Bitcoin Forum

Just saw this user posting in the Cloudbet's Super 6 Soccer Predictor Competition:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021     JusticeForYou June 04, 2011

He stood out because he's a VIP and I've never seen him before, and then noticed his details had been reset recently:

This user's password was reset recently.

This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.

This isn't the first time he's woken from a long period of inactivity either. He disappeared on May 26, 2015 to reappear on August 13, 2017.

On the 15th he then asked for a silly loan:


Then nothing until November 07, 2018 where he posted in the Cloudbet giveaway thread.

We have not so much to work with.
Looking at post history he is/was rich (?) and used some addresses

2011 address

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53888.msg655867#msg655867
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118133953/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53888.msg655867
Last transaction: 2015
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/1ce41055bde615a6?from_address=1tabCzGVPEK6kCJpQhFKwpXcsdnhTXyY4
2012 address

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76661.msg851287#msg851287
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118133957/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76661.msg851287
Last transaction: 2014
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/2e072bdb2773aaf3?from_address=1G12XfoPSLYiCdCH49qtN6NHMmHPQwPUta

2012 address
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79099.msg881225#msg881225
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118175755/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79099.msg881225
Last transaction: 2011
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/ec65b769cf53b894?from_address=14TmNWeLZNurQtmxAi62DH8RHn2pQPH2yc



He owns these wallets
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/1ce41055bde615a6/addresses
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/2e072bdb2773aaf3/addresses


A signed message from one of those address will prove the ownership.

But recent password resets, points to a different case (I checked the relevant archived pages of "security log" but didn't find any password resets on previous period):

---

This is the correct address:

---

You've linked another address. Correct one is:

---

Back then, it was just 504.98 USD.

This account is possibly hacked, a big chunk of his activity was from 2011 to 2015 and just by seeing his post history it is the first time he posted something related to Football, and most of his post before then are more sensible compared to him "borrowing" BTC without paying back. I'm pretty sure that he can already be tagged by a DT member for asking a loan back in 2017 and admitting that he won't pay it back.

Fixed, the spreadsheet used was messed up.
I agree with @theb looking the activity the account seems hacked now. The user's recent activity is very different back then in 2011, we can only ask for a signed message.

Perhaps you don't remember him because he has changed his nickname. His previous name was BTC_Bear.

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

Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20171126120414/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021

The name change was very recent. Around 2 weeks ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066192.0), Piggy scraped this data:

A VIP member is now trying to participate in a free games to make some bucks which not enough to identify that the account was hacked?

Hope he will be negged by DT member soon or he may scam the other forum people using the reputation of that account.

Or they woke up after long time and changed password and email as they are not using forum on daily/monthly/yearly base. Or maybe cloudbet sent them PM to join contest, they've received notification in email and went to games and rounds. Or they sold account. Or account was hacked. Or they have alt account(s) and they know about contest. Or...or...or..

---

---

Anyway, they started this thread Server Compromised? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1068116.msg11446598#msg11446598) after almost 1 year of inactivity (http://archive.is/VR92T):


Is there any way to check if password was changed between forum hack (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1067985.0) (May, 22. 2015.) and that email (May, 25. 2015.)? That could be good indicator.

I have tried to find out but seems there is no way to find users total password change/reset history. You may contact with @yogg since he was also searching for such kind of data last year.

Edit- I also checked same as SFR10, got some archived page but didn't find any log for this user.

1LG9NweYZkmfaKW6XyLcB3uLhqR73WMCmv via The ∑ Number Game (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80263.0;all) (archive) (https://archive.is/C6y2h)
and
1MsXYJikZmCaPgzTHGAMmjLbP9D7QRJ8E5
1Eh3JfsScTThANXZByTjno8PSJrHEtmB6j from the winner's transaction (https://archive.is/C6y2h#selection-14503.0-14513.65): tx (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/740164512c58a4396e569aebaa94b6e483a7781fecf22560bbe679862af30488) (being from MtGox)

1Gdc8pDDemYFr5zTRs4bwNsVurF8dSxZHw from Christmas Auction IRC (https://archive.is/SaNw4#selection-607.25-607.59) and address history (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1EdgKy6ky3wshKXwLCDvLWiAEvJvxip4LJ)

---

Gonna need a signed message.

---

WalletExplorer yields these results:

---

Or perhaps a signed message from the key used here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83059.msg5288700#msg5288700 (archive (https://archive.is/GDZtf))
Or this one, if it's different. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61080.msg717433#msg717433 (archive (https://archive.is/geXEs#selection-3729.0-3729.17))

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49396732#msg49396732

the user dodged the question when it was bought up before...

anyone want a bet its a compromised account?

I don't have access to this address now they are pretty old. I just have access to the email which I used from when I created this account.

How about the GPG key? This is 2014, before the leak.

I suspect that it's not hacked, but that's just a gut feeling.
No bet. ;)

edit: theymos could possibly send an email to his last known email address.

As, I said I don't have access to the old keys because my old hard drive was crashed and I was not able to recover it.

Still, I have access to the original email and also many people here already know me.

---

I would not be good with publishing my PMs publicly, but I can trust @qwk and send him a PM with a screen shot of my PMs from 2012 ( oldest once) which include my original email mentioned. And later he could confirm, what is my original email from much years.

An email will hardly prove anything. Looking at your post history (Sure, it's been years), you look like a completely different person.

Now I won't judge too much, numerous things can happen which would change someones style of writing but in your case it is quite extreme.

---

Until address can be signed or other form of signing method I'll be in doubt. Could be wrong but that's just what it looks like (Especially since you instantly started voicing strong opinions after being inactive for years).

Why did you change your name, exactly? And when did your hard drive crash?

Yes, it proves much things about my identity, atleast to the people I know.

Yes, I see this accusation because I am talking about some anti DT stuff, but that is what I read and felt right to support. Nothing personal just a way I could make the community more decentralized.

---

Good question  :)

I did this as I thought it would be worth to become someone with better justice. It has pretty big meaning which I would explain, sometime in the future.

It was around Jan 2016 due to a electricity overload in my house.

The post quality has changed since 2011, at least to my eyes.  Not that his English was perfect back then, but it seems to have been much better than what he's been writing lately. 

It's also a bit weird that an old-timer would suddenly inject himself into the middle of all of this forum drama after all this time, especially given those periods of inactivity.  Being inactive sort of makes me think he wouldn't care so much about the DT issues and whatnot...and then suddenly he appears.

I never noticed this thread, apparently--or I didn't pay attention to it when it was created.  Now I'm really curious as to whether it's the original owner posting.  Not sure how he can prove it if he can't sign a message.  PMs and e-mail are kind of iffy forms of proof, but I'll keep my eye on this thread.

If he has the original email and there are no persons here claiming it was their account then what is the issue?

I see no evidence here it was hacked.


I mean surely the real account owner would be here freaking out if this person were not the original owner.

Anything else is speculation.

I see it mentioned " turning up with strong views"

LOL that is like admitting you want to red trust for that reason?

There is no reason for him to explain anything at all if he has the original email and nobody else is claiming they got hacked.

I remember we have already talked through PM some days back about the issue related to DT guideline from theymos. And you should know that I am pretty concerned about the current DT state, it is not that I am a anti-DT person just trolling everywhere rather I tend to post in relevant thread with positive discussions on it.

I don't know, but if my account was with a hacker, he would have just used it to pull a big ponzi here or atleast earn some funds from it and much more can be done with a VIP. Hope you understand the difference between a genuine person and a scammer/hacker.

1. What exactly are you concerned about? Who are you? Why should we believe anything you say? I mean, really? :P
2. Not necessarily. I've seen accounts like yours sit around dormant or just used enough to garner a bit more trust then they scam someone for a couple of coins based on their status.

You are not going tag-free unless some other trusted user can verify you for sure. Does that make sense yet? :P

No, it does not make sense, every time a person loggs in after long time does not mean he is a hacker. Also, I don't think anyone could hack my accounts as I have set most of the security to my email. You cannot just tag peoples here without any proves and evidence of the case. This could be stated as power abuse in simple words. I have proves that I own the original email from start. Does that make sense?

I understand, but still... did you have someone email you to prove it yet? I'm not abusing power, I just don't want to see anybody get scammed down the road. :P

Ok, I see your concern, I have already said I can trust @qwk and send him a 2012 prove about my original email. By the way theymos knowns my original email too. I hope he could confirm it here.

Screenshots don't prove anything. If you want to prove ownership of an email address from an old PM, you could report the PM to Global Mod hilariousandco (after all, his alt started this topic) to verify the address shows in that PM.

However, it's not uncommon for email addresses to change hands together with a Bitcointalkaccount, either when the email gets hacked, or when the account gets sold, so it doesn't really prove anything.

Ok, I have reported a PM from 2012 to Global Moderator Hilariousandco which contains my email address quoted. I hope he will confirm it and respond soon.


Yes, but it is uncommon for a VIP account, I take the security more seriously, also you need to consider a exception.

If he has the original email that is more than enough.

Am I the only one noticing he is not spamming a sig ?  like every single other person in this thread. That would suggest he is not desperate for btc dust either like the rest here which further supports the fact he is likely a vip.

If you "suspect" this has changed hands a neutral is MORE than sufficient to be left as a note that it MAY have changed hands. Red is just trust abuse on a suspicion

This thread says hacked (because I doubt a vip was ever broke enough to need to sell) i am sure someone if they were hacked are quite likely to be mentioning it also.

No.
It is actually highly likely that an account could have been hacked simply by acquiring access to the original email address.
So, proof of control of the email address doesn't necessarily prove anything.

That's the reason why my "gut feeling" says "not hacked".
Then again, it might be considered wise to err on the side of caution.

Well.. He did apply to one of my campaigns when waking up from inactivity, only to withdraw a couple of days later. Make of that what you will.

Got proof?

I scan around the forum today, when I have spare time, and found the topic.
It's a big surprise because recent days, I saw the account more often.
For now, it seems that I known the reasons of the more regular appearance.

The case, forces me to the ideas that I have to signed my BTC address to secure my account asap (I have never mind of it, honestly)

Only these two:

The unedited version from my own files:

A quick question that you should be able to answer:
Do you remember why you are in Bitcoin?
(I think I remember)

Also, would it be possible for you to sign a message with a bitcoin address with some substantial amount of bitcoins in it?
Assuming you are the real BTC_Bear, I guess it'd be safe to assume you have at least one or two, let's say ten or a hundred BTC wallets lying around?

I'm not trying to turn this into a witch hunt, but anything that could convince me of your identity would probably help.

Yes, I was first introduced to it by Steve Gibson. Also I was working with IRC stuff at the initial stage.

I don't know what does substantial point here but yes I can transfer some small amount of Bitcoin to my currently signed BTC address some days back.


Yes, I had lot number of address, but I don't tend to earn from crypto now due to the dip in price. I have already emptied most of it.

Thank you for your help.

You should still be able to sign the addresses, aye? Even if there was a hard drive crash in 2016 I assume you stored more coins elsewhere (or had backups) considering the totals.

Yes, of course some of my BTC were lost due to the hard drive crash. I didn't saved any BTC I sold most of them. Also I don't tend to earn much from crypto now.

In my eyes it seems as if everything is just as convenient as it needs to be for you. All of what you are saying may be true, perhaps you are extremely unlucky too. But all I see is one red flag after another.

If there were some addresses that weren't lost by the drive, then you should be able to sign them, right?

What happened to the coins is irrelevant. As long as we have a tx history and a signed message we know the circulation of BTC.

Don't you see all of my private key were in a single drive which I used mostly. Also just to let you know, price of BTC were pretty low at the time I was holding large amounts of it.

Please stop trying to juggle me in this questions, I am not here to get into this investigation. I have already confirmed my issue and its very genuine to anyone. Also I have reported a PM confirming my email id from 2012 to Global Moderator.

The issue is that an email proves literally nothing. I'd guess that the most usual way people have their accounts here hacked (unless they are newbie accounts) are through hacked emails.

For all we know the VIP member from 2011 retired and could care less about his old email/bitcointalk account.

Correct for the "Steve Gibson" part.
Reference (only visible to donators, vips and staff): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66601.msg805221#msg805221
Otoh, this is information that can be seen in your post history, so it doesn't necessarily prove much.
What it tells me is that you're either really BTC_Bear or someone who's quick at searching through his post history ;)

The IRC stuff is nothing I can confirm or deny.
It might actually point to you misinterpreting the above post (IRL != IRC), which would make it seem more likely that you're an impostor.
Difficult.

Again something that arouses my suspicion:
I've not asked for a transfer of bitcoins to one of your old addresses.
I've asked for a signed message.
I assume BTC_Bear should know the difference.
Difficult.

But go ahead, show us the money, it might be convincing, if it's a large enough stack ;)


edit: can Steve Gibson vouch for you? :)

No. I was pointing to Internet Really Chat (IRC) not IRL.


Yes, I was saying the same, you miss-understood it, I said I will send substantial amount of BTC to one of my address signed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg48680530#msg48680530) some days back and then sign a message with it.


No it is not as I said I don't earn from crypto now.


No. LOL ::)

Not only the fact there is no sig being spammed. There is no mention from the hacked person they lost control of the account. Is it not unlikely someone would not kick off if their vip account got hacked? also most hacks here are mostly due to the site being compromised are they not? my email was never hacked but they hacked my account. Lucky for me they missed the PM with the keys to several million dollars of an alt that were sitting there that I had no other record of that I could locate. That was a big relief to get control back.

I think for certain account swaps then perhaps it is debatable but for only "possible" account swaps or sales then neutral is sufficient warning surely.

I know, but the referenced post said something about IRL (in real life) applications of Bitcoin, so I guessed that maybe a BTC_Bear-impostor might have misinterpreted it.
As I said, difficult, I'm just weighing possibilities here.

Okay, point for you ;)
Again, juggling possibilities.

Too sad. Signing with e.g. a hundred BTC would have made a good point for you.
Many (of course not all) VIPs should be able to do that.
Quite a few (again: not all) donators can.

That was just a wild guess, of course ;)


Okay, moment of truth:
- you say you are BTC_Bear
- you no longer have more than a few BTC
- you no longer have private keys of known old addresses
- you have not (so far) given conclusive evidence that would point to you actually being who you are
It's not very far fetched to assume an impostor.

I personally have left negative trust in the past just based on the assumption that someone might not be trustworthy.
Really the only reason why I've not left a negative trust rating for you so far is that I know how "dear" a vip or donator account can be to the owner.
Otoh, unless you're trying to do any trades on bitcointalk, negative trust won't hurt too much.
I'm pretty much undecided, but under the given circumstances, I'd feel better hurting you feelings than running the risk of an impostor doing something bad with a vip account.

It was a tough decision, but I've come to the conclusion that I'll leave negative feedback for you. For the moment.
I promise to delete it once I'm somehow convinced otherwise (maybe your proposed transfer of a minor amount of BTC will do the trick, but we'll see how much it turns out to be).
Please try not to take it personally.

Dear fellow DT1 members,

if you think I'm being too harsh here, please exclude me from your trust lists (~qwk), effectively voting me out.
(Or at least speak up and tell me I'm wrong)

I agree with the rating qwk. And I'll echo your sentiment that if they can provide substantial evidence to refute the accusations the negative should be removed.

This could be pointed as an trust abuse, you could make the tag neutral, until it is proved. Yes, negative trust would not effect me, but you know it shows bad repo of a person and I cannot bare it as I have not done anything scammy here.

I've been known to handle trust in my own peculiar way for quite some time now.
If the other DT1 members come to the conclusion that they don't like the way I deal with my responsibility, I trust (and urge) them to vote me out, thus rendering my negative feedback ineffective.

What would you need the reputation for?

Like you said, it wouldn't [effect] you.

A negative rating stands out to those that would do trades with you. Given the possibility of a compromised account, it's better to guard against anything in the event that a new owner does scam.

I have sent a PM to theymos as @qwk was unable to confirm my identity and just personally tagged me without any evidence of my account being hacked.

---

Yes, it won't effect me but I see this as an abuse of power, which is clearly without any evidence and anyone would not bare a fake trust here.

I trust theymos to handle this in the way he designed his system to handle it: ~qwk 8)

I agree, especially since it is a VIP account. A VIP account could do a lot of damage if it falls into the wrong hands. Looking at the earlier posts made by BTC_Bear I find it incredibly hard to believe that he/she would store their bitcoins on a HDD without backing up their private keys.

Administrator can compare your current and old IP addresses, this probably may help you if they are coincide.

Though I hate to see a VIP account get tagged for something like this, my instinct--based on what I'm reading from JusticeForYou--tells me that the current owner of the account isn't the original one.  Every piece of evidence points to the current owner not being a member from 2011, from the inability to sign a message to not owning a significant amount of bitcoin.  Nothing really points toward the opposite that I can see.

It's a good thing that there was no scam attempt, and JusticeForYou seems like a decent person--but you never know what anyone's intentions are, not on the internet and especially not on this forum.  I'm still trying to figure out how many alt accounts VINSIN has and who these troll accounts actually belong to, and they're not anywhere near VIP members.  Ultimately it's better to be safe than sorry, because all the senior members here have seen high-ranked accounts turn out to be scammers (Master-P, for example).

I'm still hoping there's a way of JFY proving he's the original owner of the account, but it looks like he's going to go with being the victim of injustice option instead.  No offense, JFY.

This is what happens to established members who point out abuse.  Pretty typical.  You don't agree with those who are trying to corner the trust system, you must be cast out of the system.  Plain and simple.

Seems like massive overkill.

Red trust on a "possibility" of account hack that seems unlikely given he has the original email, does not seem to need to spam a sig.

Neutral is more than sufficient.

Of course no "DT" will disagree you, already been mentioned in this thread in public "shown up again with STRONG views" ...  That seems a more realistic reason for this red trust.

Not saying OP is or isn't the original owner, but I find it funny people keep asking to see a fat stack of coins.

The value in keeping your crypto holdings private on a profile linked to your identity is much higher than the value of proving that identity.

I just hope JusticeforYou can find an old usb drive with the backup for the lost private keys. I'm not sure what to think of the red tag.  ??? Maybe the PM to theymos can clear this matter up quickly. However, I'm not certain IP addresses from years ago mean much since many carriers have dynamic IPs.

The only reason for which he was not tagged sooner is his rank. Had it been a normal member they would long have been red (all the prior discussed things considered).

Correct; it could be the same area though. However, JusticeForYou could simply claim they moved and thus (conveniently, again) aren't in the same area anymore.

People use their own IP to login on this board?
If you can not find wifi left open in a built up area or be bothered with tor the minimum would be a throw away phone.

I feel the onus should be on the accuser to prove it is not the same person. What happens to innocent until proven guilty.

Neutral trust is the max here else it can be seen as very very heavy handed.

Much, things like owing the original email, also not trying to spam anyone, not earning BTC from commenting here simply points that I am the original owner and also not here to scam anyone. But I have just got this tag based on assumptions and that is why I find it as an abuse of trust by DT to reduce the repo of my account.


I see you have a good sense of judging people online than @suchmoon, also you should have known that I am not here to scam but just engage in some discussion which I personally find helpful and interesting. Anyone can just see one thing very clear here if anyone tries to go in an anti-DT mode he is accused of some scam accusation or his account is ruined by red-trust from the monopolized system of trust here.


Yes, there are many things I have proved already, about the email I sent a PM to theymos and also reported a PM to Global Mod. But you should see this is not an accusation to help me in proving and no one is trying to do so, but most of the DT commenting here are trying to go sherlock holmes on me and try to find me in any situation they can accuse me of and stop me from giving my genuine views about the trust system by hampering my repo. This sentence of you'rs proves that you fully understand what is being a victim of injustice and that's what happening here.  

---

Yes, a very simple logic anyone can see, most of the things I read are turning true about the "clique" most of the people are pointing here. There should be some proof that I am not the original owner or I am here to scam anyone. Everyone here knows red-tag indicated that the person is engaged in some type of fraud or has scammed someone, but me not doing anything worthy of the red-tag is been abused with red trust just because they don't like my views on the current trust system.

---

Anyone here would not be happy to publically expose high BTC amounts and address where it is stored, it was a very shady attempt by @actmyname and @qwk to try put me into a ring of the question and get un-needed info from me. After all privacy of the fund is for all we use crypto for, but they are willing to expose all of it from me just to prove I am the original owner.

---

No, the only reason I am tagged is that I was trying to warn the community about your shady behavior and way of mutilating the trust system nothing else. It is pretty much clear to everyone that it is an attempt of all of your "cult" members to comment here with shady ways to put me into the worst situation.

I do not know if they asked, but do you have access to any other account, besides the email, that used the nick BTC_Bear before 2016?
Something that would not be easy to change the password using just the email. GPG, account on bitcoin-otc IRC.

bitcoin-otc.com BTC_Bear (https://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=BTC_Bear&sign=ANY&type=RECV)
gpg user BTC_Bear (https://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=BTC_Bear)

I'm just curious because, in a sense, you're part of Bitcoin's story. And it would be sad to know that you've lost everything. :/

Doubtful. I don't believe the current holder of this account is original owner. Search post history. Easy shit. :P

Suspicions didn't appear out of nowhere. After a year of absence VIP edited password/profile's name and it was noted that his writing style has changed significantly.

https://i.imgur.com/6DSbH3c.png
Source (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=JusticeForYou)

---

Also raises suspicions when JusticeForYou (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021) regularly points out at his privileged position and that he deserves a "special treatment".

---

---

I suppose, if VIP profile hasn't changed hands then the real owner of the account have to remember did he use Tor browser or VPN in previous entrances.
Admins can check up this story and help solve the case.

Correlation is not causation. Sure, attention was brought to the account once you became active again (in topics that overlapped with the "cult" interests).

But the thing is, this thread was here before the DT change. The only difference is that now you've responded to it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are really pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable what is libel. Luckily for you most people are liberal when it comes to that around here (which I am completely against). Qwk has never sided with an opinion of mine just because it is "my opinion", so you can shove your bullshit elsewhere. Go back to the hole that you've crawled out of and try again with another hacked account.

The user has been dodging everything ever since they weaseled their way into Meta to spread a false narrative.

I was wondering why you didn't come here to whisper and get me a tag. Still, your tag does not lower the importance of my words. I will keep posting what I think is right and good for the community.

FTFY. You can continue to lie all you want as long as everyone is aware that you are dishonest (i.e. using someone else's account). :)

I agree with you.

@JusticeForYou

what country are you from?

I keep telling you not to accuse people of lying when you are a proven liar. What part of that is not getting through to you? It looks pathetic.

Is there any indication his email was recently changed? If the email was not changed, the account presumably was not hacked -- this is speaking nearly four months after any potential hack. In general, hacked accounts will immidiately try to scam or otherwise cause damage because of the ongoing risk that someone will come along claiming to be the original owner of the account. If the email was not changed four months after the fact, there is also the risk the owner will simply reset the password via email to reclaim the account.

I am not aware of any hacked account causing damage 3+ months after the fact.

I would also not be especially surprised to see someone reseting their password via email after a long time of inactivity if the password was semi-unique, as people tend to forget these types of things if they have not used them in a long time.

The loan request (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2087454.msg20855826#msg20855826) was clearly not a serious request, and was more along the lines of pointing out all the ridiculousness in the lending section.

To be entirely fair, this is a question that you asked, and according to you, it was answered correctly. As you point out, the reference is only available to a small set of people, so someone looking through his post history would effectively need to do so while logged into his account.

I don't think there are many people from 2011 that can sign pre-2014 coins, especially large in large amounts. I suspect that most who did not cash out in 2013, cashed out in 2017 when the price went up to $20k. There are also probably a decent amount of sad sacks that cashed out at $20 or $50. Others probably did not put a lot of effort into ensuring their private keys worth $500 would remain when a HDD is no longer available.

I think the account is most likely not hacked in large part because he hasn't tried to cause any damage in the four months since he returned, despite having a very low profile. There was this thread, but it did not get much attention.

With that being said, he has very little trade history to start with, and as I pointed out here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104295.msg49509568#msg49509568), it is usually not a good idea to trust someone (with a long/successful history of trading) after returning from a hiatus as their situation may have changed and caused them to be willing to do unsavory acts.

So it didn't affect this address: 1ApJdWUdSWYw8n8HEATYhHXA9EYoRTy7c4

Shown here in 2017: http://web.archive.org/web/20171126120414/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021

Is that correct?

An address on a profile may be there regardless of when it was updated. This is why I did not bring up the archive.

Meh, last time that address sent or received any BTC was in 2014. and that was only a dusting.

I know. Still a bit weird to keep an address that you lost private keys of. I'd like the hear the excuse for that :)

Even more weird is to add that address to one's profile after the alleged loss occurred... since it wasn't there in March 2016:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160328090413/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021

It absolutely isn't definitive, but I'm going to go with this is the original owner of the account. You have some very unique writing patterns that you'd have to be a genius to pick up on as an impostor.

This isn't a slight at your grammar or anything, I'm the last that needs to be casting stones, but check out old and new post's use of capitalization in places where it shouldn't be. You have a habit of capitalizing words around proper nouns, but not necessarily the proper nouns themselves. In addition, both old and new posts have very strangely capitalized words.

Old post:
https://i.imgur.com/rTVIEQV.png

New post:
https://i.imgur.com/bCbt2G7.png

There are a lot of examples, its a fairly uncommon trait and its pretty consistent throughout the past 6 years.


You also seem to always get the exact capitalization of each user you are responding to right, even when their username is Sw3EtbItCOiNUZr69Xd

It was actually in 2013 when counting transactions with economic value. The transaction in 2014 was a payment to that address worth less than a half penny at the time and is worth $0.03 today.

Hence why I used the term "dusting."  ::)

A few more thoughts on the "causa JusticeForYou":

Obviously, there are only two possibilities:
1. JFY is the "original" BTC_Bear.
2. JFY is not.
Schrödinger's BTC_Bear ;)

If 2 is true, I have all the reason in the world to distrust him, and probably no-one would question my rating.

Let's assume, though, that 1 is true.
That would tell us a few things about the user formerly known as BTC_Bear:

a) he's held some substantial amount of BTC in the past.
 (no-one would have spent more than a fraction of their BTC on a lousy vanity title, so it's safe to assume that donators had substantially more than 10 BTC and VIPs had substantially more than 50 BTC)

b) he's been at least somewhat tech-savvy.
 (e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53923)

c) he's used pgp in the past.
 (on a Mac, obviously, so he might not be too much of a super-nerd)
 (but also on bitcoin-otc, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74983)

d) he valued his account on bitcointalk.
 (why else would he have bought a vanity title?)

Again, let's assume he's still the same person.
We're now led to believe that this tech-savvy nerd who regularly used cryptographic tools in the past to conduct business on bitcoin-otc and who had a substantial amount of bitcoins did not keep a single backup of his private keys, be they pgp or bitcoin, but a single lousy hard drive that failed due to a power-outage in 2016.
I find that very hard to believe.

Okay, I'll take this even further and believe that story.
If he had private keys on a hard drive that failed due to a power outage, those keys are not lost.
As a tech-savvy guy, he must have known this.
Those keys are most likely recoverable for a couple hundred bucks.
A power outage does not normally erase the magnetization of a hard drive, does it?
Being a nerd, knowing this, he would never, ever have thrown that hard drive away.

Now all I'm asking is: visit a data recovery service, cough up a few hundred bucks, recover one of your keys and prove your identity!
Problem solved.

If you do that, and it turns out you're really BTC_Bear, show me the receipt of the data recovery service, and I'll cover your costs.

No way; once you really get into all of this then the thought of losing all of your keys is probably your biggest nightmare. I know people that keep backups of backups of backups of PGP keys that expired ages ago ("just in case").

I would say that at least some are recoverable in 99% cases; data stored on HDD should not (not can not) be damaged by power loss (e.g. unless you are working with all of that data at the exact same time).

That's very generous; but I'm expecting an answer in the form of: "I threw it away; who needs keys anyways".

::)

I say this quite a strange bunch of assumptions from you qwk who is known to be a very intelligent person.

1. perhaps he would like to give the impression he really has lost his btc as to not be such a target. This would be my first move if I had a TON of btc stashed away but wanted to use my vip account.


2. this is just assumption... just because he is a nerd does not mean that catastrophe can not strike or you get lazy about things.

3. he did care a lot about his forum id and paid a not insubstantial amount for his account out what he had. Which even then did not matter too much. If you had 500bucks worth or btc (back then) you may well decide to spend even 50% of that if you wished for a vanity title and to support the board. Perhaps he really is generous too.

Too many assumptions, too much unknown. Along with the new evidence of Salty Spittoon (which was actually a nice surprise for me because I had assumed incorrectly perhaps he was not as fair a person as I had hoped that he could be) I say it is now more likely than not he is the original owner.


The probability of him noticing these weird capitalisations of letters in strange places but that seem to follow some kind of internally derived rules he has far far out weighs this other conjecture and assumption that if you are smart you are not lazy, if you have spent 50 btc years ago on a membership (when it was not worth much at all) you must have a ton more now or access to a ton more now.

Your arguments seems completely weird. I mean if you suggest on the one hand that he is super smart so must have a ton of back ups ..but then suggest that he must have missed the possibility of simply taking his usb key to get it fixed and that he could gain access to millions of dollars before you introduced the brilliant but complex course of action.


Let us be sensible and reduce to neutral the red tag.

Also would you mind returning to the DT thread in meta because there I have provided further details of the circumstances and goals of the particular lie that you were asking about (it was sadly nothing like the girl in the dress example you speculated it may be)...remember we were debating there as to whether you would consider that type of liar to be a valid and sensible selection for DT. Sorry to go off topic but then again it is all related to DT and red trust I guess.

I'm flattered ;)

If so, the first thing to get rid of would most likely be his VIP account.
I mean, it really screams "I'm rich", don't you think?
I happen to know that from personal experience, btw. ::)

Disaster may strike, but I find it hard to believe that a nerd doesn't have a contingency plan, i.e. a backup.
I have. Seriously, I have several backups of all keys, even experimental ones I've never really used, "just in case".

I happen to know a handful donators and possibly hundreds of "regular" Bitcoin owners personally, and I cannot for the life of me think of a single one who wouldn't have a freaking backup.
I do know at least two users who had more than a hundred bitcoins and had all of them on MtGox, though, but both of them are definitely not nerds.

Again, I find that hard to believe. It's not impossible, of course.
But I'm not looking for a one-of-a-kind unlikely explanation as to why his specific circumstances might differ from basically any other sane person's.
I'm unwilling to believe alien abduction-like stories. ::)
We're still talking about trust here, if I need to remind you.

I find that evidence inconclusive, but it's certainly a (weak) point for JFY.
Unfortunately, not being a native speaker of the English language, I'm unable to estimate the likelihood of a coincidence like that.

50 BTC then might not seem much now, because "they were worth so little back then".
Let me assure you, though, that (a few super-rich aside), most of us knew very well that 50 BTC was more than just petty cash.

Unfortunately, I can't follow your reasoning.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
Talk slowly, I'm German ;D

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000)

I find it off-topic there. It's definitely on-topic here.

For you, everything seems to be related to DT and red trust. ::)

I've come up with a suggestion that would enable JFY to prove his identity once and for all, which is likely to succeed with a chance of (I guess) somewhere on the order of 99%, and I'm willing to cover the costs.
What more do you expect me to do?
(that's a rhetorical question, don't answer "delete the trust rating")

@qwk.

I will focus just on the most important parts that I think demonstrate one way or the other.

1. perhaps he would like to give the impression he really has lost his btc as to not be such a target.

Is it not at all possible this person wishes to retain the account (which they felt strongly enough about to purchase in the first place) and give the impression they have lost or no longer have masses of btc ? Yes it does kind of scream I was once rich... like the bitcoin pizza guy. Who is now not rich apparently. Perhaps he feels it is quite possible to accept that you can have been btc rich once but for various reasons are not now.

2. there are many accounts of super rich and competent people losing 1000's of btc. I saw BCX mention he lost more in a hard drive incident and again with gox. He was very very tech savvy as we know.

3 "Again, I find that hard to believe. It's not impossible, of course.
But I'm not looking for a one-of-a-kind unlikely explanation as to why his specific circumstances might differ from basically any other sane person's."  this is not one of a kind only you say it is one of a kind. I wonder how many btc bitcoin pizza guy had when he bought the pizzas.


4. Regarding salty's point.
"Unfortunately, not being a native speaker of the English language, I'm unable to estimate the likelihood of a coincidence like that"
I know you are just kidding here. A smart person like yourself ( i know you are very intelligent I can tell, I am not trolling you) would take no time at all to find out that that kind of capitalisation is not at all common and indeed very unusual.

5. "50 BTC then might not seem much now, because "they were worth so little back then".
Let me assure you, though, that (a few super-rich aside), most of us knew very well that 50 BTC was more than just petty cash."

well bitcoin pizza guy is a tech guy and presumably not rich nor stupid but he did not assume 10,000 btc was all that important. Well unless you love pizza.

6. Your arguments seems completely weird. I mean if you suggest on the one hand that he is super smart so must have a ton of back ups ..but then suggest that he must have missed the possibility of simply taking his usb key to get it fixed and that he could gain access to millions of dollars before you introduced the brilliant but complex course of action.

let me explain why I do not feel your offer is genuine. this is not proof either way but just demonstrates you are not being genuine in your offer.

a/ you state you believe he is a smart guy and will have backed up his btc in multiple places.
b/ your offer suggests now that you believe he is stupid and will not have dreamed up the scenario where he could just fix a broken usb stick and regain his millions of dollars in btc he is meant to have before you suggested it just now.

Do you read me HAL?

7. "I find it off-topic there. It's definitely on-topic here."
Do you mean you will be willing to continue our prior conversation regarding the liars and their place on DT here?


8.For you, everything seems to be related to DT and red trust.
"Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL ?" :)
Merit is more broken to me, we can fix that we can fix it all. Although criteria in DT will be preferential too.

I like this film a lot I have watched it many times and even met one time mr kubrik.

Also this does not even touch on...

1. has original email
2. does not feel the need to sig spam like 90% + of meta fans and legends.
3. no other vip complaining of loss.

Why am I still answering this ???
I somehow always keep coming back for more, seems to be a masochistic personality trait of mine.

Yes, it's possible.
Is it likely?
I don't think so.

Have you seen Laszlo's house when he did his first ever Lightning pizza purchase? It's bigger than mine ::)

Yes, many of us lost quite a few BTC, me included (I had a handful on MtGox).
But I know of no single user who's lost all of his keys.
Again, yes, it's possible.
Is it likely?
I don't think so.

I'm just honestly saying that this is not something I could evaluate with any confidence.

You're comparing apples and pears.
10,000 BTC at the time of Laszlo's purchase was petty cash (on the order of 40 USD, give or take).
50 BTC at the time of BTC_Bears donation to the forum wasn't (on the order of 500 USD, give or take).
Also, at the time of Laszlo's purchase, Bitcoin was in it's infancy, and did not have any "real" value, it was still something to play around with.
At the time of BTC_Bears donation, otoh, BTC had been through an ATH of ~30 USD, i.e. you knew pretty well that 50 BTC could easily be worth a couple thousand bucks again.

Now I understand, thanks for the clarification.
No, I'm not assuming that he "was" smart and is "dumb" now.
I assume that it's no longer the same person.

If JFY is really BTC_Bear, he won't have lost all his keys to a hard drive failure.
a) because he had backups
b) because he would have recovered data from a hard drive

No, because I'm not interested in that conversation.
I reserve the right to not participate in a discussion if I so please ;)

That's where we disagree, I think neither is broken, maybe some of it might need some tweaking, but I'm willing to give it some time before I ask for radical changes.

1. is unfortunately no proof of identity, but more likely to be the initial attack vector that got the account into the wrong hands in the first place.
2. is actually interesting and the reason why he's gone unnoticed for so long.
I'm willing to concede that he might just be some guy who bought a VIP account as a novelty toy without any malice in mind.
3. says precisely nothing. The original BTC_Bear has obviously moved on.


But hey, I'm giving you another bite to chew on:
Let's assume he's really BTC_Bear.
Let's assume he really lost all of his keys.
Let's assume there's no way for him to prove his identity.

What does that tell us about him?
He was rich.
He now isn't.
He's got a tool at his disposal that might very well be able to make him some money (a VIP account).
Is it too far-fetched to fear the danger of him abusing this account at some time in the future to rip off some guys?
You get the idea?
I would feel uncomfortable letting anyone who lost basically all their Bitcoin run around with a VIP account.
But again, I don't believe this is the case.
JFY is most likely not BTC_Bear.

@ qwk

On this matter it is clear that I do not accept your views of what is a safe assumption and you will not adopt my own. Therefore since I have presented my own explanation behind what I believe and you have presented your own and still there is no movement either way then I now see there can be no point of discussing that further with you at this present time.

Thank you for remaining civil though.

On the other matter of you not wishing to discuss further the matter of a proven liar with the motivation of financial reward being on DT. I mean lying and misleading for financial gain is precisely what a scammer is. So therefore for you to be concerned enough about a "possible" account transfer to red trust them but on the other hand will support a proven scammer (not to mention the other deeds they are implicated in that many believe are very shady and untrustworthy) on DT and not even be interested in a discussion about it ..... well you can see where that could be seen as very worrying and strange?

I mean it is up to you of course but I have noted down yet another DT member is unwilling to even discuss or debate with me the proven facts demonstrating this issue.

It is your right of course,  but I say DT members should be responsible for keeping appraised of other DT members untrustworthy behaviour or else how will the system even function as Theymos intends.

If all DT members outright say they have no wish to hear or act upon the proven wrong doings of other DT members..... you can see why that could pose an issue.

I understand doing the correct and moral thing can be difficult. I think you are now the 4th or 5th DT member to refuse to even review or discuss the facts clearly demonstrating lying/ scamming from other DT members.

I would point out that if you are going to accuse someone of something, the burden is on you to prove that you are correct. The burden is not on the person to prove you are wrong

As it stands now, it doesn’t look like there is any evidence beyond speculation that he is hacked.

Is that so? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533.0) Hypocrite scammers everywhere.

---

qwk I ask you again to stop feeding these nutjob-trolls and bringing this thread up on my watchlist when there is nothing worth reading. Thanks.

Jesus, I completely forgot about that thread.  QS also made the accusation that we're alt accounts--based entirely on speculation, of course, because he never could or would provide the evidence that I was practically begging for.  I'd be interested to hear QS's response to his little bit of hypocrisy of the above quote that I've bolded.  Somehow I doubt he'll respond to it directly.

As to the first part, I don't know.  It's a reasonable suspicion based on the evidence presented and JFY's responses to said evidence.  The second part looks to be true, unfortunately.  I kept hoping he'd provide a solid piece of evidence that he's the original owner, but that hasn't happened.  

This whole situation smells fishy to me.  If JFY was bought or hacked, I'm curious as to whether whoever is in control of it now is someone we know.  It's odd that JFY sort of inserted himself into the Meta drama after ignoring this thread for months and has now fully aligned himself with the anti-DT crew.  I could just be paranoid, but anything is possible on this forum.

Edit:
OK, at least now I know I'm not the only one who's suspicious/paranoid/cynical enough to think such a thing--and I'd probably even go so far as to say I agree with your percentages, though I'm less sure about the member being who we both think it might be.

Just let me speculate / create a conspiracy theory here:
A professional account trader was offered a VIP account.
Knowing that it's not really something you can sell (VIP accounts are most likely to be scrutinized), he bought it at a discount.
Hoping he could somehow make it valuable by establishing a better reputation with some tweaking to the personality, he tried to create a few posts that would go "under the radar", while leaving the impression of an "old one" woken up.

Somehow, being entangled in all the meta-infighting as a professional account seller, he fucked up at some point and couldn't resist the urge to comment on the DT drama with his new VIP-account.
That was when it back-fired and turned into a lost investment for him.

I'm not saying I have someone specific in mind, but we all know just who it could have been.
My gut feeling is that there's maybe a 10-20% likelihood of my "story" being true, no more.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/2b/2b07ba8e840dd4c960437dc202ab834d60fff9cad1ff6ec414c1ae9df95f5718.jpg

You just can't get yourself to click the little "unwatch" button up right, can you?
Addictive, is it not? :P

Yea it’s too bad I haven’t dealt in accounts in many years.

Your post only highlights that he has negative trust because of his stance on the trust system.

And I'm willing to believe you, because I trust you, as you might recall.
But from your professional experience, is something like the above story at least plausible?

And I hope you trust me on this:
my trust rating for him has nothing to do with the whole infighting drama about trust on meta.
I'm impartial in this.
If anything, I'm an amused observer ;)

I believe I said at the time the evidence I had that caused me to believe you are lauda was circumstantial and I have since apologized for saying that you are an alt of an extortionist criminal.

I was told by a reliable source who wished to remain unnamed that lauda has a pill addiction. This person knows because he was told by people who are in a position to know and are to have said they have direct knowledge (IIRC)

I can not do that! >:( I still want to read constructive input on the matter and have to keep up to speed unless you want another "Lauda abusing trust - will not remove negative from VIP member w/e" thread.

Wrong. People who have something to hide as is the case with this "VIP Member" should do the rational thing and stay under the radar. When there is a new user voicing any kind of opinion in many of these disputes of course they are going to be looked into. This is how many people get extra tags as DT members can not be everywhere at all times.

If I state that I was told by a reliable source who is close to the original member and wishes to remain unnamed that the VIP account has been compromised, would that be sufficient for these "methods of proof"? Bonus points for this "proof": If it turns out to be fake, I can always shift the blame on the "person who was in the position to know" and claim that he/she lied [to me]. ::)
/me facepalms due to the monkey's stupidity.

A friend of a friend of a friend......if you do that three more times you turn into Kevin Bacon.

Yeah, I'm doing a bit of facepalming myself about his reply.

I just went back and read quite a few posts of JusticeForYou from January, just to see what his opinions were before actmyname bumped this thread on January 31st.  I hadn't reviewed them all at once before and don't think I went back to see posts from his early days.  So I proceeded to view his posts from 2011....and the change in English is striking.  There's no doubt in my mind now that whoever is in control of the JFY account is not the original owner.  There is no way that could happen, because you either become better at writing in a language over time or more or less stay the same. 

The original posts showed substantial proficiency in English, even though the structure of the posts would make an English teacher scream.  The grammar, spelling, linkage of words, and vocabulary are completely different and would seem to have deteriorated since 2011.  I'd ask JFY how that's possible?  A native English speaker and voracious reader such as myself and probably many others on the forum would and did notice this.  So when you combine that evidence with the fact that JFY can't sign messages from early addresses, etc., there should be no one saying that qwk's tag is unjustified. 

Take a look for yourself.  Compare the quality and style of English written in 2019 to what JFY wrote in 2011 and tell me that's the same person.  How do you explain that?

LOL at Lauda.... I ask you again.

Yes qwk did you not realise Lauda gives the orders around here. Or that is what he thinks.

Lauda look it is simple. Presenting facts demonstrating you are a liar is not trolling, It is not being a nut job. It is simply presenting the truth that you are proven untrustworthy.

Please try to understand that.

Also we are having a sensible discussion and debate here please do not come and tell people what they should or should not do. Who do you think you are? You are noob trash compared to some persons here that have been here many years before you and do not need to sig spam everywhere like you do. How do you feel you have the right to tell them what to do?

You do not. So buzz off .

While I do have the gut feeling that JFY is the original owner, based on their speaking patterns, I do believe that qwk's actions are within reason. The only thing that is bothering me right now, is that JFY actually cares about the negative feedback from qwk, even though it was very clearly laid out to be a temporary and precautionary thing. Its not like there is a scam accusation, its a case of, let me know when you happen across something to prove your identity and I'll remove it. As the account owner, I'd imagine you'd have two thoughts. The first being, hey don't tag me jerk, and the second being, thanks for looking out for the best interest of my account. Rather than firing off against qwk, I'd imagine that "thanks for having my interest in mind" part would cause one to spend a few extra minutes trying to confirm their identity rather than getting very upset over it.

Regardless, I don't see this as something that really needs much discussion, its kind of just a matter of time until either its proven not to be the original owner, or it is. When you've been here this long, you'll remember an interaction you had with someone that isn't recorded. Something like that can clear doubts.

Is it possible? Sure, but I don't think that is what happened.

Buying accounts is very risky, not only because of the risk of negative trust from the SJW forum police, but also from fake claims of the account being hacked, fake hidden loans, so I don't think it would be a profitable business to buy up accounts to resell anymore. I would suspect someone buying up accounts would quickly find themselves with many accounts that are worthless, or otherwise cannot sell, of course after paying for them.

It would make more sense to me that the majority of account sellers farm them either themselves or with the help of a group of close business associates that they can trust (or is an individual who is in need of money and is willing to part ways with their account).

Not long after I exited the account business (or maybe it was just before I exited it, I don't remember), someone asked me to post from some of their accounts for a month in exchange for a fee. I was told to avoid any threads involving a dispute between groups, and threads in meta (IIRC), so it is known to avoid those types of threads, by at least that person.

Similar to your "Nigerian prince (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071290.msg49570190#msg49570190)" scenario, there is not any evidence this is the case. There is also the capitalism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071290.msg49557639#msg49557639) strangeness in his posts, and account selling is a very low skill task, and I can't really see an account broker/seller picking up on this.

---

If someone wants to sell me bitcoin who has no trade history and I don't know, and asks that I send money to him first, I would obviously not trust him, but I would respond by saying that he can either agree to use a mutually agreed upon escrow, or he can send me the bitcoin first -- what I would not do is respond with giving negative trust (if he later shows signs he was trying to scam me, that might change).

Similarly, I don't have any particular reason to trust btc_bear and would certainly not send him money first in a trade. However that is not to say that he is going to try to trade with me with the intention of trying to scam me.

Address was never there, except in 2017:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120204034159/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: February 04, 2012, 03:41:58 AM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130306223343/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: March 06, 2013, 10:33:08 PM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130502220324/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: May 02, 2013, 10:03:10 PM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140406072602/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: April 06, 2014, 07:25:43 AM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140811112842/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: August 11, 2014, 11:28:43 AM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150922020050/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: September 22, 2015, 02:00:50 AM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160127233052/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: January 27, 2016, 11:30:50 PM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160328090413/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: March 28, 2016, 09:04:15 AM
Last active: May 26, 2015, 12:51:36 PM
Last post: May 26, 2015, 03:00:33 AM
No address.

http://web.archive.org/web/20171126120414/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021
Archived: November 26, 2017, 12:04:14 PM
Last active: Last Active: August 15, 2017, 08:32:13 PM
First post after gap: August 13, 2017, 11:28:17 PM
Last post:  August 15, 2017, 08:01:00 PM
Address.

http://archive.is/3E1Vf
Archived: November 08, 2018, 03:11:02 PM
First post after gap: November 07, 2018, 09:43:04 AM
No address.

There are no posts between May 26. 2015 - August 13, 2017 and activity between March 28, 2016 - August 13, 2017 is unknown.

If I have to guess, I would say that address was placed on profile in 2017.

Strange.

They start using "@":

Proves nothing, same as upper letters.

It is also against the rules of this forum, when you keep presenting these facts in threads where they are off-topic.
Wether your claims about Lauda are true or not simply doesn't matter here in this thread.

There's only one place in your posts where you are allowed to make the same off-topic statements again and again: your signature.
Please restrain yourself to adopting a signature that says "Lauda is a liar - see evidence here" and link to a thread about that issue.

This again is a very strange reaction.

Please demonstrate where they are off topic and not relevant. That they have not been raised or joked about by others before I respond to them.

Also unless you are trolling me you just said in your prior post they are on -topic here.

Now stop being afraid of lauda and changing your mind it looks even more strange than your behaviour that I just described above.

Just because he shows up and orders you to stop posting don't change your mind and reverse what you just said 2 posts back. You appear to be very scared of this person. Do not be frightened of these people.

"Whether my claims are true or not does not matter"? this is quite a ridiculous thing to say when we are discussing here matters of trust. Especially when a lot of times those very points are raised and joked about by  others first in many threads.

It is clear lauda shows up here tells you off and you just completely change your tone and reverse something you just said to the opposite. It can not be certainly on-topic here and then moments later become off topic here.

I'm unaware of saying this.
If so, it was a mishap.
JFY is on-topic here, Lauda isn't.
This post is in "Reputation" and called "VIP Member hacked?".
Lauda is not a VIP member, so it's not about her reputation or her being hacked.
q.e.d.

As for changing my mind, I'm unaware of it.
As for being afraid of Lauda: hey, she lives relatively close to me (AFAIR), I have much more reason to be afraid than you are ;)

Now let me repeat, because I mean it:

So now you say you did not mean to say it before? and that you are not changing your mind as soon as lauda shows up?

I will continue to post facts and observable events where they are on topic and where they are relevant. If they can reasonably and logically be demonstrated off topic or irrelevant then I will delete them. Otherwise you are suggesting censorship.

Explain what your  meaning when you say "because  I mean it"  ?

It has been suggested here that motive for red trust is part of the debate. Therefore prior speaking out about Lauda and other DT by JFY becomes on topic and relevant. We must not try to be so narrow in our debates. All relevant fact must be permitted debate and discussion.

Anyway since you said it was on topic originally and now altered this I was confused as to why you were saying that. Now at least you cleared this matter up.

That's what I say, yes. I've also looked through my post history and was unable to find me telling you to post about Lauda here.
And why would I change my mind because Lauda shows up?
I have no beef with the Meta-trust-merit-infighting bunch (which includes you).
I'm just an innocent, amused observer of all the bickering and bitching going on.

Good for you.
Now "Lauda is a liar" is on-topic in a thread about Lauda, so would you please continue your discussion there?
(AFAIR, there's a reasonable selection of threads you may freely chose from)

I suggest you leave them where they are, but just stop adding to them.
Deleting posts can be worse than leaving off-topic posts standing.

You've asked for my favorite xkcd comic, you get my favorite xkcd comic:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
https://xkcd.com/1357/
 ;)

I meant that I mean it?
Sorry, I don't really understand the question.
I meant, literally, what I wrote.
I understand that "I mean it" can have an aggressive undertone in English, that was not my intention.

I'd prefer to keep threads narrow, not to derail topics too much.
Granted, I'm no saint either when it comes to derailing from time to time, but for the sake of civilized conversation, let's stay as closely on-topic as possible.

See here is what I am referring to - perhaps just a typo

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071290.msg49568366#msg49568366

Look after the post ....where you were HAL. I thought you mean it was best to not talk there about it but rather talk here about it on-topic here as you said.

I have no idea why you would like to change after lauda appears. Perhaps I thought after he told you off for talking to "trolls" then you felt like you needed to fit in more with his demands. but anyway if this is not the case and If you say you are not changing but it was initially a mistake then I will believe you. It kind of makes sense now that I think about it that it was a typo because I was encouraged at first believing you wanted to discuss it now, but then you said once again no that you would not hear or investigate the evidence.

I respect your desire to keep things narrow if you feel this is the best course. I feel that if it is related and factual then there is sensible argument for it to be presented. A debate should make use of all relevant and factual information. Persons can decide to strike this information from their consideration or not. Only after some time can we know which course was more optimal/efficient and it will not be the same in all instances. There is no default correct path.

Ha, yes I remember your picture from the first time you showed it to me..

Okay it seems that I am unable to convince you or present any case that will cause you to change your mind at this time. I feel you are making a mistake but of course you feel that you are doing what is best in this case.

Now I see it:
With "it" I meant the JFY debate, not Lauda.
I.e. I wanted to say "JFY is on-topic here, not on the DT-thread".
Obviously a misunderstanding.

When Lauda asks me to buy her an amazon gift card, I follow.
When she asks me to shut up, not so much ;)

Thank you, and yes, I believe it's the best course of action.
Let's leave this topic to JFY's case.

Ah okay I understand what you mean now.


I'm guessing you are just kidding me about amazon. However, yes that is encouraging that you will not be bossed around.


Okay, cool. I hope for a good resolution in the end.
For me personally I always try to imagine being in the other persons position and then take action accordingly after then considering all available information.

I'm not sure if this was a "legit" sale back in December 2017, but someone offered 2 VIP accounts with original e-mail. 1 was "sold", but the link to the transaction is expired. So I can see the concern with the JFY account. Personally, I'm undecided in this case. However, INTP personality types are usually undecided.  ::)

Link to sale thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2563257.0

Lol, I'm an INFP so we're pretty close.  I don't know if that makes me as indecisive or not, but in this case I kind of was in the beginning.

Interesting that those VIP accounts for sale included the original e-mail addresses, which was one of the only pieces of proof that JFY could provide.

If that thread was real, someone paid $1,000 for a VIP based on the $20k price at the time. I can’t imagine earning that much with an account, even over a year.

Edit: That thread was created Dec 11 2017, and last edited a week later saying one was sold. However the account “woke up” in August, 6 months earlier. Unless the password was reset within a week of Dec 11, 2017 this thread was not selling btc_bear.

 beside all the other opinions it only makes sense that someone who ever donated 50BTC and as any early adopter, should not give a fudge about any DT bullshit on this forum, but this is the opposite of what JFY is doing, before even looking at this topic, i saw him discuss the new DT changes with a DT member,
and i thought to myself " what the fuck is he wasting his time on ? why ain't he cruising in his lambo or 1m$ yacht ?"

but anyhow, the current owner regardless of  (his true identity) is constructive and nice to say the least.

The original owner likely purchased bitcoin at $2/coin, and potentially a lot. However you assume he didn’t sell at $200.

If he bought at $20 and sold at $200, he would have done 5x as good as someone who bought at $1k and sold at $20k later that year.

Yes, I just looked through some achived seclogs. No PW reset for Bad_bear around the time after "purchase." I can't imagine someone purchasing an account for $1000, and not resetting the PW right away. Account sellers can't be trusted, after all. So, this isn't any smoking gun. However, it is an example that it is theoretically possible to have a VIP account to be transferred with e-mail. I've even seen offers to sell accounts with the private key for a staked address. Wish this practice of buying and selling accounts could be stopped. But with the internet, no way to stop it.

https://twitter.com/btc_bear  

Is this the same guy? ::)  

Edit... Wasn't he on irc/otr? Why can't he post a message using his pgp key like everyone else?

hmm possible, but unlikely , he said he lost his wallets, never mentioned selling !  also whatever i said above represents what i would personally be doing/feeling , if i bought tons of btc for 20$ , donated 50 of them to the forum which alone at some point were worth a million dollars and lost the rest in my hdd !

there would be a million things i would do , coming back to the forum to discuss who is on DT and why is differently non of them.

* just expressing my thoughts based on logic and emotions as everybody else, since non of us here has any solid proof to support any side of the argument yet  ;D

Here is the auction where he paid for VIP: ::)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53387.msg640282#msg640282

JFY knows theymos address ? that's something he might verify with theymos maybe.

Just to notify I am talking with theymos on my identity issue via PM from 2 days. I have presented him some of the genuine proves and also answered some question about my identity. I am awaiting for his reply or a confirmation here.

Also, sent him this piece of info as you suggested here if it helps.

The owner of the account has access to old posts and PMs so technically it doesn't prove anything.

Whether you can accept this or not. DT and merit being used to hamper free speech is something a person can care about regardless of whether they have money for expensive things. Some persons believe this board is the start of something huge and do not want to see it take a wrong turn for the worse at a critical moment.

He may be a multi millionaire or not but speculating on his motives for caring about DT are just that speculations from a subjective view point.

I am not trying to pick on you since I actually believe you have some good intentions on this board (from a broad perspective) and perhaps for the boards sake so do SOME of these other busy bodies. However, they are letting their subjective views and biases and egos crush honest persons accounts along the way as collateral damage. This needs fixing.

Theymos could fix most of this with a couple of tweaks.

1. give another icon for possible or proven account sales. This need not be related to scamming or untrustworthy deeds at all then because the account has been recognised as sold or possibly sold. Still need not prevent them from entering campaigns or trading. All that uproar can be fixed.

2. give another link saying " other feedback to consider"  - all subjective petty fighting and ego shit can be posted on there no related to trades and scamming directly.

I would also say bring is some sensible guidelines for DT and merit.

All these types of threads will become redundant junk. With possibly innocent people who perhaps dont even want all this probing and attention getting dragged through the mud.

After investigation, I consider the evidence to be most strongly consistent with the hypothesis that his email account was hacked and then used to take his forum account.

He has the same email address as before, but it's @gmx.com, and we all know how secure that is (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0). The forum account was first newly-accessed via email-reset rather than by password. IP evidence is also generally suggestive of it not being the same person. I also find his general behavior to be suspicious.

I asked him some challenge questions related to data I have and the real BTC_Bear should know, but his answers were only half-correct, and are more consistent with having access to a bunch of emails going back to at least 2011 than having actually lived it.

However, while he definitely wouldn't have enough evidence to recover the account if he didn't already have access to it, I have enough doubt that I'm not willing to lock the account at this time. There are plausible explanations for the above evidence against him, and if he is a hacker, he's done an unusually large amount of research, at least. I'd say that there's a 25% chance of him being the original BTC_Bear.

I don't have alternative contact info for BTC_Bear or I'd try contacting him. He was very active on #bitcoin-otc IIRC; maybe someone can try asking nanotube or the other #bitcoin-otc regulars.

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize & thank the original BTC_Bear (whether or not he is the current account owner), who on several occasions went to considerable effort to contribute to the forum in the early days.

Nice, thanks for your research and input on this.  I'm betting he's not the original owner of the account just on language alone, and I'm hoping he'll just come clean now if that's true.  He's already tagged with the possibility of the account being locked still on the table, so he might as well be honest at this point.

Thanks for the input. I've sent messages to some people.

---

Seems qwk was right about this one.

Thanks for doing the research and clearing this up!

I don’t think a 75% chance is appropriate for a negative rating.

I would point out there doesn’t appear to be any motive in hacking the account as to my knowledge he hasn’t even tried to conduct any business. Putting a lot of effort into falsely claiming you are the owner of an account isn’t logical to me in this case.

I think the above is especially important because:

If it is illogical for a user to do A for R and that is your proof of ¬R then I vehemently disagree.

That is called an exploitable vulnerability. A flaw in reasoning. Illogical ≠ Impossible.

Well, that's obviously a matter of judgement or opinion.
I personally consider someone I'm only 25% certain being the person in e.g. the passport he's showing, not trustworthy.
Not trustworthy for me is reason enough for a negative trust rating.

https://media.giphy.com/media/dZUa9VcDew1XO/giphy.gif

I hope nobody minds if I don't participate in the red trust dog pile. I think there is sufficient redundancy now to ensure people get the memo that the account has more probability of being compromised, than not.

i know i could be wrong in my "speculation" but i clearly mentioned this is what I would PERSONALLY be doing, if i was sitting on a ton of bitcoins i would be busy spending them rather than having to see you argue with suchmoon for example.

it's my logic, it may only fit in my world and could be the wrongest speculation ever, which i doubt to be honest.

as for the rest of your post, i do for some reason believe that ; you are not an untrustworthy person, and most certainty don't deserve any of the negatives you got, and that your intention of this whole drama is good, but i personally find you annoying, you almost don't let a topic pass without talking about DT and merit, even this one !

if i was you, i would just think that there is a conspiracy and manipulation from the "gang" but sadly the owner of this place seems to be happy about it - then why do you care so much? let it pass.

Can you red trust for  a possible hack? This still seems strange to me. Proven liars able to ruin the accounts of persons that are possibly not the original owner? who even if they are not may only possibly decide to do something wrong? seems weak sauce and double standards really.

I mean I accept theymos opinion that it is LIKELY this is not the same person of course the % is just kind of a guide some people are taking the 25% a bit to literally. He is saying he is uncertain but feels it likely it is hacked or sold.


For instance how many persons here red trust this possible of possible weak sauce untrustworthy member?

Did those same persons red trust a proven liar lauda?  

Did those same persons red trust a proven greedy and devious sock puppet racist sig spamming untrustworthy scoundrel the pharmacist?

Did those same persons red trust a proven and self confessed trust abuser tman?


So they although PROVEN to have been untrustworthy get a free pass and this possible of a possible untrustworthy person gets multiple red.

So not only did you not red trust them for being proven untrustworthy. you decided to not even neutral them with a comment? on top of that you decided to include them as DT members in a trust position. Oh yeah?

Sorry this is completely wrong and the injustice is a disgrace to this board.


Fighting for fairness and equality for all is part of my reason for wanting to still post here. I will continue to mention it over and over however annoying it gets to hear the truth of this diabolical situation. Until it is fair or there is more effort to make it fair then I will keep pushing using facts and observable events to demonstrate it is simply not fair as it stands.

Honestly if you could stand back and look at how it really works you would see that it is impossible that such a system could ever be accepted by the entire populace.

It simply provides

motive to act selfishly and provides means to act selfishly  to a small subset of current controllers- it simply can not work as it is.

Nobody is going to accept being handed punishment for no crime or a lesser crime than those handing to them have previously committed who are also gaining from giving them that punishment. It will simply inspire energies so great for reprisal the board will eventually become a total uncontrollable war zone. It is only just starting but it will certainly get worse before it gets better.






Anyone reading my entire post history could never conclude that I have ever acted unfairly or have not always fought (even to my own disadvantage) for everyone to have an equal chance.  

No, the hacking of the account being illogical does not mean it is impossible, obviously. But it is evidence (circumstantial) that there is no hack. It should be weighed with other available evidence.

I think you are using the wrong standard.

If a stranger asks you to trade (when you are known to engage in similar trades), you will see this person as not trustworthy, and as such will put yourself in a position in which he is in possession of money that belongs to you. It would not be appropriate to give this person a negative rating.

BadBear had a standard that he wanted to be 100% sure, without any someone was a scammer before leaving a negative rating (which from what I could tell, was more strict than beyond a reasonable doubt), and Tomatocage worked to ensure his ratings were fair and accurate, and I believe he has a very high standard for tagging a scammer (although probably not as high as BadBear).

I don't have an issue with a "tag first ask questions later" trust policy, so to prevent someone from quickly scamming multiple people, and continuing doing so after being called out as a scammer, however once questions are asked, a high standard should be used. I don't think "75% certain" is a high enough standard, especially considering the lack of motive, and the ~month delay in getting "caught", during which time a hacker would likely have tried to either scam or build up reputation, neither of which happened.

Multiple IRC ops have not seen him for many years, and based on what they've told me I don't see why he would come back at all. One of the OPs confirmed that losing all BTC and PGP keys does not sound like something that BTC_Bear would allow to happen; he has not heard from him for about 5 years.

---

Update: I did not mean to delete this post.

Hey. PM me, BTC_Bear.

I PM’ed him to make him aware of this post and he said he sent you a message.

Eh. I asked this person a few questions and the answers missed pretty much all of the information that the BTC_Bear who did actually spend all that time with me on IRC would have known instantly. It would have been nice to have seen that my (polite and friendly) acquaintance had returned to say hello. Oh well.

I won't share the PM content without permission from..  whoever this person is. Or, I guess, the real BTC_Bear who can answer my questions and/or sign messages with the known keys that BTC_Bear would normally be able to identify themself with.

I suppose it's possible that BTC_Bear had some kind of stroke or.. maybe like a brain injury or illness of some sort and in that case I'm going to feel like a real asshole. If that's really you, old-schooler, I apologize for being an asshole, but your old self would hopefully have understood. I mean you are the one who set things up just-so..

*shrug*

Honestly, the old BTC_Bear (at least the one I knew on IRC) would have immediately understood the need to lock his account down.

Sadly, the fact that this is even an issue at all means I can no longer fondly reminisce about the Old Days w.r.t the BTC_Bear I knew with any new friends. That sucks.

It bothers me a lot that so many old names have disappeared and gone away in this fashion. These people had a natural and facile agility with Bitcoin and related topics, and seemed to understand in a way the social nature of what was going on—enough to know that being a person in this space has long-term consequences far more dire than, in BTC_Bear's case—not being a person does.

Mr. Bear, if you do read this, I hope this note finds you well and happy, on whatever sandy shore or remote towering rock or dark woods that you're most content with. One day the rest of us will be gone too, and no trace will remain that we'd even shared a laugh. But in the end, wasn't it just our laugh to share anyway?

Oh well.

(edit: Of course, all I know is what I saw on IRC, and I've been bitten before by old-schoolers who turned out to be scammers in the end. So who knows, right? Time and the fondness of memories, and all that..)