Bitcoin Forum

I have logged into this account after a long time and found that it is marked with negative trust, when I was not online. Since this account is in my possession, it has not been involved into any activity. The last post that was made by this account was on July 21, 2015, whereas the trust was left on August 3, 2015. I bought it in between and have nothing to do with cryptodevil's judgement about the activity of the previous owner. Therefore, my request was to remove the negative trust, so that I can normally use this account on this forum. But, after communicating with cryptodevil to & fro multiple times, this is what the end result is...


So, I would like to know from the forum administrators, who, I believe, have chosen a list of trusted members to leave feedback, why allowing account trading on Bitcointalk, if your trusted member thinks account buying is an act of deception?

Contact dooglus. He is the reason scores of irresponsible people have been added to DefaultTrust.

Nothing to do with "administrators". Scamming is also "allowed" on Bitcointalk (i.e. mods don't ban scammers) but it doesn't mean their behavior is trustworthy. This is between you and cryptodevil. Also it's impossible to prove that the account really changed hands and you should have considered the risk of prior activity when you purchased it. There was ample warning on the trust page.

Cryptodevil wasn't chosen by any of the administrators to be on the Default Trust list, instead chosen by dooglus.

Account trading cannot be stopped. If it were banned on this forum then it would be simply continue off-forum. Also, the trust system and moderation are two things. It is not up to staff to moderate scams, it is what the trust system is used for. If someone sees it as untrustworthy, then that someone may leave you trust to correspond with that.

As said above, this is not a forum matter. This is between cryptodevil and yourself.

Nopes. This is not between SpanishSoldier & cryptodevil. It could be, if cryptodevil was not on DT level 2. But, DT level 1 members are hand picked by "administrators" as loyalty reward. There is no algorithm behind it. And DT level 2 members are hand picked by DT level 1 members. Hence, if a DT level 2 member is defying a forum rule, "administrators" can take step to remove the DT level 1 guy, who has chosen the problematic DT level 2 member.

I wouldn't say a loyalty reward. You wouldn't get put on DT1 simply for being here for a long time, else every member from 2010-2011 would be on there.

Cryptodevil has broken no rules here. Combine that with the fact that trust isn't moderated in any way past blatant abuse, and your post is essentially all incorrect.

What is the forum rule that cryptodevil is "defying"?

Seems your IQ level is too low to understand the meaning of loyalty reward. Better stop barking for petty signature payment.

Leaving (actually not removing in this case) negative trust on someone, because he believes buying an account is an act of deception. If that is what he believes, why not he negative trusting everyone involved into account trading in Digital Goods & Auction, including the forum escrows?

Did you even read the feedback? It seems you didn't.
It's more about the 'former' owner of the account, rather than about the act of buying the account (which anyway could not be 100% proven).

---

On a side note, some reputable escrows like OgN don't even offer to escrow for account trades.

Did u read the OP? It seems you didn't.

Can you quote the applicable rule from here:

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

Buying an account doesn't free you from any responsibilty over the actions of the previous owner.
Cryptodevil is backing up feedbacks from jimmothy, which had been there since half a year before.

@OP: You bought a shit account and now you're facing the concequences.

Then please, educate me on what a loyalty reward is. Also, can you stop with the obnoxious bold red text for no reason? Thanks.

The last call of defense for someone too mentally deficient to respond to the rest of my post. Child.

So he never broke a rule, just did something that you don't agree with/don't understand.

The forum doesn't prevent account sales, however, as everyone can leave feedback as they see just, it also does not prevent users leaving negative feedback over account trades/to bought accounts.
Hence, Cryptodevil does not 'break' that rule.

How exactly is cryptodevil "defying" this rule? It doesn't say anything about an obligation to remove trust ratings after an account sale or anything else that would apply here. The "discouraged" part is the lesson to learn here.

If your version is to be believed, then why not he negative trusting everyone involved into account trading in Digital Goods & Auction, including the forum escrows? Why not apply the same rule to all and see how dooglus+cryptodevil turn red within days? Why rules are selective applied to those, who does not have any loyal connection to DT?

To understand my last statement, each and everyone arguing with me in this thread is somehow blessed by DT. I have no problem if SpanishSoldier remains marked with DT. But, the point is, if this continues, only DT will trust DT and the rest will find something else.

Please read the OP. The account was sold before the rating was placed. Though, this claim of OP is not provable, it is clear that the account not active for at least a week when the trust was placed by cryptodevil.

I said cryptodevil is allowed to, I didn't say a) I will or b) I think it should be done.

I don't see any reason to leave negative feedback to either, if you do, leave it.

You're free to adjust your trust list as you want to, DT is only the newbie help.
Do it, there is no need to trust the default trust, using a custom trust list with people you trust works just as fine (or even better).

On a side note, I don't think the term 'blessed' should go with DT.

The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.

I seriously doubt that you have the authority to speak for "the rest" but there is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust.

But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?

It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...

Yah. I dont have any authority here. But all I can tell you, once upon a time, I used my resources to bring people to Bitcointalk. Now, I use the same resource to take people to forum.bitcoin.com. Even sirius said there that he regrets his decision to hand over Bitcointalk to current "authorities".

Regarding the issue with Bitcointalk, doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust, would have solved the problem, if newbies were not forced feed to wear DT. But, as long as the newbies are forced feed to wear DT, "authorities" can not disown their responsibility rectify the mafia like activity by certain DT members.

The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.

Trust is definitely not moderated and no one is asking mods to moderate cryptodevil's feedback. What is being asked is to deal with dooglus, who is sitting in DT level 1 and recruiting one after another nonsense. FYI, DefaultTrust has been moderated before. Read about CITM, escrow.ms, Tradefortress, lophie, master-p, friedcat and many others who have glorified the DefaultTrust before.

Thanks a lot for your insightful comment. How much you earned for this "constructive" statement? 0.00007 BTC?

That's a whole lot of assumptions from a short quote like that. Why don't you PM cryptodevil and ask for an explanation before jumping to conclusions.

I wouldn't worry about dooglus, he's already being dealt with. Just wait for Chapter 3 (https://archive.is/Uc4wa#selection-32187.0-31890.80), I hear it's going to be good.

Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?

Why on earth will I PM cryptodevil? If u trust him, u r free to do that. I prefer public discussion as I do not need any loyalty reward from anyone here. If u ask me about the current members on DefaultTrust, I think, dooglus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420) should be moved to level 2, shorena (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181801) should be taken to level 1 and Johny Depp (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=318262) should be added to level 2. But, well, I know I am not the "authority".

You concerned for my financial outlook,you can always donate to me if it worries you so much.

Why should I address the obvious,when threads like this are a dime a dozen. People buy cheap accounts and contact people that left negative comments and get no where,so they cry in meta for change. Nothing ever comes of it and nothing should,or the whole point of leaving trust goes up in smoke.
Besides I thought it was leaning more in line with you than not,interesting you took offense to it.
Sorry I did not pick up a banner like you and QS and scream about dooglus,or is there only one person doing that?

Anyways thanks for the feedback Bill Gates its nice to know some one really cares here.

I could not understand your Chapter 3 reference. What does it mean?

Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here, while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account. He could at most leave a neutral feedback, saying it is bought. But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.

Because you're the one making wild assumptions from a third-party quote?


Can't help you there. I don't understand it either.


Being allowed to do something and being trusted is not the same thing. Otherwise we wouldn't need any trust system at all. Moderators can ban offenders, i.e. "not banned" would be equal to "trusted" (same as ~DefaultTrust).

The ideal solution for the Op would be presenting the proof of the account being sold/bought ? Maybe PGP message of the escrow if used.I remember similar thing happened with Laosai's alt's including Phibay,Patatas etc  and Sho had negative repped them for defaulting on a loan as all the accounts were connected via old addresses .

Matter fact,all the feedbacks were removed once proof of account sales were sent to Sho.Cryptodevil might as well do the same.There is really no point in bragging ,work it out with crypto devil.

The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.

You're confusing(misleading others into thinking) tolerated(allowed but discouraged) with supporting. The forum neither promotes/supports the account sales neither does the administration care about/moderate them.
Where did you get that idea from? He is claiming that the account has/had several ponzi alt shills, and has linked the proof in the reference, with no reference to the account being bought or not. However if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked) CD might opt to remove his tag.
You sure know that one is only removed from DT after commiting a pretty serious scam or shady behavior right(this applies to most of the examples you gave I believe)? Although it does happen sometimes with users like escrow.ms(who was in DT 1 some time ago) , that they had add a user to their trust list without thinking in their early days and may later remove them for no reason at all, I don't see doog having the similar approach to CD

Oh yeah, BB came back I guess you're talking about him as I'm pretty sure theymos doesn't respond to any such requests. Still slim chance of your message actually getting through to him

---

Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth

---

---

Come on now QS, rephrasing what you said earlier and what most users(last I heard) thought was over-exaggeration hardly makes your point stronger.

---

---

Also just FYI Gates, as you seem to consider anyone with a paid signature a sig spammer(pretty good habit most of the times), I get paid regardless of whether I post or not(something similar to Blazed and Philipma)

---

---

Edits are fun, I could go all day with this....

That is impossible to do and you should know this. You should know very well that it would be trivial for someone to use an alt account to create a facade that an account was purchased, even if an escrow is used as many escrows provide their services for free (a small number will even cover tx fees).

It is up to the person leaving the trust to "prove" (or some derivative of "prove") that an account was not sold when relating to some kind of alleged action/scam that took place a long time ago.

It is up to the aggressor to make their case, and only when such aggressor has made a strong enough case does the person being called a scammer need to present some evidence in his defense. I don't think you would like it very much if the OP were to say that you stole 100BTC from him and tried to force to you prove your own innocence.

Yep I do and I think I made that clear
, but its not exactly impossible
If enough evidence point to the fact that the account was bought on a certain date/time, with tx links, if possible the sale thread and better yet a forum escrow confirmation, CD might opt to remove the tag. Can't say why one would remove a tag from a known CM shill account though

---

---

This is probably going to be another drama dialog all over again, I get your point but that does not change my opinion. Thats.... it.

Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules.   Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole  which you already know.  Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.

All of that can be faked. Trust farmers sometimes go as far to use an escrow to trade with themselves with the hopes to receiving positive trust from said escrows.
I doubt it either way.

---

Edit:

Don't try to refute any of my points or anything about the substance of what I have said, or anything like that.

The OP(or at least the account I guess) is one of the shill accounts of the now failing ponzi scheme Cloudmining.website. The recent threads might be the reason why CD chose to tag them now

A hint like "/sarcasm" might be good, you never know when someone is being sarcastic in bcttalk. Anyway, thats enough words from me this night. Will possibly "argue"(pretty much every argument is one-sided as it seems I get easily swayed) tomorrow

Ok I have no idea about any of that.  And ponzis are also allowed on this forum, and I'm sticking with what I wrote above.  I don't support ponzis, but if they're bad enough to earn negative trust, they ought to be banned.

Quoting Lauda for you
Tolerating them as they are right now(negs here and there) is fine IMO, as I'm pretty sure they are not going anywhere any time soon

So how does that work then? Any red tagged scammer can say "I bought this account just recently" and you would defend their right to get the negs removed?

The OP has no case. The OP has nobody else to blame for the incredibly dumb decision to buy a known ponzi shill account if the purchase really took place.

Funny how SpanishSoldier hasn't posted even once in this thread but the usual suspects are busy inventing new precedent. Good luck with that.

Someone who wishes to leave negative trust today for someone who scammed someone two months ago should check the security log for any password changes between when the scam occurred and today. If the password changed in the relevant timeframe then someone wishing to leave negative trust needs to consider if these password changes reasonably resemble the ownership of the account changing hands. If the password has changed between when the scam occurred and today then ownership of the account changing can be refuted with blockchain evidence (and/or other evidence to otherwise prove that the person before the password changed is the same person as after the password changed).

In the same example as above, if someone scammed two months ago and I leave negative trust today, if the password were to change in a week I would not consider to remove my negative rating just because there is evidence that ownership changed hands after the account was marked as a scammer.

Sorry to be a bit off topic here but Cryptodevil seems to have been removed from the DT.What Am I missing ?

You must be using some kind of custom trust list. He is still in dooglus's trust list.

Ah well! Thanks for pointing it out.

#1 use PayPal for a deal
#2 wait 1-3 months
#3 fake account trade
#4 wait a little longer
#5 charge back
#6 "account was sold m'kay"
#7 profit

There is no perfect solution to this. I think you are just in on this because it gives you ammunition for your case against doog.

where can this statement be found?

A couple of points.

#It is a bad idea to accept PayPal from someone unless they have a very strong reputation, and this is regardless of the amount in question (it really is an overall bad idea to accept PayPal at all).

#Accounts with very strong reputation have incentives to maintain their reputation because of the money they can earn from such reputation (ex., from escrow fees, from being able to charge a premium/pay a discount for Bitcoin and other things that are traded, borrowers are more likely to request loans from reputable lenders, being able to charge a premium for their signature, ability to run a business).

#someone who is able to buy any significant amounts of Bitcoin with their PayPal will have significant amounts of trust that would equate to people trusting them with large amounts of Bitcoin/money either via sending first or trusting them to act as escrow.

#when an account is revealed as being sold, it will often lose significant amounts of its trust (ratings).

#The prices of forum accounts are currently very low.

With the above being said, if someone were to (attempt to) charge back PayPal transaction(s) worth large amounts then they might as well simply take Bitcoin (and/or other valuable property) without giving their trading partner anything in return. If they were to try the scheme you described then they would likely lose their existing reputation and would be left with an account that they might as well purchase on the cheap.

Also, PayPal does not have a "chargeback button" and they will not necessarily agree with every dispute, especially those regarding transactions that happened several months ago.

There is also the point that the admins can better tell for sure if an account was actually sold and can leave trust accordingly if they feel that a negative rating is warranted.

Why cryptodevil wants prove that everyone is scammer. Rather he is a scammer. Making negative rating on user accounts without any accurate reason.
He gives me negative rating for nothing, even can also check my profile with reference link. There is nothing I have posted even whatever if posted by mistake as was newbie I have make it all clear.

Even never ask for loan or any type of payment to any user in forum. SO why this cryptodevil doing devil activities with forum member.

Even people are on forum already know who is scammer or not.

Even on PM i contact he says me that I have put a link of my website and that website showing some of pozni ads on website and for that reason he gives negative trust. I asked to give referance link where I have post such link but fuuuuss. nothing was there so,
what the f**k is this.

And who gives rights to give false negative rating to member without any strong reason.

User on internet are that much aware to understand where to believe or not. There is no need to say them.

SO why  ?


My suggestion is to Ban this cryptodevil. So that he can feel pains. And I will feel happy.

I see you deleted a lot of your old incriminating messages.  Of course you are going to look "innocent" now...

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

But what if he fails to proove it ?

He doesn't have to prove anything to you.  No one does on this forum.  It's enough to suspect someone is a scammer.   Now suck it the fuck up, be a man, and move on.

Ok I agree But. I think that he can also give neutral feed back as giving user option to trust specific user or not but placing negative mark makes people interrogative without knowing facts. Even no trade happened within me and cryptodevil.

Well can more positive rating will override on negative ratings?

As if I have 1 negative feedback and 2 positive feedbacks can these condition override or affect on forum profile.

if you get more positive feedbacks from dt then the statement "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" which can be seen currently below your trust score will disappear. and also your overall trust score will improve a bit. but for that you have to earn many positive feedbacks from dt which maybe very hard for you. note that the negative feedbacks have more impact on your profile than the positive ones. so it is possible that the red colour you got may turn into black but not green. you can take macrotheminer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=147773), for example.

poor OP. you must unsupport ponzi because thats a scam investment site. cryptodevil is just helping other people so that no will scam. the feedback in your trust is not for buying an acct. it for rpomoting ponzi scam.hahah

What, are you seven or something?

"I didn't do anything"
"He rated me for no reason. Check my posts, you can see I didn't do anything"
"Even if I did something it was because I was a newbie"

Just to clarify, bitcointalk has a backup site you can reference to find those 'awkward' posts you didn't make.

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/oxbtc-integrated-investment-platform-cloud-mining-bitcoin-litcoin-deposit.564642/#post-13221418
http://i66.tinypic.com/25kpj84.png

You then asked me to delete the rating after you removed that review, to which I responded:

You deleted that review and then asked again for me to delete the rating to which I responded:

Your reply was a convoluted explanation of all your websites and the things you do and how you've been ripped off, too, etc. etc.

Had you simply removed your nexusmining promotion instead of trying to justify it I would have removed the rating. Since then I didn't hear anything from you about it other than today's posts in this thread.

I'll delete the rating this time because you appear to have since removed these scam recommendations. I will not do it a second a time, however, so think carefully about which services you are promoting in future.

He won't neg tagged other established users here who has a history of buying and selling accounts lol