Bitcoin Forum

BCT Name                                  Proof
iluvbitcoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=337097)                                 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454512
hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758)                      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2257435.msg23250359#msg23250359
ranochigo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=334898)                                   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1205158
Smitty Werben Man Jensen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=960982)          https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158200.msg51595963#msg51595963
tokoorochan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1784879)                               https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158200.msg51594930#msg51594930
bitcoin31 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=847476)                                    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1625893
Caladonian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=704041)                                 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466655.msg14893671#msg14893671
DeathGrasp (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1169047)                                https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2218587
bitjoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=377992)                                        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1611196
premiumproductss (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=966330)                      https://archive.fo/ei6kp

They are from 2016 and 2017.

The thing that made me curious is that, you have just created an account and made your first post with some policing 🤪

If you were damaged by any of the above users then feel free to create any flag with evidences. You will get support.

Archived:


https://archive.fo/ei6kp (https://archive.fo/ei6kp)


https://archive.fo/F1KK9


https://archive.fo/TAlUa


https://archive.fo/Y6n1Z

---

Some of them are still active, and didn't receive a negative trust rating yet.



Edit: I have left them a negative trust rating, but a DT is needed for it to be reflected.

I know but I actually do not have any headache unless the event is in the recent time. May be late 2018 to current time.

However, I do respect community value and others opinions.

People who speak Indonesian, check out this thread
tokoorochan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1784879)  +0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2862962.msg29646326#msg29646326

To me i think they deserve atleast a tag from anyone in the DT especially the one whose ads are still out there.
who knows? People could still be able to see the ads through the search function and deal with him.

Tagged all 4 ;)


Can you translate?

Here I tried with google translator actually chrome default.

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

Looks like it does the job :-)

Royse777 could you check another post?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1995765.msg20109017#msg20109017

Well this is what it says,

https://i.imgur.com/lLMp0f4.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1995765.msg20109017#msg20109017

Profile hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758) added to the list.

To which list? Did i miss something ?

bob123 read the first post.

Oh, my fault. I missed his name in the list.

I left a rating.

Accounts sales in the Philippines board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1360322.0

I left a rating for "pinoycash" and "caramelisedbanknote".

There is no valid proof for buying/selling actions from "Shinpako09".

That sounds about right.  I started tagging account sellers/buyers at some point in 2016, and I'm sure I've missed many of them.  That's just the way it is.  There are only so many hours in the day I was willing to spend handing out red trust, but there are/were just so many of them.

At this point I personally would not go back to 2017 in order to tag an account dealer unless the member in question is extremely problematic or there are some other circumstances happening that would lead me to believe that the person needs to be negged.  I've not yet run across that.

But I don't know--it seems like the market for bitcointalk accounts has waned somewhat in 2019.  Am I wrong about that?

You missed this one?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.5

Sorry to derail OP but why does TAA/Cryptohunter have such a hardon for you?

I am handsome in ways to them I guess, but its time I finally let them down: sorry cryptohunter, you're just not my type.

I think I poked fun at them when they started to unravel mentally (what was that, like 6-7 months ago?) and now I'm forever part of "them."

There you have it then.

You can NOT flag or red trust account sellers who offer their accounts for sale. Because a year later that account may just post this account is no longer for sale and tell you it never sold.

Or accounts sellers can just tell the new users to post that message and job done.... no red trust.

Nutildah or notildah just told you all - so that's how it is.

We were not against notildah, he simply started attacking us first and siding with scammers and liars. We did not give one shit about nutildah... come to think of it we still do not. Some 3rd world broke down bum begging for 0.02btc loans lately is worthy only of pitty of course. Still it's a great CV for a DT and merit source.

I’m only dignifying you 1 response, move the fuck on you stupid retarded fuck and stop ruining this forum. You are like the fat smelly kid at school that nobody liked. Like seriously move on you nonse case

Lol thanks that was amusing. Please no more off topic derailing. Better to deal with on topic relevant observable instances of account sales here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

That's nonsense.

I will continue tagging account seller and their accounts.

However, if an account shows to be trustworthy after the potential sale (which nutildah's definitely is), there is no reason to start actions against it.

It might have been traded or not. The person who owns this account since the listing has shown to be trustworthy.

Looks like you are only here to ruin other people's reputation. Start getting useful for the forum, provide some high quality content about BTC or just stop posting here. Your shitposts are constantly the same accusations repeated over and over again.

You are not only damaging the users here, you are damaging the forum as a whole.

You seem to have RUN AWAY from our last challenge? go back and complete it. At this time it is clear you are unable to refute the observable instances in the hhampuz thread. Making your trust abuse look like you are trying to help cover up wrong doing by your friends.
You are looking untrustworthy.

You can not claim it is unfair to present observable instances of clear wrongdoing because it spoils the persons reputation LOL

Who put you on DT you ignorant pleb? looks like a terrible selection.

Therefore us presenting observable instances that are independently verifiable and asking for hhampuz to say if he KNEW about this and STILL decided to employ them is in NO WAY untrustworthy. Are you clear moron?

NOW we see you ran away from that thread without answering those challenges to demonstrate the observable events never took place , you come here.

What do we see you doing here on this thread?

AGAIN you are trying to claim that observable instances of nutildah stating HE HIMSELF believes it is EVIL to sell your account and that HE HIMSELF believes it facilitates SCAMMING.... NOW later decides he will willingly be EVIL and FACILITATE SCAMMING  for 0.3btc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

You are AGAIN here claiming that this is all just an "accusation" and that it is unfairly damaging his reputation and that we are damaging the board by presenting observable instances of clear wrong doing?

LOL and you are a DT?  wtf are you doing on DT?  image all those others facilitating scams willingly or even scamming that may have their reputations damaged if you bring it up  LOL

Get this idiot off of DT at once.

Scammers and those willing to facilitate scamming for 0.3BTC spoil their OWN reputations.

You seem to have NO ISSUE trying to ruin our reputation for simply presenting observable instances you seem to want to remain HIDDEN?? by trust abusing our account. Now you will sadly be reminded of this observable instance whenever we choose.


@bob123


This kind of logic does not work out. It simply puts you and nutildah in an trap from which there is no escape.

The only TRUE part of your post is that YES nobody knows if the sale went through really or not. This does not matter though.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875


1. The sale did NOT go through so the original account holder is Nutildah. Sadly nutildah though by his own words has demonstrated that he WILL act EVIL and WILL facilitate scamming willingly for 0.3 BTC  = Very untrustworthy direct financial implications.

or

2. The account sale DID go through. So now we have an UNKNOWN actor going around with a legend badge asking for 0.02btc loans. Who knows what the threshold is for pulling a scam? Perhaps not that high.
The problem is for scenario 2 - It is claiming it IS THE ORIGINAL NUTILDAH. = If want to accept scenario 2 you MUST ACCEPT THIS IS AN UNDENIABLE LIE. You can not have it BOTH WAYS. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

You see the trap is there. There is no getting out of it.  Either way it is impossible to claim this person is trustworthy. IT is not possible to deny this.

We can not PROVE it IS or it is NOT nutildah. That would be impossible. However either scenario 1 or scenario 2 both = UNTRUSTWORTHY.

You method also fails ALL other account sellers. You must wait for them to demonstrate they are UNTRUSTWORTHY to be treating each member equally. Either that or you will need to in a few months REVIEW ALL accounts and see if they have acted in a trustworthy manner and remove your red.  Also you would need a very rigid definition of what Trustworthy is to be applied equally to all accounts.


You can not just adapt the rules as you go along. OR if you do then all members should be treated in the same way and given the same opportunities.

This is pure idiocy.

Yet another thread with good intentions completely derailed by TOAA, aka cryptohunter.

For the record (yet again), I never sold my account. There's ample evidence (I would call it proof but yes I am biased in this situation) that I never sold my account, and zero evidence that I did. There is only the unfounded speculation of my haters.

Cryptohunter: do you have any idea what I've accomplished since you decided to become a full-time troll some 6-7 months ago? For one, I've stopped dozens of _actual_ scammers with _actual_ bad intentions from trying to steal from others. I've exposed several different ICOs for having plagiarized white papers, fake team members, or malware in their wallet client. I've busted up a couple different spammer-for-hire rings comprised of scores of accounts. I've performed quite a few formal analyses for a wide array of crypto- and forum-related purposes.

This all takes time and dedication to doing something positive. I do enjoy it, just as you enjoy trolling, and that's why I do it.

But this is where you and I differ: In general, I bring substance to the forum -- something that you are severely lacking. You are a one-trick pony and your show has become atrociously boring.

Theymos even told you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138319.msg50859238#msg50859238), at one point you may have had a case, but you've become completely unhinged and its now very hard for anybody to take you seriously. I doubt you even take yourself seriously. If you did, you would be the one leaving trust ratings and issuing flags instead of telling others to do it.

Every time you insist on keeping up this charade of indignation and faux air of righteousness you only dig your grave a little bit deeper.

But for 0.3BTC what might you do?

Trolling as you know is the repetitive presentation of clearly debunked material as being true.

I have said we can not PROVE if the account was sold or not.  That does not mean it has been debunked. It is simply impossible to prove either way.

If we accept scenario 1 then we feel that is worse than scenario 2 really. So it is your own choice? you are sticking with scenario 1?

If you believe you can compare yourself to the prior achievements of a true legend like Cryptohunter then you are clearly unhinged. These 2 bit scammers you " claim" to be stopping are nothing more than enticements for the very most stupid or the very most greedy.  

People who by their own words will turn EVIL or willingly facilitate scamming for 0.3btc don't get to be "trustworthy" because they claim they are stopping some 2 bit scammers later on. Whilst abusing the accounts of real legends and REAL scam fighters.

We are presenting the TRUTH regarding your past.  That does not mean we are unhinged. Sorry we are simply amused by your specious defense oh EVIL ONE. lol

" In the past I may have gone evil and willingly chosen to facilitate other members being scammed for the price of 0.3btc, but now i have highlighted some other scammers you can trust me again" is that what you are saying?  

No sorry, especially now that you have decided to trust abuse others to we believe deter others from whistle blowing on such things. That is very dangerous behavior.

None of your mentioned scenarios would imply that he is untrustworthy.

Scenario 1 does not imply the he would do 'evil' for 0.3 BTC. That is only your assumption. It is based on nothing except for the fact that he put his acc for sale for 0.3 BTC. And this was 3 years ago.


Scenario 2 does not imply this either.
Even if the account has been sold, the person who owns this account has proven to be trustworthy now.


I don't see a reason why tagging would be necessary.
I don't think it would help to prevent scam in any way. Neither would the community benefit from it all.

If he wouldn't have shown that he is trustworthy, i would agree with you. Warning others would be appropriate then.
But in this case, i don't think so.

So you read this link and also click the original links in that post and read it all back to when it all went down?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

So you are now saying

1. You can tell everyone that it is EVIL and that they are facilitating scammers and scams and that you are even going to make your own list of account sellers to make sure these EVIL and scam facilitating members are punished.

BUT THEN you will commit these evil scam facilitating behaviors  for 0.3btc and that is still TRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR?  this is trustworthy to you??

We are not claiming to believe it is evil and facilitates scamming (although that part is likely true) NUTILDAH himself is claiming it.

2. You can claim you ARE the original nutildah when you DEFINITELY 100% NOT (because if you are not you go back to scenario 1 in that case) - and you would remain trustworthy? so telling a PROVEN LIE is trustworthy?

Are you sure you have thought about this. Have you read the links we posted and investigated those observable instances?

The trap is impossible to escape and he set it for himself.

Also perhaps best to clarify what you find trustworthy and not trustworthy at this stage before tagging further because those seem entirely independent of what would reasonably be trustworthy and not trustworthy.


I mean telling 100% proven lie would usually NOT be trustworthy.

Telling people you believe they are evil and helping scammers by acting in a certain way and then acting in that way yourself for payment again would usually NOT be trustworthy.


You need to understand the concept here that it has to be 100% proven LIE beyond doubt because if you say okay you believe him then he goes back to scenerio 1.

It is only possible that he is or he is NOT nutildah. Each side of that is waiting a certain untrustworthy action.

It is IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY.

Please review this information, think about it more and then comment. Your reply is currently OBSERVABLY incorrect.

Scenario 2 seems less dangerous for the board but still 100% proven liar, but still he wants to stick to scenario 1?

There's no point bob, don't bother responding to him anymore, you'll only be fueling the trollery. He clearly doesn't want to consider other opinions.

Opinion 1 - you are nutildah
Opinion 2 - you are not nutildah

what other opinion is there?

You know we are very open minded; willing to engage any person in debate and examine their "opinions".


Or did you mean bob please stop letting them keep posting observable instances I want to remain hidden?

Can you present the "trolling" now?  because it seems you are trolling trolling.

K.

So...

Tag me for it.

Or else open a flag about it.

Problem solved.

The End.

K

So..

You disappointed us again !!! you have no excuses or alternatives to the nutildah vs notildah ... you were just talking shit again.  We were ready to listen and accept any valid rebuttal or refutation to our points. No, you come empty handed as always. Full of shit and bluster that crumples and is easily destroyed with any kind of scrutiny.

There is NO OTHER opinion possible.

Well done

The End.

We will bring it up whenever it is on topic and relevant.

iluvbitcoins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=337097) was added to the list.

ranochigo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=334898) was added to the list.

bitcoin31 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=847476) was added to the list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158200.msg51594052#msg51594052).