. KoS refused to give the money back. tsp didn't. He was willing to discuss the situation but TF refused.


That's what I said.


OK. Because "consensus"?
 

You keep twisting people's words. Those two statements are not in any way mutually inconsistent. He is saying that the amount his bot earned is small, and that he would be willing to pay a small amount to make this nonsense go away.


I don't remember the amount he told me other than that it was tiny. Perhaps I understated its size. It's an amount earned by a malfunctioning bot on a site run by a suspected scammer without any terms and conditions in place at the time forbidding the running of such bots. Let it go already.


At no point has tsp admitted to stealing anything.

I think you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have little to no grasp of the concept of what is "reasonable".

What if Quickseller is not Panthers52? *and all this situation is for bring or catch more attention by the community...

I think (even) if he wants to come back and regret... he can't, because the 'shame' will be enormous.

This part seems true, and it is unfortunate.  I tried to get QS to resolve this with me quietly nearly two months ago via PM.  The idea was that perhaps if we talked in private we could figure out how to get along and he could remove his attacks without "losing face", as the expression goes.  Unfortunately, he merely restarted his false accusations in his usual inimitable style "you are a scammer, I know this".  And then wouldn't reply when I asked him to explain to me, in private, how it is that he thinks he knows so much about a situation he wasn't even present for.  After waiting a week and a half for a reply, I had to go back to the only other recourse, asking in public.

I really never expected him to keep doubling-down on the stakes like this.  It really seems like each time he's backed into a corner with people saying "QS, why don't you drop this", he brings in a new account to sockpuppet and distract.  He's sorta going crazy with it at the moment, you can see that he's posted nearly two pages quoted walls of nonsense, off-topic, randomness into this thread using at least three accounts ("QS_banned"?  what is that about?!) in just the last 24 hours.

I also would have never predicted that he would involve the alts that he's using for his escrow-scam-trading into this clearly personal grudge.  That is, it seems that no one would have ever known that panthers52 was his alt, and the was trading with it using himself as escrow if he hadn't pulled it into this wild-ass saga.  Alas, what do we do now?  I admit, I find it hard to believe that he's trusted by anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders after all these stunts.

As redsn0w says, it seems he's intent on "going down with the ship" like some sorta old sea captain.  QS, I know it would be hard, but it would demonstrate actual character at this point, you could go ahead and right your wrongs here rather than continuing to double-down.  You can remove the sockpuppet ratings from troll account FunFunnyFan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts), you can delete your negative feedback on me which is merely an echo of long-discredited scammer TradeFortress (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=67058) and then go about trying to repair your reputation with respect to your shady trading practices.  When the house is on fire, it's time to leave the house, don't keep throwing wood on it.

UPDATE 7 Sept. 2015:

QS has joined Tradefortress in the realm of the completely discredited thanks to an escrow scam he was pulling off.  Surprisingly, a fellow who goes by the handle of "Wardrick" has appeared to inherit the Tradefortress lineage of lies.  Why?  Who knows, maybe he'll speak for himself in this thread.

I honestly have no idea why both QS and Wardrick seem to be giving up all of their hard work on their current accounts just to try and tag you with a negative feedback and keep it there.

I cannot speak for Wardrick, although it appears that he has moved onto other interests and his built up reputation here is really not being used very much.

If someone has stolen money from someone then it is only appropriate to leave a negative rating to warn others about their behavior. I do not think it is a good idea to remove a negative trust rating just because someone complains loudly enough or because they complain long enough or because they troll you hard enough. If you do this then scammers will easily be able to get a free pass to avoid the consequences that result from stealing.

I have spoken to numerous people on DT, most of which agree that tspacepilot's negative rating from me was appropriate, however they declined to leave one themselves.....despite them often leaving negative ratings to other scammers. I get the feeling that they were intimidated from just how well tspacepilot is able to troll those who speak out against him. 

the new thread title sounds like a threat.
or maybe it's just my imagination.

same feeling here...

So you have no issue about my leaving you a negative warning to warn others about your behavior?

After all, you did claim to be a neutral third party and accept escrow fees/tips which you weren't owed.  I see that as theft.

You clearly have no understanding as to how efficient markets work. Go ahead and read up on efficient markets and get back to me.

Go ahead and leave a negative rating if you feel that is what is correct. I won't be around to argue for your removal from DT. I can say that you will likely be excluded though.

Plus it would be hypocritical for you to leave one for me and not your level 1 sponsor considering that he uses himself to escrow for his alts as well.....

If you are leaving the community, there is no sense to leave you negative feedback.  I have no intention of kicking a person on the way out.

But somehow I have a feeling you'll still be here under alt usernames.  (Sorry, but that's the end result of lying about who you are/were/will be.)

I didn't say my hiatus will be permanent. Just that it is very near, as soon as I can wind down a few outstanding business items.

FWIW, I was asked to stay by a level 1 DT user whose trust list I may or may not have previously been on and use an alt that would be recommended for DT however I am lacking such alts, and I honestly have little interest in doing as much.....

Dooglus: "Those cases are quite different. KoS refused to give the money back. tsp didn't. He was willing to discuss the situation but TF refused."
[/quote]

Can we keep my name out of this conversation? Much appreciated. Thanks. (This also isn't correct but i aint going to explain this shit for the millionth time and PLEASE dont respond or bring it up further.)

Oh look Quickseller being found guilty for EXACTLY the thing I called would happen 6 months ago. The egotistical asshole promoting nonstop his escrow services. His arrogance. His MANY alt accounts and knowing that green trust allows for more money. Thus a situation where a conflict of interest occurs since he will escrow and owns many alts - good chance he escrows for his own accounts and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! Called this one a mile away (I would love if someone went thru my history and found the post I made calling this would happen one day many months back).

Y'all might hate me but as tomatocage knows, I call out a ton of scammers and also do scam busting. I use to PM him at least 5 accounts weekly to red neg rep couple months back when I was active on here. Of course let the haters continue to hate on me.

No one is concerned by the fact that quickseller was selling dt accounts? If thats not considered a negative rating i dont know what is, i dont understand how can he even give neg trust to other people when he was doing worse things.

Are you threatening him?


Are you talking about me? Vod has two level 1 sponsors (TC and me) but I don't have any alts that have ever traded.

Well, if he's not talking about you, he must be talking about Tomatocage, who has made his thoughts on the subject clear

What happened to quickseller? I used to defend him but now he just seems different, like he lost control i dont know, threatening people and using his alt accounts to give more negative trust (something that is not needed since he is/was on default trust)

He's being bullied by other people here. Tspacepilot has been fighting over this stupid shit since April. Thats right, months and months of constant QS threads. How would you feel if someone did that to you?

And now it looks like tspacepilot wants to fight with me (check the title). I don't think there is anything he could do to me though, he'll have a hard time finding/inventing dirt to sling at me.

It's not intended as one.  I don't know exactly what you think I'm threatening anyone with.  I wrote the title to try to capture he latest in what seems like a lifetime saga on here; and I think it's historically accurate.  TF was once respected, but is now known as one of the biggest all-time scammers in the history of bitcoin.  QS used his position on default trust to abuse me, he ended up being an unrepentant escrow scammer who feels he's above the rules which apply to everyone else.  Wardrick has appeared out of nowhere, seemingly, in order to carry forward that twisted, abusive history.  I don't know why he wants to do this.  Maybe he's gotten caught up in the drama of this and hasn't really looked into what's fact here vs what's speculation and baseless accusation.  Maybe he's going to be looking into it soon.



I'm actually not into finding dirt at all on anyone.  You'll note (perhaps) my 3 year history on this forum with no trades and no issues.  Most of my posts are either asking or answering questions on technical details or chatting about gambling.

Sorry if the title seems like a provocation, but your sudden appearance and willingness to inherit this enviable intellectual tradition seems to border on the absurd, so maybe you'll have something more to say about it.  At the moment we have the fact that TF tried to blackmail me years ago and I stood up to him.  History sorta showed what kind of person he was.  Then QS, who can't take criticism, decided to smear me out of his way to the top using the discredited accusations.  To be honest, since I hadn't done business here, most established forum users simply didn't give a fuck about me and newbie accounts were clearly afraid to speak up.  However, once a few people with established profiles did look into this, QS' reptuation ended up suffering a lot for his use of the trust list to carry out personal vendettas.  So, I think the question to you is why you'd want to pick up that mantle and carry it?  You're the next guy to say that Tradefortress was right to blackmail me and QS was right to smear me?  Why would you want to jump on that sinking ship?  

Please PM me if you like and I'd be happy to talk to you off the record.  I like to argue but it's not my goal to fight.  I honestly have no idea who you are or why you think you know something you weren't involved in or why you'd want to be associated with a crew like Tradefortress-Quickseller/ACCTSeller/Panthers52/FunFunnyFan.

First of all QS still has a huge amount of positive trust, much more than you, so I don't think he has been discredited in any way at all. Your title says "Wardrick next?" seems to indicate I will be discredited soon. I don't see how anyone could think that wasn't a thinly veiled threat that you plan to do what you did to QS to me.


What are you talking about? you had such problems over this issue that at one point you had to abandon this tspacepilot account and switch to your sockpuppet account sed. Almost all of your posts since April are attacking QS in some way. Your not here to trade and chat, you're here to scam and slander.

And your "linguistic analysis" is such pseudo-science its a joke. Why didn't you provide all of the data that you collected so that others can repeat your "scientific" research? and all you did was prove that QS had to closest writing style to Panthers52 (the method you used to do that is complete crap too and you know it) out of a list of 4 people that you specifically chose. Don't get me wrong this kind of analyisis can be used to find alt accounts, but seemingly you lack the intelligence to do such a thing.

You could've picked any 4 people here, one person will always be the closest match. You didn't even specify how you chose the users, maybe you picked out people you know weren't going to match. There are so many ways you could've manipulated the results and you never provided those results, tspacepilot/sed/josh.

I don't know what the "threat" part is.  Presumably you have to have some power in order to carry out a threat.  I have no power, as you correctly point out.  I do tend to think that if you blithely adopt the word of a known liar/scammer (TF) and an escrow-scammer then that's not really going to do wonders for your credibility.


It seems like you just want to call me names or something.  How is my super low intellegence related to your accusation of me?

I didn't call you any names I only stated facts. I'm just pointing out that this analysis that you have used to convince a small number of uninformed people here is complete bullshit. Anyone who knows anything about language realizes that. Did you know there are lots of open source projects which can mitigate many kinds of linguistic analysis? some even claim to be able to mask you as another user, such as this one from drexel university. (https://psal.cs.drexel.edu/index.php/JStylo-Anonymouth) People here use these tools, you are not the first person to try deanonymize users this way.

I think that you got the idea to do the analysis but were unable to do it and fabricated the story you gave us, because it's just a story without proper results.

I'm not on anyone's side here. I can see what you are doing and I'm calling you out for it.

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic of this thread.  It seems like you're wanting to comment on QS's escrow scam, which is being discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

EDIT:

To clarify: this thread is about QS' refusal to remove his negative trust on me, his trust-spam with sockpuppets, and Tomatocage's refusal to discuss the actions of those on his trust list.  At the moment, TC has removed QS so the latter point sems moot.  QS seems to have exploded and has been removed from default trust so the first two also seem moot.  That brings us to you, you have left negative feedback on my account.  You are on default trust.  I think on the face of it, it just seems like you're using your position on default trust to abuse me in some sort of retribution for a now-outed scammer.  What's up with that?

It is relevant to this thread too. Report it to the mods if you think it's offtopic. I'm not going to argue facts with you across the few thousand different threads you opened which are essentially all about the same thing.

He was always "bullied" by a lot of people because of his ratings and he never has had this attitude, now he just seems like he lost it and im starting to think that he might not be as trusted as i thought

You are kidding right? First of all I specifically said that I would not be around.

You yourself said that you have acted as escrow for yourself (via JD escrow), so you really can't say that part is a scam.
There was never any kind of disputes, so you can't really say that I incorrectly mediated a dispute in my favor. In fact, I can say that for all disputes I have ever handled as escrow, it was extremely clear cut as to which side was in the right from the very beginning - I would go through the motions of asking both sides for evidence, soliciting any counterpoints to evidence provided (and obviously not telling either side that I believed them) - and nothing really changed except for the amount of evidence I was in possession of. There is the issue of the fee, however refunds were offered, and processed in the single case of a request, so there is no money lost, although I did explain here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12358657#msg12358657) how having my trading partner pay the fee (when the escrow charges a fee as I do) is the most fair way to handle the trade. An intelligent trader is not going to care where his money goes, all he will care about is how much money goes in his pocket after selling his widget.

If it is not a scam, and someone who is on your trust list leaves a negative trust rating, then why would you leave them on your trust list after they leave such rating?
No.

Quickseller removed from the DefaultrTrust list (Depth 2)? Hmm.... really interesting, this is the second time (if I'm not wrong).

Maybe Doog can explain how he is not escrowing for himself. I'm going to assume he still owns JD and has access to the escrow code, so is it really an independent party? Must be missing something because I doubt he would make those comment when he's doing the same thing.

doog did already confirm that he uses himself as escrow when on JD.
but he got a point with saying that anybody should know thats him owning jd: thats not the case with QS and TC. they didnt tell the other part that they are essentially sending first beforehand.

what's the point of escrow then, instead of just sending to doog directly? was it just to speed up the clam to BTC process?

thats his pos about this:

He wouldn't need to access the "escrow code", the private keys to the funds are in/on the JD servers (or are offline in doog's possession), so he could just take the money if that is what he decided to do

Looks like that had less to do with escrow and more of speeding up the process to get their CLAMs, kind of automating things. Why else would someone use escrow when they know the escrow is dooglus or JD, unless they didn't now that would be a different story. That's what I'm reading, dooglus could answer this best though.

Well dooglus could easily give the person a BTC address to send to, and then tip/credit their account.

It would be nice if you guys could discuss Quickseller's self-escrow scheme over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

And leave this thread for QS and Wardrick (and others?) to work on explaining their motivations in using the trust system to damage my reputation.  QS has made his personal animus quite clear using several accounts now (see the post histories of ACCTSeller, Panthers52, FunFunnyFan and of course QS).  It's unclear what Wardrick's motivation is here.  So far he's just shouted a bit about how he thinks I'm an unscientific guy.  Okay.  But is everyone who thinks I'm "unscientific" supposted to leave me a negative rating in the spirit of TradeFortress?  Or is there something more here than just more bullies vs. tspacepilot on bitcointalk?

I think that Quickseller's conflict with tspacepilot was taken to ridiculus lengths. My views on it however still haven't changed.

It's obvious that Quickseller abused his position in default trust. As he claims, tspacepilot was trolling him constantly, so he searched back on his past and found the only offense worthy of a negative trust comment. Close to two years later after the event taking place, he left tspacepilot this comment in an attempt to defame him. Obviously Quickseller had no insight on the event himself so he bases his claims to the saying of one of the most irresponsible and arrogant users that ever used this forum. TradeFortress is undoubtedly a liar, manipulator, involved in serious theft/irresponsible handling of user funds and trolls the forum to this day.

To this day, Quickseller keeps defending this idiocy.

I dont know, its kind of weird that wardrick decided to give you a negative trust rating when no other dt member has given you any negative rating since qs did, it really makes yuo think they are the same person but im pretty sure they are not, i still dont understand wardrick motivation to give you negative trust when other trusted members have trusted you.

So at the end he doesn't want to change or remove the negative trust and 'clarify' everything, why? Because the shame will be enormous... like I said previously (and I don't know if the community will 'trust' Quickseller again).

Just that you know, Wardrick also removed a positive trust (to do with a 1 year old loan. totally unrelated, lol) he had on my account. He is acting like a 5 year old at the moment.  ::)

Edit: I am still waiting for him to give me the honest reason than lying about it.

Maybe because he still believes that TSP is a scammer. How does Panthers coming out as QS make the negative feedback any different? It happened before the shady behavior by QS was in the spotlight.

You believe someone is a scammer, you mark them as a scammer. For all we know (and only QS would know this), TSP trolled, QS looked for a reason to troll back and found TSP scammed (I'm not saying he scammed or didn't scam) so decided to leave negative feedback, not for trolling but because of shady activity. I know, I know... this may be hard for some of you to believe but you have to still consider it as a possibility.

Once again, not taking sides but only pointing what out could have happened. Just like how I pointed how why dooglus might have escrowed for himself when QS brought it up.

I understand what you wanted to say, but another valid question is:

Why did Quickseller stage his fake ban? It was not necessary in my opinion, and for this reason I can't trust him.

Who confirmed the fake ban? I'm not trolling or anything, it's just that I asked before and nobody answered back with a confirmation from someone who has the ability to ban. Is that just being based on the fact Panthers wasn't banned because I doubt QS used the same IP across all of his accounts.

There are a couple of threads and many posts (trolling and sig spamming included) so I probably missed something here.

I use the escrow service because it is more convenient than handling things "manually". The escrow service logs both sides of the transaction so that it appears in the users' histories. It usually goes like this:


I think it's pretty clear that I'm not an independent third party in the escrow, and that's what makes this quite different than Panthers suggesting QS as a fee-charging escrow, while trying hard to make it look like he's not the same person (without ever going quite as far as to explicitly deny it).

Thanks, didn't see that. Also interested in hearing from QS himself why he faked a ban. He just made it way to obvious he was Panthers.. I just didn't believe that was his alt based on how obvious he made things, thought it was trolling or something and not QS coming out.

I don't know how credible or relevant this is, but on the Wardrick appearace topic (which is actually related to the topic of this thread):

The other thing wardrick has done since relogging in besides picking up the tradefortress-->quickseller mantle seems to be talking shop about pedophiles or something or another in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169069.msg12364388#msg12364388

Upthread in there someone in there suggests that he's actually Tradefortress.


I have no idea about this sythe forum or what it has to do with Tradefortress, but if Tradefortress is Wardick, it would explain his interest in this matter.  We could make it Tradefortress-->Quickseller-->Tradefortress.  Who knows?

If the last part is the true, QS would have known and had more proof against you, no? I'm talking about logs and all that from when you used your bot to cheat him (or so he was basically was trying to say) out of BTC. He would have been able to gather more evidence or even manipulate it to try and prove his point. Then again, people would see right through that and start trying to link him to TF so who really knows.

Lol. I will publicly state that i am not TF or QS, and there is a thread about the TF thing already if you care to read about it. My interest in the matter is that someone I know to be a scammer ddidn't have negative trust. I am simply using the trust system to reflect my position, how is that so difficult to understand?

If I was TF I would've posted the chatlogs of wikib0t a long long time ago.

TradeFortress>Wardrick circumstantial evidence (or, "birds of a feather..."): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg9579253#msg9579253

I'll take your word for it.  It seems relevant that the only things that have happened since you've been back have been at least obliquely linked to him.

Maybe your position is one of truth-bending omniscience.  I was there at the time of these alleged coinchat incidents and I don't have any evidence that the accusations are true.  In fact, since I was there, I have some really strong evidence in the form of my own personal experience that they aren't true.

It seems to me like we have a fork in the road:

1) You're TF, or his close friend, or something like that.
2) You're not TF.

In the case of (1), we at least know where your motivation is and what the nature of your legacy is.  I guess in that case you and I can go back to where we left things 2.5 years ago before your were completely discredited.  Also in that case, it seems like you would get removed from default trust as presumably default trust doesn't want an alt of TF any more than they want TF himself.

In the case of (2), we have to ask you what evidence that you have to accuse me with?  TF's word isn't so credible anymore.  QS's clear personal vendetta against me is, in theory, irrelevant.  What's your case?  If you don't have one beyond the unsupported gripes of TF and the ravings of Quicktemper, that doesn't look so strong to me.

Your option 2 is pointless considering the thread you linked above http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1628892-wrongful-twc.html Archive.is mirror: https://archive.is/bahPr (https://archive.is/bahPr)

Where an account on Sythe by the name of TradeFortress explicitly says he's using an alt named Wardrick and provides proof in the form of screenshots of him logged into bitcointalk. Imgur mirror: https://i.imgur.com/CpZDckR.png (https://i.imgur.com/CpZDckR.png)

Any more scammer alts want to out themselves today?  ;D

From the looks of it, wardrick has a long standing non-bitcointalk alias named "trade fortress" one of the found threads about him is the bitcointalk (scammer) trade fortress saying that someone is on Skype with the trade fortress handle, and then wardrick comes and says that he has been using that handle for years.

Ironically, there is a good possibility that the wardrick account is hacked and if this is true, I believe there is a good chance it is hacked by TF (the scammer).

tspacepilot, is jawguy your alt? do you have any other accounts here?

Do you live in Washington?

Why do you and Quickseller have to resort to doxing? Pathetic.

@Wardick, do you actually have any evidence for your rating?  Or are you merely basing it on the discredited word of TradeFortress and Quickseller?  If the former, would you mind discussing it?  If the latter, perhaps you ought to reconsider given those people's reputations.  So far you just seem to want to insult and or threaten me.  Would you care to elaborate on your position?

Quickseller removed from DT.  Wardrick next?  If you've been following the scandal,
he added negative trust to tsp just when QS left DT...and then edited that feedback
not once but twice so tsp got the " ? ? ? instead of -1/+4 because of my positive
feedback, and he also mentioned adding more feedback. 

I'm not making any "accusations", but those are just facts.

I wonder what the admins think.

I don't know, I actually think the ??? is better than the mixed.

He is tricking the trust system, this is my opinion.

Technically there is nothing wrong with that. Theymos: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174567.msg12367824#msg12367824)
People could do the same with the positive trust.

---

---

It has changed again. Now it is:
Trust:0: -1 / +4

xetsr, I noticed you removed your positive feedback from me that you did a long time ago.
We did a good trade.  Do you not trust me now just because I gave positive feedback to tspacepilot?

 :'(

He didn't remove it, it's still there. He was removed from DT because he asked it, as stated in his signature.

why would he do that?

Because it is turning into a joke. Tspace now has 6 DT positive feedbacks lol. Dooglus giving loans for feedback etc...

But the ultimate positive trust left by dooglus is 'regular' and I think the trust system doesn't have clear rules...


| Edit |

I've also noticed that Quickseller has removed a positive trust to me (after all this inconvenience).

You really think I am? call me up and ask me about it, you got my number.

This is tldr of what happened

-tspacepilot had negative trust
-QS removed from DT
-tspacepilot now has neutral trust
-i disagree with this
-post temporary short feedback note to make him negative
-other people leave feedback, I have no control over this
-I edit my trust a few times to add/remove details, like I always do
-have accusations made against me that I am gaming the system
-i can no longer edit my trust to explain myself without looking like im gaming the system
-accusations continue even though the feedback has not changed.


Moral of the story:
It's much too easy for scammers to spread false information/accusations and manipulate and hide the truth.

I personally disagree with your tl'dr what happened.

Moral of this should be:
It should not be too easy for anyone, trusted members to indulge in questionable practices and potentially con someone in future.


Edit: When exactly did you start this weird practice of deleting or deleting and re-adding feedbacks? Last week?

Personally I don't think tspacepilot should have a negative feedback for the old TF issue, a neutral may be more appropriate. But I also really don't think he should have positive ones as 'rewards' for his multiple threads with repetitive claims. And undeserved negatives plus undeserved positives really don't make it right. Who of the people who's left all this trust would be willing to make a truce and remove it if everybody does (and replace with neutral if you really need to)? I guess it would be too difficult.

Meanwhile regarding your predicament I'd suggest you to leave your negative trust unchanged and add a new neutral if you really need to add more information. Then you can freely remove your neutral and add a new one. Just don't touch the negative one again.

He stole money then lied and harassed people when he was asked about it. Personally I think that deserves negative trust. He still says he is innocent, he's a liar and manipulator who cannot be trusted.


Great idea thank you! Problem solved.

Dude, you and quickseller are the only people that left him negative rating and think what he did was a fraud, you both are so dellusional its not even funny anymore.

Ok but can I ask you one thing :

 - Why didn't you leave a 'comment' also on the Quickseller's trust profile?



PS: I'm sorry about this question, maybe I should asked it privately.

Interesting to me how he goes from making thinly veiled threats to trying to play the victim as people question his motivations.

Now Wardrick has been removed from default trust.

Today I learned to never mess with people that are quiet without bothering no one, specially if this person is called tspacepilot

Nope, still on the list.

Wardrick is off the DT list now, I know because he left me NT for no reason and now it doesn't say "Trade with extreme caution" under my posts

Hmm, I show him as untrusted feedback as well, and I have default trust.

I see BadBear has him trusted.  Wonder if it's a bug.

WTF now I see his feedback back among the trusted ones ???

Me too.  Wonder if Theymos is playing with the algo....