Bitcoin Forum

What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?


What is this then?

Not ICO-bumping-pyramid?


How it is not your reddit account but everything else is yours except that account which used your telegram?

---

Because of things mentioned here, I have no reason to believe this is not true https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.msg53482149#msg53482149.

Important posts to read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53513566#msg53513566
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53987190#msg53987190
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53995165#msg53995165
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54171090#msg54171090
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54186125#msg54186125
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54186418#msg54186418
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221633#msg54221633
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221706#msg54221706

-----------------

To sum hacker's important replies in this topic:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54227233#msg54227233

AKA:


And, after 4 months:


Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412

Yes, I accept I was a signature shitposter back then but sir it was when I was a newbie here. I accept being a reformed shit poster which I have already said about (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52388722#msg52388722). Back then you would know bounty campaigns were highly profitable due to the bull run, which surely attracted users like me to crypto. I agree I use to post for some time in some ICO threads, but that was the only level on which I could produce content back then to get through the signature post requirements. I know how annoying those pyramids look now, but didn't know such things as I was new here. I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.



The Reddit account in the question just has two posts, both on Dec 20, 2017. It was never used for any other reason as you can see. To me it is just an impersonator, that account was not even in the notice to me. I have not even mentioned any such type of Reddit account in my post history.

https://i.imgur.com/rupjsHz.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/rupjsHz.jpg)

https://i.imgur.com/b44s2Iq.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/b44s2Iq.jpg)

This is just more of the usual MO of the DT mob of attacking people their buddies have just victimized digging up any dirt they can to create a false equivalence. None of this bullshit negates the fact Lauda abused the trust system against this user, and this is a very transparent attempt at retribution for making a public grievance over it.

Mr rabbit fucker above, I take ICO bumping job and creating fake buzz around projects to attract people/naive people/newbies in this space very serious, I am pretty sure you haven't read anything as usual so if you don't mind go troll somewhere else.

---

@hacker What do you mean it is not you? Looks like you, unless you are saying that someone accidentally used your bitcointalk account name and your telegram (twice) for no specific reason?

https://www.reddit.com/r/freelance_forhire/comments/7kpkww/hiring_online_we_need_graphic_designer_content/drik1pl/?context=3




Speaking of, where did you post your telegram? I just can't find it anywhere.

It was used for a specific reason, don't you think someone can impersonator you by using your pseudoynym without your notice. There are just two simple pieces of text from which you could never judge who has posted it, even I am personally unable to identify. Although, the truth is I would never create a social media account under my pseudoynym as I mostly use this for crypto realted works. And yaa, I am really not that nave to market services related to Bitcointalk on reddit !  ::)



I could have not explicitly posted it, but I once confirmed it to Avirunes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=175302) here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113985.msg49912072#msg49912072). On rest of the occasions, I have usually used it in PMs many times. Still, yes, it is mine and I am in control of that telegram ID until.

I have tagged many accounts so I understand that someone might try to frame me but what is the reason to frame newbie?

What, they offered the same service you offered here and they pointed to your contact info so people could contact you so you could make money?  Yeah, makes sense  ::)
What is the truth?

Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2431660.msg28159134#msg28159134
Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2616641.msg28159253#msg28159253 (note - account Probablylikely)
Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2419138.msg28159458#msg28159458
Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2612592.msg28159609#msg28159609
Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2580919.msg28159740#msg28159740

Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2477256.msg28175799#msg28175799

Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2677363.msg28228338#msg28228338 (note: account Probablylikely)

Reply to Efta321's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2580919.msg28229995#msg28229995

Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2616641.msg28230078#msg28230078
Reply to ishin99's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2536264.msg28538459#msg28538459 (note: accounts Efta321 and reck1ess)

Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2431660.msg27463496#msg27463496
Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2612605.msg27463683#msg27463683

Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1994545.msg27634943#msg27634943 (note: account Probablylikely)
Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2431660.msg27635440#msg27635440
Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2431660.msg28228952#msg28228952
Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2746670.msg28538756#msg28538756

Reply to Slimshady's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2419138.msg28851832#msg28851832 (note: account Probablylikely)
Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2580919.msg28852260#msg28852260
Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2308252.msg28754537#msg28754537
Reply to frenkelebre's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2796334.msg29528525#msg29528525 (note: account Probablylikely)

Reply to rec1ess's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2345580.msg29291590#msg29291590

Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2431660.msg29130946#msg29130946
Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2419138.msg29130751#msg29130751
Reply to Probablylikely's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2752209.msg29130552#msg29130552

and so on.

How this happened?

I was newbie on the forum, but not in an overall crypto space, I use to use the same telegram from long time ago. I really had no notice of that reddit account and the post before I got notified here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.msg53484020#msg53484020).


The truth is, that post and the account was made without my notice, if I would have knew who did it, I would have already asked to them to remove it, I know it is forbidden on the forum !



As I said, that was the only level of contents I could produce on the forum back then to reach my atlcoin signature bountys post requirements weekly and I read the rules as post in altcoin sections as accepted which encouraged me to stumble over there. It was pretty much hype time for crypto and pretty much everyone came here to shill from atlcoin bounties, I was one of it. I have never repeated such shit there after, not even did any annoying long quotes.

What does it mean to be "newbie on forum"? For example, after 15 years driving Audi you join Audi forum and you are "newbie about Audi" then and all of sudden you don't know anything about Audi  ::)
If anyone here was pretty much scamming then it is ok to scam, right  ::) Anyway, it doesn't look like "your regular bounty posts", for example, [ANN][BTC FORK] [BITFINEX] Bitcoin Interest - Decentralized Savings - Join Now (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2616641.0)

Good old bump and there are some other ico bumps.

---

How many accounts "forum newbie" bought and for what reason?

I had suspected that hacker1001.. was a bought account. IIRC, he kinda came out of nowhere and lent money to marcotheminer.

I think him previously being an ICO bump spammer would support the above.

I am talking about the rules and operating of the forum not about crypto overall.



OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then. IF you want to blame me as a scammer by looking at some nave activities of mine in the past which I left 2 years ago rather working towards making the forum a better and scam-free place now than so be it. I cannot stop you from doing what you just did with TECSHARE.



None of the above-quoted accounts is mine or was in control of me in the past.

---

thank you for enlighting it here, but it was just suspected, I am the only owner of this account right from the date of its creation.

I am not talking about forum rules, I am talking about you knowingly giving fake reviews and shilling for random projects and bumping them telling people to invest.
In which campaign have you been then? Weekly post count? Post it or those are just words.
Why are you repeating "naive activities" when you said that you have not been newbie in this space, so I don't think "naive" is going to work, besides, I don't know what is your agenda. Maybe you are just hunting merits.

When someone ask you "is it raining" do you respond "I ate yesterday"?
I see that you have tried to buy at least 2 accounts:
...so how many accounts have you bought and for what reason?


Btw, you are starting to sound like mdayonliner, may I remind you that this thread is not about TECSHARE it is about you if you don't mind stop deflecting it with irrelevant things.

---

---

Back to topic, this is funny, from one ICO thread, on this page https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2419138.msg27892538#msg27892538

https://i.imgur.com/eo4t4vU.png


https://i.imgur.com/JDk8lCT.png

hacker:

https://i.imgur.com/DTBqtQ6.png

How all that happened?  ???

Adding this to list of coincidences:

1) reddit account which used hacker's telegram and bitcointalk nick
2) bitcointalk account which used hacker's telegram  
3) something which looks like "payed to bump ICO"
4) some strange coincidences between other accounts
5) some (potentially) bought accounts
6) some banned and unbanned accounts

Nailed it. I was wondering about the resemblance, but I couldn't put a username to it. Please not that guy again. :-\

Eh, I only said that he sounds like mday, nothing else. Btw, Lauda, since you are here and google just showed me something, I don't see you have addressed this:


Now, here it become interesting, Myserious01 has some -ve (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=829330):

https://i.imgur.com/mhRcK6t.png

Account is connected to few other accounts here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg51840608#msg51840608, and there is this address 0x5aF75BF78984F3e22CFCCcB52BF62f529bCB440b which is used by both PDAngel (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4898414.msg44226029#msg44226029) and Mysterious1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2401960.msg24597342#msg24597342).

This address 0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde belongs to account hacker1001101001, he used it here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2591417.msg26871592#msg26871592):


...and, hacker's address has exactly 319 transactions https://etherscan.io/address/0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde, I'll post few links to pictures but I guess everyone could just CTRL+F Mysterious01's address 0x5aF75BF78984F3e22CFCCcB52BF62f529bCB440b:

https://i.imgur.com/xw4L3H2.png
https://i.imgur.com/FT6XODt.png
https://i.imgur.com/EsRM3uh.png
https://i.imgur.com/4Q5k5XR.png
https://i.imgur.com/fSTPMyZ.png
https://i.imgur.com/u5cOLQi.png

There must be perfectly valid explanation why this address has ~20% transactions to and/or from this group of payed ICO bumping shills...

You misunderstood me. I meant to say that it sounded like mday to me as well, but I couldn't remember the username that I had in mind! Obviously I have no evidence to support this connection.

Let me guess:

I'll take a wild guess[1] on why the wording is real victims: People rushing into ICOs aren't really victims. "They got what they deserved", maybe that's his twisted view of reality which I have observed over the years in shady crypto groups.

---

Note: Still haven't set a flag precedent for ICO-bumping, but that is worse than account trading (where no known direct scam has yet occurred), thus it should be trivial.

---

[1] What are "fake victims" in the context of actual financial damage (and not somebody pretending to be a victim)?

I get your point, I am just making it clear for everyone who will read post, when you say to someone "you sound like.." sometimes some people use it as "you said he/she/it is..", that's all :P
There is one 7 days old transaction https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa80610a055815e42347614654d4d701770fb306ceec49402e2b4aacdcde56f35

Hacker said he is original owner of account so I guess signing message from that ethereum address will clear all doubts (about account owner).

That's why I elaborated too(!), especially why I added the following:

We sometimes do sound and behave like purrrfect alts. :o


Right, I will clarify for those that may not be following or are having a difficult time to do so. There are only two possible cases at this point in time:

• He/she/it purchased or "hacked" the account: He/she/it claimed previously that they did not - This is true if they fail to sign/confirm ownership of the address. This may still be true if they manage to prove address ownership.
• He/she/it is involved or even is behind actual ICO bumping services - This is true if they manage to sign/confirm ownership of the address.

---

The only third possible case is one where both points are true. I'll wait for a clarification.

Ok, yes they were targeted reviews but as I said I use to follow many ICOs back then on telegram. A normal user like me and many others could never say which projects were going to fail at the time of hype, I have personally lost funds in such ICOs back then.


IIRC it was KEPLER (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2853182.msg29274563#msg29274563), as I said I even use to follow those projects I was posting in.



It was naive because a newbie to the forum could surely not always know that posting for ICO projects on their thread is an unaccepted activity here, later when I came to knew such things and the risk involved, I have never ever engaged in it again from years and even discouraged it as much as I can to others.



I have not bought any accounts here and no successful trades happen in the posts you quoted.


Funny to put up names for you right. God Bless that guy with a nice life, he left the forum due to the same torcher.  >:(


Again funny for you, I already agreed I was involved in posting for ICOs and following them even on telegram, which I left when I got to know it is forbidden on the forum.


Some user has already vomited some shit on in a thread for something I am grateful to the theymos and administration around. You could get more info there.

The fastest UNBAN for plagiarism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143365.0)

---

As explained above, I being engaged with these peoples and activity for very early times of mine on the forum and for short interval too which I left and discouraged too when I got to knew the risks and occurring damages to the crypto environment in all.

---

---

This is my last explanation to the ICO bumping topic in hand, I have agreed my involvement years back for a very short period of time which I stopped when I got more grip on the rules and understood its forbidden here if IIRC I was just newbie or member rank at that time. I see a string of accusations and digging up of my past incidences to tear apart my repo in any way possible. I have addressed the issue at hand and I leave the rest for the people to judge from my current activities on the forum. Your good out weights bad argument in one way.

---

@Lauda

This Forum is just a fun tool for you and you are the same for people like me who know your ways to use anything here how it suits you.



@marlboroza just catch up with your said alt, he seems to be involved in more shady activities than what you are accusing me about, you could catch more dangerous scammers.

Funny how this is supposed to work, innit? Ignore all your bad past deeds because of your occasional good deeds, whilst we should ignore all of my >5000 past valid ratings because of an occasional bad one. Very lovely game these people are playing, pocketed even the gullible brains of a couple of Americans into believing you're as honest as an saint whilst having as much baggage as your friendly neighbourhood devil. Give me a break.


You're literally quoting my reply from a thread in which I was, you've guessed it, right all along. :D

They are not occasional but frequent good deeds of mine. Anyways, your 5000+ valid ratings are already duplicated by many other DTs around last time when you were off DT IIRC ( don't know if it was filtered with the abusive ones ), so they are no more needed to be shown under trusted to default trust users like me.

No one can imagine a person like you blaming others for playing political games on you, that's the only thing you do frequently on the forum, other than your occasional cherry scam busting.



You know what I am talking about just don't let it slip from your hands this time.

All you ever did, I will duplicate in one day. Where's will be need to keep a dirtbag like you around when we have so many observable instances of your wrongdoing? When you have no idea how to construct logical arguments, then they can easily be thrown your way with a "NOU" flip. ::)

I have no idea. Quoted for reference. Do go on please now that we've started this.

Don't have solid proofs so can't go on (could have in future). I don't prefer half baked accusations.

Going to remove my counter feedback now, as Lauda has changed the neg to something that is appropriate to leave a neg for. 

I don't have a problem with DT members negging people for ICO bumping and all that kind of stuff, just not for a disagreement and certainly not for giving merits to TECSHARE.

@hacker stop deflecting this thread, if you want to talk about lauda or anything other than this, create thread about lauda or other things.

---

So fake ICO reviews  8)

As I can see it is 10 posts per week requirement, and yet you said this:

And only after involvement in or with (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) ICO bumping group was pointed, you said something different.

Guy tried to escrow $100-200K having long ponzi history repeating "it didn't happened on this forum" and "it happened "long time ago"" and there was some alt account thing going on around him and his family which is/was also involved in some financial pyramid scam activities on youtube so why the hell it is torcher? Besides, you just don't leave place which brings food to your table ;) Funny that you mentioned it  :)

Don't you think you are being a little narcissistic (hmmm...) here? What reputation are you talking about?

Yes, lets just pretend this isn't about using the trust system as a tool of retribution and selective enforcement. You know what Stalin always said, find me the man I will show you the crime. What is important is they pretend it is a valid rating even under the flimsiest of pretenses and in spite of a very clear pattern of using the trust system as a tool of retribution to silence opposing opinions.

Sorry but I had to mention as the person claiming you as his alt also seems to be involved in such activities. So was just giving an hit.


Moreover, you should check the full requirement in the rules.


Imagine how a newbie would see those rules, which I changed acting on later and started posting more in other sections like Speculation, Speculation (Altcoins), Altcoin Discussion, Economics and Bitcoin Discussion you can see as you have already scanned through my post history. But this was only when I get to knew slowly about the rules. I am very clear here about my intentions back then and now so that everyone could judge the change. I have agreed being naive but proved not being the same now.




Sorry for going off-topic but as you thought I being his alt, I would like to let know, I don't find him harmful to the community overall not now and not back then. What pulled him in a trap was just him asking if he can escorw the funds, and him running with that funds are just guess. Other things are just part of witch hunts, show me the man I will show you the crime.



Jumping from defending an abusive feedback case here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.0 to again due to defending on more abusive feedback from the same incident here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.0 and again defending myself from an abusive feedback from the same incident here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.0 to this thread again digging up my past incidents which I have left years back. ( Don't know what to say this, as it's very high level of coincidences if one tries to look at it that way )

I act because I don't enjoy my character being discussed this way.

I looked at a select number of threads in Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins) (board 159), and there is a clear pattern among the following UIDs:
1021758 (this is hacker, but the pattern is less strong)
1082347
980712
1234403
1171587
1527744

With regards to the select threads I reviewed, these accounts tend to post in the same threads, when posting small numbers of posts, they tend to post in groups of 3-5. When they post larger numbers of posts in a thread, they all tend to post in the thread, and they all have a higher number of posts in the thread. In other words, when one of them makes low double digits number of posts, they tend to make low-mid double digits numbers of posts in a thread, and when one of them makes high double digits of posts in a thread, they tend to make high double digits to low triple digits number of posts in a thread.

Some caveats -- these UIDs were not found in a larger data set, they were selected because they were mentioned in your post; the hacker account mostly makes less posts in each thread than the field; I didn't look at the content of the posts, and therefore am not accounting for things such as drama/controversy that may explain the pattern; no statistical tests were done on this data to see if this is different than a random group of accounts, part of the reason for this there is a lot of manipulation in this board and I am presently unsure how to account for the manipulation.

I have posted examples of this pattern below:
UID           Thread     Post Count
980712   2431660   35
1021758   2431660   18
1082347   2431660   60
1171587   2431660   132
1234403   2431660   129
1527744   2431660   66

980712   2612592   25
1021758   2612592   13
1082347   2612592   24
1171587   2612592   35
1234403   2612592   30
1527744   2612592   4

1021758   3289130   3
1171587   3289130   21
1234403   3289130   79
1527744   3289130   18

980712   2431660   35
1021758   2431660   18
1082347   2431660   60
1171587   2431660   132
1234403   2431660   129
1527744   2431660   66

980712   2605122   1
1082347   2605122   1
1171587   2605122   1
1234403   2605122   1

980712   2415359   4
1021758   2415359   1
1082347   2415359   8
1171587   2415359   12
1234403   2415359   4

I want to be clear that I do not wish to pass any kind of judgment on hacker.

You're not the first member to be analyzed in this fashion and you certainly won't be the last. Weeks after getting on DT my reputation was thoroughly savaged. If you can't handle criticism then don't dish it out.


Seems as if my instincts were correct here. You should have taken this as advice to tone it down a bit, but instead you ramped up your involvement in the drama even more. You apparently have lots of alt accounts on the forum which makes your obsession with DT (perhaps quest for eventual DT status as it would appear) even more disturbing.


That's all well and good Quickseller, and thanks for chiming in with your analysis, but could you please stop posting under both of your accounts in the same thread? Its getting rather insulting that you insist we pretend you're not Quickseller (you are -- I'd rather not open a thread in Reputation about it). If you're gonna post in a thread, stick with one account.

Kind of weird that you are using an alt to post in a thread that is largely about alt accounts.

I am pretty open to criticsm, but even after accepting my past mistakes some users put this up as an hunt as I mentioned the link's of incidences here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53506505#msg53506505).



I don't control any other account than this on the forum now, me being on an quest to DT is just your vivid dream. I was dragged into speaking about this darma due to the abuse of trust ratings on me if you see it clearly. Your advice seemed to me as keeping quiet even after looking at people getting harassed under some group thinking, which I can't resist speaking about. None of this makes me disturbing or an harm to the community.

Really you know to many things about others alts here, what a Sherlock brain.

Yeah you like to analyze them real good don't ya? Get up in there deep. Funny how these deep dives always seem to happen when people speak critically of a handful of users here and all of the toadies hop out from the dark to form Doltron. This is just the usual retribution for the crime of open discussion as if the most vocal characters here aren't engaged in exactly all the things they are running around accusing these others of.

Like right now, i.e. when you were typing that sentence? Until you log in to one of the other accounts? What a sleazy way to address a simple issue.

I mean I am not in control of any accounts accused above others than this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1329605) ( not logged in from 2 years ).

It is good that we I mean I elaborated  ::)

Ok, Mini Me, I've tried to verify this:


MEW says "invalid hex string". (can't take screenshot)
Etherscan.io showed "Result: Sorry! The Signature Message Verification Failed" (https://prnt.sc/qivokd)

I probably did something wrong  :-\

Can you sign message with today's date? 3.1.2020.?

---

Oh, more narcissistic statements.

Verified.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/09/10/mgnE9.png

MEW format (https://www.myetherwallet.com/verify-message):

K, doesn't mean you don't have alts.


When I said my reputation was savaged weeks after being added to DT, I was referring to actions done by yourself and subsequently cryptohunter. You're in no position to be talking about "usual retribution" here as you tried your hardest to shit on me over an issue you supposedly don't care about, all because of some stuff happening in P&S. Don't play that tune for me, bullshit maestro.

Oh, yes, thanks. There was space in signature which I didn't see

0x8308e608449df905f13bc3614e28ec4ba8a65ed9203934ce441217c04df4f1bc68be86776778b 70f3a34bb3179c75f849556a86856ca9079395a61015e6852231c

Were you payed specifically, unrelated to the signature campaign, to bump post specific ICOs?
Were you only posting in ICO threads to satisfy your sig campaign, or were you also being paid separately for any other specific targeted posting such as thread bumping?

Now hold on a second (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) with that thought.

First transaction (From Mysterious01 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330) to you):
732 days 8 hrs ago (Jan-01-2018 12:48:05 PM +UTC)
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x2055958f76a4ac83cba148a7a9934887f199e95a1103c04cc31ef65ecbc078cc

Last transaction (From you to Mysterious01 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330))
319 days 18 hrs ago (Feb-18-2019 02:04:10 AM +UTC)
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb24c40b43641940656f47f790880c932f20c27c11907a88c90cfd730d4237588

That is 413 days, please elaborate "very short period of time". If I counted correctly, there are 9 transactions from you to account Mysterious01 and 56 transactions from account Mysterious01 to you. Elaborate this as well and I might consider to lock thread. (note: I didn't check most other addresses, this is specifically for 0x5aF75BF78984F3e22CFCCcB52BF62f529bCB440b (PDAngel and Mysterious1's addy) and 0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde (hacker1001101001's addy)

---

I almost forgot something.



Kepler's signature campaign started on January 30., local rule is 10 posts per week (yes, as you said, no twitter and facebook count but you don't have any twitter/face posts as I can see) and there is this rule: "Post will be counted weekly until Tuesday 23:59 forum time."

January 30. was Wednesday so:

"first week" was between February 1. - February 7.
"second week" was between February 8. - February 14.
"third week" was between February 15. - February 21.

In that period you have posted more or less (if I counted it correctly) 44 post in altcoin [ANN] (few posts are not in [ANN] and then you stopped posting there.  That is ~14 posts a week.

Between December 31. 2017. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758;sa=showPosts;start=1060) and January 30. 2018. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758;sa=showPosts;start=880) you posted cca 166 posts in [Ann] threads. You said several times:


Your words, not my. Which signature campaign required from you to post ~40 posts per week? Anyway, after this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) you turned your story 180 degrees:


Right...

That wasn't retribution. Retribution for what exactly? When I am talking about retribution in this context I am talking about abusing the trust system to punish people for speaking out. All I did was talk about your history here, I never used the trust system against you. That was me using your own standards against you to show what a total hypocrite you are as you run around accusing people of shit you yourself are guilty of.

You were trying to destroy Bill Gator's rep for speaking out using the fact that he purchased the account as the sole crime he was supposedly guilty of, yet you yourself were engaged in the same activity. Yes yes, you claim you never actually sold it, but you can never prove that, and we all know how much you enjoy speculating, so lets use logical speculation to assume your account was sold too since you can't prove yourself innocent. See how much fun the guilty until proven innocent standard is?

People like you Vod, and Suchgoon keep saying this kind of shit like it is just so obvious I am abusive of the trust system you need never actually give any examples. Then when I press the issue you just again pretend it is self evident and scurry off to your clown holes, or argue over meaningless shit until the topic is sufficiently slid to another subject.

I knew the person who controls the address 0x5aF75BF78984F3e22CFCCcB52BF62f529bCB440b only through telegram, and never contacted or knew about his Bitcointalk accounts or never talked with him on the forum. He was the person who is the part of the process who dragged me to Bitcointalk explicitly.

As per you see some of my early transactions with him, which are linked to the bumping services and some payments related to it.

To make it more clear about the transactions related to bumping.

First transaction on Jan-01-2018 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x2055958f76a4ac83cba148a7a9934887f199e95a1103c04cc31ef65ecbc078cc

Last transaction on Aug-29-2018 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x2fdf948f12d619d0d9139d716f9ef567e173ba64fa4bfc5364b81f4b39915cb5

after this exact date, there was no connection of me with ICO bumping related work ( you can tally it with my post history ) all the rest transactions with the address 0x5aF75BF78984F3e22CFCCcB52BF62f529bCB440b after Aug-29-2018 is related to other payments of some camping management on which I use to work with them as back end. ( I can't disclose the campaigns for privacy purpose of the same person ). I even did some deals about smart contracts with them to send multiple transactions at a time. None of this was related to bumping as I was aware of the risks involved a bit late.

My last transaction with that person was around a year ago on Feb-18-2019 https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb24c40b43641940656f47f790880c932f20c27c11907a88c90cfd730d4237588, worth 1.4 ETH for same campaign management work I mentioned above. I have not been in contact with him later, as per I know he has started his local business and is away from crypto as per I know. ( not from my country ).

---

I said that as I was posting mostly for signature campaigns as that was really my goal than bumping the ICO threads, and the same was the requirements of the campaign about posting in ANN section only, so I did both at the same time. As some of the campaigns like TRF (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2547636.0) (one of my earliest one) were very profitable to me than collecting these pumping ETH payments. ( An interesting thing I got around 0.3 BTC back then just from TRF signature campaign for around 4 weeks of posting, interesting right?).

I am not turning the story but rather willing to agree on my mistakes back then. Yes, I have left it and would never do it again.

---

I agreed being paid, please read the above info.

Well, this will definitely raise more questions.

You could have said few day ago "I was paid to bump ico threads", but ok, you choose different path. Anyway, I said I will lock thread so locking it for now.

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.

---

[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

Theymos is a chump for giving you another chance. Your actions are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to punish dissent.

Keep using this tools to satisfy your agendas and flexing them. You are nowhere right and you know that.

Flag on hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412.
Flag on poochpocket (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=304376) (alt account): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413.

---

If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

Fake flags have been identified as such:

None of your reasoning is correct. I highly advise you to stop your malicious behavior as you continue digging your own hole..

The evidence should be in the referenced thread.

The evidence can not be posted in this section due to forum rules. The connection is valid, and stands unless he wants to claim otherwise. If he wants to claim this is not true, then we are moving into the Investigations section. It would be so much simpler if people were just honest..

---

Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.

Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag.

Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post.

You have an line of bad deeds here, you would never be sorry about doxxing someone. So yet I was just more inclined to be honest not afraid of you posting personal info.

As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported Flag #1412 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412) and Flag #1413 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413) (after I tagged #304376 “poochpocket” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=304376) two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basis—especially from one who has a history of “neutrally” FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion.  For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels.

If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke.

To be clear, of course, I am speaking only for myself—and so doing, just because I dislike that no good deed goes unpunished.  Whereas Lauda was only being kind and merciful by acting against hacker1001101001’s alt without a dramatic moment of revelation.



Not that mercy was ever rewarded, or kindness ever met gratitude from classless louts...


How terribly rude.  To improve your manners, please try this instead:  “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations.  I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified.  May I learn wisdom from your example.”

HTH, HAND.

That doesn't matter:


poochpocket was not even mentioned in this thread at the time the flag was raised. There were no "factors mentioned in this topic" relating to poochpocket and there were no "concrete red flags". Threatening someone with doxing is also a questionable move:

You are full of shit !

I have already shared my personal information with many other users here and have even traded goods multiple times, so I don't care. I thought this forum was safer than this back then but it's not in the real. Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall.

It's advisable to try this approach instead: "The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.".

Yes, one can't lick it better than your adviced approach.

Nobody was threatened with anything here. If I was the one being accused of something like this, my doxx would be dumped within 1 nano seconds in the investigation section and nobody would blink. I chose not to go with this route even when it is people who are defaming me whenever they can. I was considering accepting exclusions just to avoid using the DOX and still keep the flag up to protect people from deception, but thanks I guess I am evil. Sigh.

It does not work like that. You can apologize a million times to me, it does not matter. I do not need nor want your apologies. You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.

---

I am willing to forgive every single person given enough time (but not forget): This assumes that one shows true remorse via non-acts of evil and acts of good (what this means I leave up to the individual to interpret) or deceive me so well enough that I mistake high-level deception as true remorse.

---

Update 2: Now that I realize it, I am not even asking you to do anything hacker1001101001. All I am asking you is to stop doing things you already are (see tiny list in previous paragraph). However, do not come back in 1 month and say look I have not done anything for 30 days please remove ratings.

Accepting exclusions? What does that mean?

Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary. You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

Getting excluded over a flag in refusal to DOXX somebody while keeping the flag to protect the public. I stated it because I do not want to do it not to this guy, not to TECSHARE, CH or whoever next is mounting stupid attacks against me.

If the DOX is the evidence, then it is different (this is the case). When it is DOXing as an attack or retaliatory, then that is a whole different matter.

Once I see uniform reactions I will believe them. Somebody should run covert experiments around here. Where a puppet master when you need him?  :-\

@hacker is this bought account?

Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.

That is correct, I agree with said statement. Re: Quickseller, I initially wrote "the puppet master" and quickly changed to "a puppet master" because I realized it might instantly be associated with him (which was not my intention)!

---

Answers needed if honesty is really part of your character (I already thanked you for it):

1)

2)
Answer when you can.

Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign (SIGMA POOL (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104406))?

poochpocket was rejected twice:



hacker1001101001 was accepted later on:

I am not going to get caught up in your evil minded attempts, I have already admitted it honestly. But your words are nowhere to be taken into consideration to me as you are known as and are the biggest decepter of this forum which you blame me of.

You claming you were not trying to threaten me with DOXXING is totally bullshit. The evidence is in this thread itself.

What is my crime you are claiming to be as highly risky here as to be worth of a red tag, and a flag and now even attempting and threatening to doxx my info to prove my alt ?

This only shows how low you can go to protect your abusive practices here when someone tries to speak out about it. All of this is totally an attack due to me speaking about your wrong doings and brings nothing good to the community overall as you claim.

Please refrain from making shit up. Thanks.


What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine?


You should confirm it from the other account, LoyceV makes a good point:


It doesn't change anything for you anyway.

Should be clear enough?

---

I gave you another chance here:

However, you have decided to show your true colors. You can forget about restoring reputation to this or your other alt accounts now. Sorry it had to be this way, but you have made this choice. You reap what you sow.

I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.

I believe the rule is badly written, but the intent is clear. E.g. If you really wanted to interpret it literally, then posting from multiple accounts (your alts) using different IPs would be allowed - this is a ridiculous interpretation.

Especially given that the rule was there, thus he did it knowingly, yes.

It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that...

I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP.

That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.

I would like to know just how bad hacker’s spamming was to the forum. How large of a shilling army did he have? How long ago did he stop bump spamming (in relation to when the bump spam protections went into place)?

I don’t think he had/has only two forum accounts but I don’t have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.

I don’t like the use of sock puppets to support and agree with each other and I think it is a bad look when people do this. I say the same thing about sending merit. If anyone has done this before they should stop. This kind of thing gets noticed and it reflects poorly on those who do this.

I think hacker should consent to theymos looking into these questions and reporting what he finds. There is already evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

If it really matters (I don't think it does in the grand scheme of things) then yes, it should be up to the campaign manager when the rule is worded as stupidly as it is.


Great. Can't wait for you to stop.

Continuous dishonest behavior has not stopped and by the looks of it is not stopping. A single account being sold without any victims warrants the account being flagged, ICO bumping on any scale warrants more.

Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though.

I am not quite sure why you attacked suchmoon, but "if you don't confess I will publish your dox" is?

---

But you see, account hacker1001101001 was registered on June 05, 2017 and account poochpocket (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=304376) on March 29, 2014 and you also said...
..and today you said...
..did you buy this account? Since when is this account under your control?

He did not really attack suchmoon and suchmooon did not really attack me either (including suchmoon's misunderstanding of my words, and nulliuses misunderstanding of her words), I think you are all losing proper interpretations due to whatever (read it all again objectively, within context). Ignore the word DOX, replace it with "If you do not confess yourself, I will be forced to publish the evidence" - nothing is wrong with this and gives the culprit a chance to admit should he want to  (while avoiding any unnecessary damage by releasing the evidence). The only reason it was said was precisely because the DOX is the evidence (otherwise the evidence - whatever it may have been - would have been released instantly) - something which I do not want to post and can not almost find any scenarios under which I would. I have no other evidence (that is publicly known). Clear now?

Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  ::)

A common sense interpretation of this rule, at its maximum restrictiveness, would seem to dictate to me that this rule is attempting to bar an individual from actively enrolling multiple accounts. The simple fact he had previously applied and been rejected on an alt is not evidence of malfeasance or even a contractual violation.



Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.

[1] FTFY. If you need more assistance in making you a bit honest, please do ask and I will help.

Ah veiled threads for not complying with your baseless smearfest. Very becoming of you.

Without OgNasty's opinion we can't really know if what hacker1001101001/poochpocket did was against the rules of the campaign or not. It's not that I'm "keen on exact wording", it's just that poor wording in this case doesn't really make the intent as clear as you claimed.

And even if it is clear... Replace hacker1001101001/poochpocket with another set of alts in this scenario - would you still make the same claim? Remove all the other transgressions hacker1001101001/poochpocket is accused of from consideration - would you still red-trust/flag him for this signature application? If the answer is "no" then it probably doesn't matter much if at all.

Then you or somebody else should ask him IMHO. For me (emphasis) the intent is clear and I have acted accordingly.

I would hope so.

Flag type 1? I am not sure there is consensus for this (given the non-clarity of the rule to others, and it being an attempted - yet failed(?) infiltration). So answer is no. [1]
Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]

---

[1] However, it would be simple in cases where the rule was clear and a full violation occurred (then I believe the campaign manager could use flag type 2 or maybe even type 3?).
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.

Not sure what that [2] means?

So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.

The requirements for negative ratings are much weaker since the last changes theymos made. If somebody was tagged for some deceptive behavior before, then they can be tagged now for the same deceptive behavior on a smaller scale / lesser deception.

Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense? This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.

Yes. I mean I can follow your reasoning. I wouldn't tag for it if they were never in the campaign at the same time and even then I'd still defer to the campaign manager to determine if they were deceived. For all I know managers can make any exceptions to the rules.

That makes perfect sense yes, this is why I added in my update (which must have been between the time you were responding and actually responded):

I was always very strongly against this kind of thing.

Such important work being done here to protect everyone from that evil hacker guy  ::)

Yep, he is clearly a scourge on the forum, and this peanut hunting expedition has absolutely nothing to do with his opinions on Lauda or the trust system. How do we know this? Lauda said so. Case closed.

Ah, well... Seems to be under control then..
Ta ta..

There's nothing deceptive about his campaign applications.  He never attempted to enroll both accounts at the same time, and hasn't tried to enroll a second since being accepted with one.  Regardless of the campaign rule's ambiguity, he never broke the rule because he never had two accounts enrolled.  So, sorry to disagree with you Luada, but that's not justification for the red trust or a flag.  Realistically, it's a non-issue.

---

But what really has me curious is this:


You claim to be giving Hacker another chance, but I don't see any chances being offered in this thread, and certainly not in the quote of yourself that you provided.  In fact that quote only highlights what's wrong with this whole thread; i.e. that hacker disagrees with you and saddled up with the latest posse of folks who disagree with you.  None of that is justification for tags and flags.

So far, I don't see where he's broken any rules, or tried to scam anyone.  His behavior maybe tactless, and crude, but that's not a crime.  Please stop all the pointless tags and flags based on opinions and disagreements.  They have no place in the trust system.

Flag no, red trust, yes - I have said this.This was not used as a justification for either - I have said this. If you do not plan on fully reading nor comprehending this thread, then how about you do not comment at all ???

Look up definition of deceptive behavior, then look up the definition of trustworthiness. Then reconsider what you are claiming as it is wrong per the very definitions of these words. Rating is on point, and flag is more than warranted.

---

It is instructive and revealing to consider in the hypothetical how I would be treated, and who my defenders would (or wouldn't) be, if hacker and I had our positions reversed here. If I had been the one who was exposed with all these infractions from ICO bumping to multi-accounting (with which I tried to evade my rejection), defamation (do not label this as difference of opinion or one is dishonest themselves for doing so) and so forth, I would be burned alive on a stake - probably a couple of times. Forget that, if I was found just found to be ICO bumping 55 years ago I would be burned on the stake here.

Therefore, please none of that "rules for thee and no rules for me" progressive liberal nonsense that labels same actions differently depending on the author or target. You know this is true and is happening on this forum, and so do I. Stating otherwise would be lying and dishonesty towards the self and everyone else. Otherwise, prove it and change my mind. Thanks.

---

Updates and fixes!

I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.

You claming others of same is a big misjudgement on your part. In years I had none of an intention to scam anyone, I even apologized for my mistakes in this thread respectfully, its just yet me speaking out about your wrong ways of operating and harrsing users here which made you research about me as far as getting your hands on my personal information and trying to publish it for no solid reasons of harm. Hell, there are lot of highly risky scams around on the forum still operating with not much awareness and research done.

You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.

You can try spinning it as a threat - murder even for all I care (QFR). If I wanted to publish your DOXX it would be irrevocably published all over the internet within about 30 - 60 seconds give or take based on latency. I am not interested in your DOXX and no longer hold any information about you.[1] I would not be surprised if somebody "anonymously" published it now though (investigation section, pastebins and more). These people would think they are smarter than the forum participants and try to blame it on me. ::)

How dare I not forgive you, I must be evil. Sigh.

---

[1] As much as you would like to think otherwise, you are unimportant and I plan not to waste my time securing the storage of your information.

Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.

You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.

Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.

Nope, I have nothing. If we want to be 100% technically, cryptographically correct: I never had anything to begin with at the time of flag creation (most of the users and participants in this thread will not understand how this is possible either). Do not blame me because you are too stupid to be able to indulge in the art of opsec. Maybe you should spend some of that time you did on ICO bumping on reading books and getting educated. Just a thought.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I already read books and am already getting educated. But you are decepting users with your made up theory of claming to be using your art of OPSEC on me. You tried to threaten me and you have even done so in the past with many. You have an history of exorting users and it was always your intention to witch hunt me which lead your hands on this info.

You can make up any technical shit after you already know that the accusation is real, as I have already admitted it. I am not an harm to the community, I could be an harm to your abusive bheviour here though. You were purely motivated to crush my opinions here, which made you not wanting to forgive and threatening me with whatever you can.

I have never done anything of the stated. You pulled out the extortion card, the most petty and pathetic attack that I am very accustomed to. Do you have anything else or is this it?

You are a danger to the community and you have harmed it many times (and are trying to harm me in this very thread). I will document any future malicious behavior individually with separate ratings.

Hacker, did you buy this account?

Asking this third time already but I don't think you have answer it or at least I missed it. I need this info to update topic and I just don't want to update it with wrong information.

You said something like "you don't control other accounts" in January so logically, you control other account for a month or two.

As we can see here, Lauda openly admits that it is his criticism of them that is motivating their actions.

~Lauda


How many examples of their abuse do we need?

This is news to me because I thought he allegedly owned up to all his wrong doings and had nothing else to hide.


This is the first I heard of anything related to buying accounts but is the buying or selling of accounts formally barred by forum rules? Regardless of the merits in this particular case - I thought it was tolerated as an undesirable thing to do (buying/selling accounts) but was reluctantly accepted therefore the only option available to users would be to tag those buying and selling accounts.


I saw no such direct reply to the question you asked at least 3 times either. However unlikely there is a small chance he maybe he missed the posts.

Nah, account sales are allowed, pretty much as scamming other people. Lauda mentioned somewhere that theymos said "it is ok to flag account trades", I will probably update post when I find it.
I am pretty sure he didn't missed it. Well, if he doesn't want to answer it then I have no other option than to go trough seclogs for last 2 months and to see when account changed password and email. More work for me, but it is ok, he doesn't need to say shit here anyway. Account is registered in 2014. so I didn't ruled out possibility that account was previously hacked.

I have to agree, it seems fairly clear he did not miss it but chose to be ignorant.

Falling short of some miraculous answer to justify ignoring your requests anything else would be considered an excuse because you did ask him three times and on two occasions he skipped past your post to post here and as for the third time of asking we wait for his reply or wait to see if he skips past it again.

Yes, anyone who gets tired of your endless peanut hunting interrogations at any point is automatically guilty.

There are few missing days between November 28. and December 8., but hacker1001101001 said on the 03. January that he doesn't control any other accounts. Since January 03. January till the date when Lauda tagged account poochpocket (2020-02-25) and hacker1001101001 saying he is in control of account (28. February 2020.) there are few archived versions of seclog (https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php):

http://archive.is/daNhO
http://archive.is/HMEHO
http://archive.is/FPMr6
http://archive.is/cxox8

(dates from January 20. till January 29. are missing from web archive and archived dates don't show password/email change)

How long does message "user has changed password/email" last in user's trust page?

---

Other archived seclogs (https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php):

http://archive.is/WR69s

September 15, 2018, 10:00:14 PM - poochpocket - password reset via email
September 17, 2018, 10:49:50 AM - poochpocket - password changed
September 17, 2018, 11:34:00 AM - poochpocket - password changed
September 17, 2018, 03:07:13 PM - poochpocket - password changed
September 17, 2018, 06:08:42 PM - poochpocket - password reset via email
September 17, 2018, 06:20:22 PM - poochpocket - password changed

I couldn't find any other pass/email changes, but some other dates might be missing from archive site. Yet again, posting gap matches password change dates:

https://i.imgur.com/CVoKSB8.png

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=304376;sa=showPosts;start=80 http://archive.is/OpN9I#selection-1119.9-1229.90

What are you trying to prove by going on this witch hunt anyways ?

There is no evidence of me scamming anyone explicitly in anything you drag out here. Yes, I didn't control that account from the date of its creation but it was given to me in an personal deal I could not disclose. Yet, though I have not attempted to do anything financially risky or engage in any scamming beheviour from it.

It's clear that you are just intrested in bragging me up with anything you could bring down but it reflects your anger and greed to crush someone speaking against your selective trust abuse.

I KNEW IT! You ate a Payday bar back in April 3rd of 2016! These peanut fragments submitted as exhibit #2 prove it! Just wait until I start counting them!

https://i.imgur.com/daM2fOa.jpg

I am so hot on your trail I can feel it!

1) plagiarist
2) bump account
3) liar
4) -ve evader
5) witch hunt.

Please eliminate intruder.

But, bro, you don't think that I am abusing trust --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49702176#msg49702176 !!! You probably confused me with someone else. Actually, I double checked timestamps prior to creation of this topic and I have no idea what you are talking about. Someone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.msg53482149#msg53482149) exposed your shady deals, you lied, I open this topic....

---

Oh, isn't that Mr. Account Is Under My Control using circumstantial evidences to link ico bump accounts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg49741612#msg49741612 (http://archive.is/ALHKF#selection-6389.0-6398.1)?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5040622.0 Witch hunt!

---

---

@Hacker, in addition to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238:

Can you please report this account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1559142) to moderator? Seems they spammed forum with ico bump. Of course, don't forget to send positive trust to them, and while you are doing it, please send positive trust to some of these accounts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202219.0.

Funny actually, I wanted to report account chamika888 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1261329) to moderator but they are already banned.

Then I wanted to report account fargan28 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1194201) for ico bump spam business, but they are also banned.

I finally got one, account is not banned but they are not active so I will probably waste time, just to let you know that account salita23 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2190331) is also ico bump (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2190331;sa=showPosts) account.

Hm...whataboutthis account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=365672 ? Just another ico bump account. I don't know, because account nick is kyxap, it is slavic for cheft....yet again, while trying to figure this out, I noticed mutual ico bump between accounts kyxap and Efta321 here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2785607.msg34187838#msg34187838), kyxap and Dr.Sponge here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2752209.msg34064150#msg34064150) and so on.

How do I know all this ??? ???

Cross posting for referencing from the other thread. Sorry LoyceV for the off-topic spam instigated by this user.

---

Today's lesson:

Forgiveness ≠ Help !

Even check the difference between attacker and defender here.

That makes it even worse, vilifying somebody for not forgiving you when you want it..

I would assume you already got that I meant not equal to, the programmer.

Guys have some of these handy dandy items you can cut and paste:



(I might have to start a thread people can copy from)  ;D

Yes, I understood you, I was just wondering if you ever wrote code.  No worries.  :)

Indeed, I do and learn programming everyday FYI. ::)

---

I never stopped speaking about some of your double standards and selective abuse here that made you not forgive me. Don't roll your own words, you are proved to be more evil than anyone else here.

Why in the world would you seek forgiveness from the "most evil person" here? You are not making sense. Address the post by marlboroza:

As I already said, I can't defend myself when the accuser thinks that everyone should be perfect here. I agreed about my involvement in the service and me not been engaged in it from long time, as soon as I was aware of the rules around it and I even discouraged such practices thereafter.

The baseless attacks of plagiarist and similar others thing's deflects my replys and legitimate explainations about my past mistake. Him yet thinking of me as an ICO bump account is a big lapse in judgment.

Isn't this account who tagged half forum and accused many of being alt accounts because someone registered account "in January and someone else registered account in July"? We know, money talk, you were in signature campaign, hacker sent you funds, now you act like a blind horse.

https://i.imgur.com/zCSFH9L.png

Blind horse, money talks, that's what you are.

So please, gtfo of this topic.

---

This liar believes just because someone didn't spot him earlier that he got away with his fraudulent bump business. And, as I am not interesting in hacker's mental gimnastic, mr hacker, please:
OMG, "I agreed"  ;D ;D ;D

Elaborate accounts connected to your address.

None of them are mine or in control of me, ETH transactions from one address to many doesn't proof they are my alts.

Elaborate ico bump accounts and various transactions to and/or from your address to them. We are talking about lots ico bump accounts here.

I cannot, thats again your deflection from me being an ICO bump account yet.

Deflection would be if I start talking about daisies in topic about you being ICO bump account. Me talking about your ICO bump business in topic about your ICO bump business is not deflection. Anyway:
You can not explain blockchain connection you have with various banned, negative tagged and other ICO bump accounts?  ;D ;D ;D

They are not alts connections as you try to frame it here, they are just simple one side ETH transactions, and it doesn't prove I own those accounts or have anything solid to do with them. What a laughter, keep enjoying.

Do you have any idea how many alt-accounts there could be connected in total? Approximately how many does "lots" mean?

Ah ... marlboroza ... yet again seeing shadows in the mirror.  A while ago he claimed I was begging for money, now he defames me more.

Next.

Learn to read, moron.

---

I don't know, but hacker denied everything so there are no alt accounts. Anyway:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc0b3a46f62aba6a14f0eb25b5f94ce3a17c45efa2bce7880b863fc34a5656d20
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9cd027e8ae807659f8f02e2b3ea39cff8ae68805c6a06c4168217328ebe67c8c

2 transactions from someone to hacker (I didn't check other addy): 0x0f8e15af6f9fa8f4cee33156c2460e2d966a2d35 and 0x0153b14c081492ab61565d32e958b51441b0bd96. If you search any of these addy, you will find this topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202219.0 - OP said there are 30 connected accounts.

This transaction https://etherscan.io/tx/0xcdddcaf9566eb507f33c6efe9f74633fe846f4f4f3514511bbf53e01f9cdba85 and Dr.Sponge sent hacker some funds from this address 0xc77d7c97a9a197339b9eb41591061dc520ef9580
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076209.msg48601255#msg48601255

Just look at all those nice spammy posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1559142;sa=showPosts;start=0 (randomly selected ICO bump https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1559142;sa=showPosts;start=640)



For example, this address:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912.msg25554747#msg25554747

To hacker:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd6d99718948bb68f6ff2c09f040e1a356693a499388f891e005ef9dc92107c8d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xece95dfaca75acca6f8b249a15413c916ffcf1cfa66e41a558ba989a7fa1a526
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x73c34d0df13efc4f7dc715b37840e7a738d43ea67f627f68303b05abff1e482d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9ec1008d6e5e72d24897302043cbe6188dd7cbe68dbe625920a7a0c093cf4ab1

According to https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=1261329 account chamika888 is banned. Just take a look at this nice post history:

https://i.imgur.com/yfERs7K.png


For another example, from hacker to this addy 0x390ae66ef2f7424619d092f3ada3c9592a572b42  https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6f763f2299c380c413343a0ee5cff9e74fb01838b8bcc9e8e161e61435aa2ba9

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3142918.msg32494700#msg32494700

Except it is shitposting account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1080, account was used to bump various ICO's (randomly selected: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1080 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1160) Sintez, sintez, dafak is sintez??


From hacker to 0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x24329e495e0f96362c4a64594b186829d277003e661388264cc62b905dbc6792
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6ad7fc0c28bc67c1c462c2b809d7f96005f133b25a89dcd20b72d63509015743
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7a42f3c2e7cb43b6beb7b3de03b5bd71e9cfca2ab8915305cff69d916e6c14db
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9ee327d6749c902be1fe63e05052567ddf1326e80f28a8dbff42e2714226ad15
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb670d5d1a7e79421744c74731bcfa36c55c688e449f88ba8f1086ae3d79d68b9


Check posts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2190331;sa=showPosts;start=20 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2190331;sa=showPosts;start=40 and look at all these nice quote pyramids.


As I said, his address is full of ethereum transactions to and from ICO bump accounts, banned accounts, negatively tagged users etc.

---

Of course, he probably did some business with them, someone tried to frame him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.msg53484020#msg53484020) here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.msg53482149#msg53482149, let's not forget https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53513566#msg53513566... And let's not forget "I don't control any more accounts... (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53987190#msg53987190)"

Thank you marlboroza, this in an absolutely fantastic post. Lots of information here. I snipped the reply just for the sake of making the length of my reply shorter.

This is a top class example of what a well thought out post providing lots of relevant background information with excellent reference points should look like. I really need to start articulating my posts in the manner in which you do in so many of your excellent posts.

Now that you two are done stroking each other off, can anyone explain to me the imminent threat hacker1001101001 poses to the community that warrants this amount of scrutiny?

I'm also baffled what the point if this thread is too.

I was asked to come look at this thread then when I do show up said person starts attacking me. Now said person is engaging in brown-outs open mouthed. In one end and straight back out the other.

You can always go back to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235038.msg54105312#msg54105312 and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167617#msg54167617 post and compare it to your behavior. Disgusting. You know what else you can do? You can read all posts inside this topic. /both timelord accounts ignored except here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.msg54171476#msg54171476).

You blaming him of speaking about this issue or getting engaged in it due to the BTC he got paid from the campaign I managed shows how low you can go to frame anyone here according to your agendas and double standards and even makes other attempts of you damaging others reputation here more clear.

All of that is bullshit and a genuinely judging person would catch your deflection pretty quickly.

How do I know all this ?...

No, mr. Payed Bump, I know timelord long enough, don't worry. Now, as you are here, stick to topic and please elaborate this:

You should be laughing at yourself yet and enjoying the fun here. But you accused me totally out of spite and you cannot denide this.

For those of you judging geniunely, none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions. The accounts are not connected to me or I am not much aware about the info of the owners of those addresses.

I don't make random selection of bump accounts.
No, you didn't post. You lied and lied and then you have been exposed. And then you posted. Now you are twisting things.
And you sending ethereum to ICO bump group indicates what? Did you ran ICO bump service?

Lied and lied to save myself from your witch hunt and prove me not being an harm to the community. Yet even when I have agreed to the mistakes you can't say in what way am I harm to the community as far as supporting people to post my personal information here. Keep laughing.


As I have previously proved you can brag up anything to suit your allegation, you thinking of it as above is just another wild assumption...

Since when is exposing ico bump accounts witch hunt, unless you are suggesting that other members who are doing their best to protect community of fraudulent business and clean forum of spam and scam are also doing witch hunts? Hm, did I expose your bump business in first place? Read, read...click that link...


As I already said, you "agreed" after more proofs have been provided. "agreed" is not correct word here.

---

So no answer on this one again. No problem.

This all began the moment hacker1001101001 started being critical of the actions of lauda. You peanut hunters are not slick at all. Everyone knows this is about retribution, not about protecting the forum from scams.

LOL

hacker1001101001's unraveling surely couldn't have started when he was caught plagiarizing because that wouldn't fit your narrative.

I guess the good news is that your guild is DOA if you need fish for members in the shallow end of the spammer pool.

First of all that is a forum rules issue, not a trust system issue. Under the forum administration he was unbanned, so the matter was resolved. The attention really only came once he dared speak nothing but praise to one of the chosen clowns.



Lauda   2020-01-02   Reference    (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53487964#msg53487964)"Lying, malicious attempt at perpetuating slander, account farming, trading, ICO bumping, where does it end with this user?
Do not trust this user with anything financially, nor anything that is written by this user as he clearly writes whatever the payee pays to be written."

sergey1980   2019-07-28   Reference (http://archive.md/UNNA7)   http://archive.md/UNNA7
"This person was banned for plagiarism on the forum, but was very quickly unbaned (the procedure took 2 hours).
This is the fastest unban process in the history of this forum.
http://archive.md/s6y5C "



Hmm I wonder what happened days before Lauda left that rating... lets see...







How odd! No one seemed to give a fuck for 5 months until Lauda's butt was hurt and the peanut hunting crew was dispatched to dig through all the toilet bowls looking for anything they could collect to use as retribution. Still, no one has explained to me the imminent threat this user poses to warrant this amount of attention. This looks exactly like the hate boner for Quickseller all of the same clowns were insistent on having. Lauda has a VERY long history of leaving ratings for nothing more than criticizing them, and manufacturing stupid shit around it to give it the appearance of a valid rating. This case is no different. This is retribution against one of the "plebeians" for daring to think they are free to criticize one of the chosen clowns.

Peanuts, did someone mention peanuts?
I feel like I am missing so much of tecshare's gymnastic lately  :( :( :(

I guess that is what happens when your nose is buried so deep in the turd, you lose all context. So tell me, what imminent threat to the community does hacker100101001 pose that necessitates this level of persistent attention?

I doubt very much there is anything related to actual hacking associated with him. His associated alt-accounts all seem to have their own different personalities so there is no evidence there was ever hacking on his part but to be fair as far as I know, before I added him to my IGNORE list I never read any of his posts where he claimed to be a hacker.

To make you more clear and right SIR, it more precisely started here


when I have gave merit to one of your post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53464740#msg53464740) I liked and felt the information in the post had some logical meaning because of which Lauda got offended with it as far as giving me a red trust and starting a witch hunt around me by abusing both trust and flag system now. And as always there gang members started licking Lauda's word's here as much as they can to be a part of the cult. Objective Standards Guild is way better than the evil cult, could even be out of once understanding.

For someone who seriously wants to judge should surely see the reference (https://archive.md/yW2NH#selection-3363.0-3369.4) attached to the above feedback. Lowest level shit and prove of this being nothing more than puenut hunting witch hunt. I guess I could find more bigger ICO scams faster than what time marlboroza has invested here in this thread until, but he doesn't witch hunt accounts randomly.

Where and how it started does not excuse you from your actions. Take responsibility for them and stop whining like a child already.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE CUNT BEHIND THE CURTAIN! YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR THE CRIMES I HAVE DECLARED YOU GUILTY OF AND IS IN NO WAY RETRIBUTION FOR DARING TO CRITICIZE ME. ALSO FORGET THE LONG HISTORY I HAVE OF DOING THIS TO MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS REPEATEDLY! SO SAYETH THE GRAND JIZZARD OF SCHNOZ!

OK COOMER

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/031/081/coomer.png

Deflection is very usual practice among ICO payed bump accounts, please don't let him move this topic into different direction.
Of course you can because you are bump account.

Anything about this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53987190#msg53987190 and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54171090#msg54171090 yet?

All I'm saying that your contrived timeline doesn't make sense nor is there some immunity rule that disallows looking into user's past shady dealings once they say a bad word about someone.

Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to go looking for peanuts on nutildah. Don't tell me you're jealous that you didn't find anything and marlboroza did LOL.

There is nothing about my timeline that is contrived. He was critical of Lauda, and merited one of my posts critical of them. A negative rating was left the SAME DAY for the merit. After they were called out on the obvious retaliatory nature of it, Lauda changed it up to something else to make it look as if it was legitimate as they have done on numerous other occasions when they are called out on their abuse of the trust system.

It has nothing to do with "immunity", it is the fact that these actions are being taken purely in retaliation, not in any way to try to protect the community from anything. More show me the man I will find you the crime bullshit from the clown car. Nothing hacker1001101001 has done warrants this kind of persistant attention. This is the same kind of bullshit you limp dicks pulled constantly haranguing Quickseller and many others for no other reason than your personal satisfaction. You aren't fooling anyone. This is self serving, not community serving.

Lol, ignore him, not even his BFF Ognasty is going to agree with him. Proof:

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

....and you don't see tec's hare screeming there "witch hunt", "peanuts", "retribution for calling someone out". You don't even see him saying now "it happened long time ago"  :D :D :D Atriz was tagged for ICO lie and hacker1001101001 was payed to lie :D :D :D

It's called deflection! TECSHARE is deflecting payed-fake-positive-ICO-bump-review investigation!

I don't know how "persistant" it is but hacker1001101001 sure has done a lot of untrustworthy shit, from plagiarism to ICO bumping to deceptive sockpuppeting and lying about it... if you don't care about that stuff in your guild it doesn't mean that others must not care either.

It looks to me like it's pretty much the opposite than what you're saying, as it often is the case with users that you add to your trust list because they talk/act favorably towards you - it's not so much about Lauda but more about your inability to admit that you're a poor judge of character.

your enemy's enemy is not your friend and your friend's friend is not your friend. Someone must start a topic about this.

You sound like a someone who might be an already existing expert on such topic, to the extent any someone could be such an expert.   ;)

 :D :D :D :D

Lol at suchmoon the scammer supporter.

Peanuts? Like willing to facilitate scams for pay nutildah? Or try to delete the evidence nutildah? Or peanuts like scammer lauda pushing massive scams and lying repeatedly to pump it to dump his bags?? Those peanuts??

If hacker is a paid ico bumper that is nothing near as bad as either of those 2 scum bags you protect and support

Same for zorrobek ..i mean malboroza protecting and supporting scammers whilst going after ico paid bumpers.

The shame is the semi good guys here are kinda pathetic and wimpy. Stop the handbags fighting and pull out the desert eagle and crush these scumbags on every single thread they make. Find their projects, escrow offerings, campaigns  every revenue stream they have .
Push their sponsors to kick them off.  They should not be getting paid for pushing double standards  and scammers should not be getting paid from this forum full stop.

Man up wimps. Take them down. Projects do not want to be associated with scammers. The evidence is there. Use it.

I dont consider being a paid bumper as bad as a blatant scammer or willing scam facilitator for pay.  I dont see conclusive proof either.
Suchmoon is a duplicitous scammer assmuncher. She claims you must be banned for presenting the truth about her friends scamming.
Suchmoon says that is trolling and you should be banned

Bogus thread, trying go hold others to standards they are happy to bend for themselves and their friends.

Lol at these nothing burger claims in the context old her pals proven crimes

I have answered that already, so stop steering bullshit and acting like a scam buster when you are behind peanuts. More stupid thing about your witch hunt here is that my mistake was done year's back and you are pretending to protect from nothing.

To prove you to be more dump and double standard here check your own comment on Lauda's red trust due to the merit transactions.


Most of your judgments are double standards here, and in same way you promote abuse. The flag started by Lauda doesn't makes sense or is not warrant. Your move of supporting it makes that more shit.

---

Poor judge of character...hmmm

Are you sure you are right at judging characters here ?

Btw, just due to your ability to judge character here, is it Ok to start a type 1 flag if I think someone has an highly evil character in himself and they are even high risk to deal with as "personal information" is not safe with them and you could be blackmailed or harassed with it in the future. I even have a case study to put it as a reference to prove personal information in there hand can posses a high risk.

Best to just constantly place your apparent mistakes in the context of suchmoon and malborozas friends scamming and far more dangerous behaviors.

Constant defence is a mistake.. attack their double standards.

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Economics > Speculation > Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.0)
drive safe

Aaaa haaa ! He drives over here to merit double standards and agendic posts similar to which I got a red tag for from Lauda. Check out merit transactions outside of his safe drive zone, you would get it.

My strongest motive in coming to the forum in the past 6 years has been to research and share ideas in regards to bitcoin, and along the way, I have gotten some ideas about some members, too, but very difficult to figure out many things about them, even from their posts, but surely some posts seem to be more genuine than others in terms of both sharing positive information and even self-damaging information and even sharing some personal specifics that causes one to feel that they might know some members better than other members, even if NOT having had met in the real, meat-wagon, world.

Sure there are a decent number of members too who have engaged in business and even trading of bitcoin and other crypto on the forum, too, and surely I am not going to disparage those kinds of activities because sometimes I come across members who seem as if they might not have as many banking/bitcoin options outside of the forum.  Sometimes, I try to learn more aspects of the technical and even the mining or coding aspects, or at least read some of those interactions, while at the same time, some of that just goes over my head, even while the reputations of some members can be helpful in sorting good information from bad or misleading information.

You seem to NOT be a friend of the WO thread, khaled0111?  Maybe we will have some difficulties relating to one another?  Am I a friend of an enemy of yours, perhaps?


I have had some past interactions with you hacker, and surely I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on several occasions, but you surely seem to have issues with your personality and your ways of interacting with people, including a kind of bullying that I had specifically experienced... But, hey, an aberration?  I am not sure.  I do see that you seem to want to whine about things of the past that have even seemingly had been resolved, but you just continue to dig yourself in, for some reason... I am trying not to be too judgmental, though.

I don't rely on the comments or interactions of other members, but sometimes it can be helpful to view the assessments or look into the links provided by various other members in order to attempt to verify what makes sense or does not make sense.

I have no enemies around here  :D

why do you say so!!

I trying to oppose you here is not just because of your past interactions with me. I don't even think I could show a calming personality if I am being attacked even after accepting and apologizing my mistakes. It's my observation of your merit transactions in the every drama thread around here which turns me to think about your that way. As per my understanding you could never judge a situation neutrally when the above names are involved, and I am afraid you would do the same here. I have no benifit of making enemies here, if you understand it correctly but I have no other choice than making it clear for everyone who is judging the situation also I am the one in need of support so I don't enjoy this attacks and counter attacks.

I don't pretend to be an ultimate unfailing authority on that. I have made changes to my trust list and to my trust ratings that show me having been wrong or my opinion changing over time and I'm quite certain it will continue.

Nice attempt to deflect but you should probably worry more about your reputation in a thread that's dedicated to your shenanigans instead of building straw people.


Two wrongs don't make it right. Most people learn it before the age of 10 or thereabouts.

I thought that your first comment was a bit hilarious, but hey, what the fuck do I know about humor?

I mean just imagine have meta threads devolve into questions about whether a friend of your friend is your friend or your enemy and various other nonsense like that?  Quite funny, and the mere fact that you thought of such a thread seemed to be a qualification for authoring the OP... whatever, .. humor might not really be on topic anyhow.


I only responded to you here because you responded about me in your commenting on khaled0111's post. So yeah it is up to you if you might believe any apology might be in order or if you just want to double down on seeming nonsense.  Also, I don't believe any apology is necessary, but that is your choice regarding if you believe that going in that direction might be helpful in regards to me or in regards to your interaction with any other member.



It's up to you about how to perceive my merit sending practices or if there is some kind of deeper meaning to why I might have sent one merit or another, or chosen not to send a merit.  



It would be difficult to be completely neutral if any of us has been around for a while, but surely if there is a situation in which a guy (or gal) does not know any of the parties, some people are more capable of making themselves neutral than others, and sometimes a person can purposefully remove some history or context and attempt to come to a conclusion about some more narrow set of facts.  I would not proclaim that my merit sending is neutral or that it needs to be neutral, but surely sometimes I do sent merits to some members who I really do not like, but I believe that they had made a good post, so I am not proclaiming to be any kind of genius in terms of my merit sending, but I still try to employ some standards that I believe to be reasonable, and even once in a while I will also break my own standards because something just strikes me..  a similar thing is true in regards to choosing to respond to ideas of a post or not, sometimes, there is some randomness and even departure from rationalities.



I was not attacking you, but you felt a need to comment about me in regards to khaled0111's post, so in that regard, it seemed to me that you wanted to engage with me about something... so whether we devolve into nonsense, that might be up to you.  

Furthermore, it is up to you if you perceive yourself or your situation as a victim and therefore how to attempt to recuperate from that whether going on the attack is a good strategy or if there might be some other better strategy.  You make certain choices in regards to your reputation, your brand, and how you interact with other members here and sure none of us can really tell you how to approach any of these interactions with others matters, whether you burn bridges, make alliances or just attempt to be helpful and informative or self-absorbed, and maybe at some point you have painted yourself into a corner with some of your choices?  I surely do not know enough to know about that, but painting yourself into a corner does happen to some members from time to time, and if there might be a way out, then perhaps, there is time to recognize that and to try to make progress in that direction.  Perhaps?

That is lots of peanuts we are talking about.
You should stick to this part Bump, that is most important part of that post.

---

Ok, back to topic.
But you said you were payed and here is you paying someone:


Interesting address (https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5). So, red marked address is hacker's address:

https://i.imgur.com/mxc3wYU.png

Transactions TO green marked addy (0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5) can be found in hacker's transactions:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x12eb3157346ef9b814f68a186c2f899886be3d36a942386f9234140ec7f526ae
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa051c04e9baa9bc65c7824c49f21c3f976cf95185636fba54ec5ef52734ff01d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa9a0bfbdfb0f63deabf03549c5fd989a4d575743237b4332969a18775abe93e6
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7bb2aad7eb8fb1f7d80cfa85e9e99122a26836fb14f361b3ac519890f27110d5
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6f8deff8b46ff20dead3bf2af1792966c743c87c4e94a323f51025ba22be5a4d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb7e0535a7718bc5c6b80d183b46d59fef518e86aa58649f968683da0129779ff

And as for purple marked address (0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854, https://etherscan.io/address/0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854), it has only one transaction from hacker but:

https://i.imgur.com/Yx8NAzR.png

Each address has more transactions FROM hacker:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x89e4c4454bf048edf2536bb6387c2760dd429e8e
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xd6ae5106df28742e8729b13d5497b07c0ee9f0c3
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840&p=2  [1]
https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ff4b05829785e012a2df60eefcbda7e6b1d3f49
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x6446df84035f8083191ce2a27c76d4b5f5c11c10
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xf9960f024fa69014dfcccc4dc63222295856e091
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ed83e973c3e50cfbe483398ab17e347ebd244ce&p=2
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x0c0369267e791283651899acf23636535d955019
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5

(CTRL+F hacker addy 0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde)


I am so lazy to look into this deeper, one of addresses previously mentioned [1] was used by account farhan28 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1194201) (who is banned btw https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=farhan28 and looking at posts it is just another payed ico bump account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1194201;sa=showPosts))

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4405290.msg43396614#msg43396614

There is one transaction from hacker https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7d8f5884c950f8cf66f310a08cb755dc6f7285956c3f4acea6094688e96beae8 and 3 transactions from this addy 0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x56248063d9406ad46267b9bd021e88a191daebdefed0951d274ca74ae8489367
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc8f3d40471890811ef3263994ff3da59665b01cf3b644538f3770b0aa20d3651
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc61f9e17262e7c8a12036feaca7e0f4c6b7fbc5fa3bb318ce6d56f6b61b92c4d

(scroll UP, I have already marked it as green in screenshot above)

Further, that ico bump account farhan28 received so many payments from this address 0x5af75bf78984f3e22cfcccb52bf62f529bcb440b (ctrl+f here again https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840) and I previously mentioned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) that address on first page of this topic, just after hacker denied everything.

---

I understand that bump whore accounts are receiving money from bump services, but account hacker has large number of transactions TO such accounts, and, as he is giving his best to deflect this topic I have no other reason than to believe hacker is behind one of such service or he was filling addresses of alt accounts while receiving money from bump service. I am not sure, but I would place my bet on "behind bump".

This really pretty much sums it up.



I think there was a period when he started adding various people to his trust/distrust list as well as leaving positive and negative feedback all based on political maneuvering which was based solely around the long term target trying to make an income from either signature campaigns and possibly as a campaign manager while under the guise of being a good standing member of this community. That fake persona mask slipped a long time ago. His real characteristics and vindictive nature (at least for this particular user name hacker1001101001) is there for all to see.

He knows the reputation of this particular login has been shattered so he cannot use it for the motives he had when he created it therefore expect more of the same low level posts from him. I added him to my IGNORE list long ago so I can skip past his posts unless I read them when they are quoted in replies by others.

Actually, dafak happened with sintez (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2305454.0) ICO? (https://sintez.global)

I figured that not-my-account Mysterious01 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) bump-shilled for sintez many (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330;sa=showPosts;start=380) times (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330;sa=showPosts;start=420)  (http://archive.is/kFmw6). I wonder how much funds this "Server Not Found" has collected.

More peanuts hunting and you are mentiong the same information again and again and flexing it make me look more bad. Yes there are transactions between me and those accounts. Marking it red and violate doesn't indicate anything other than me being in business with them around 600 days ago. I worked with this type of services back then, which I have accepted many times in this exact thread. Atleast tell us what you are hunting for other than shooting those blind arrows in the air.

---

I could not do anything more than laugh on your assumptions. JollyGood even thinks I created this account out of the above mentioned motives. Really this guy is shown at default trust. :o

Please elaborate my latest discovery and many transaction coming from you to various ICO bump accounts.

Did you send ethereum to these accounts for ICO payed bump?

You can't look "more bad" than you are looking right now.

Your lastest discovery ! All of that is public and anyone who wants to judge can see I have done business with them and I am not obligate to explain each and every transaction from my wallet ( most of them I don't even remember ) also, that doesn't prove anything more than me paying or receiving funds from them and you repeating the same question again and again like a dump.


Maybe bad for you.

Absent any other information it looks like you were the one running the paid shill group and paying them.

Well, well, well... the plot thickens somewhat more now....

When hacker1001101001 was approached with plenty of evidence he conceded he had lied and had received payment for bumping ICO threads but blamed it on his early time in the forum but mentioned he was a reformed character.

He was then asked to elaborate further if there were any other issues the forum should be made aware to which he claimed there were none. When he was under pressure from users about whether he had alt-accounts he admitted he did but mitigated it by saying it was a one-off but he chose to hide it. Even after he was given the benefit of the doubt from some users and given a fresh start by others, he continued to hold back information until he was presented with it by excellent investigative skills by marlboroza.

The question to be asked is why would someone who was caught out by several members of this forum because he had a duplicitous nature yet given a second chance by most users STILL continue to hide things when he was given ample opportunity by others to declare those things himself in the first place? He should have made it known months ago but kept it quiet in the hope it would not come back to him  ::)

You know what that is called? An assumption. You clowns just get together and each of you keeps making chain links of assumption after assumption to try to manufacture your preferred narrative. Then when some one points out it is an assumption you all point back at each other and claim no accountability for the collective narrative built upon your tower of shit covered peanuts and spackle of assumptions.

There is no crime here. This is you losers targeting some one who dared to criticize the clown pope, and straining intensely to arrange little tidbits around him to try to give the facade of malfeasance.

Right. He's got strawberry jam all over his mouth and half a bagel on his plate but it's just an assumption that he's eating a bagel with strawberry jam. Maybe he doesn't remember. That must be it.

Or maybe your buddy Dildoza smeared it on his face and ran away just before you turned around, act surprised and shout "look hes got jam in his face! He had to have eaten it!". Like I said before, even if everything you clowns are claiming is true, it doesn't warrant this amount of scrutiny. Thus it is completely obvious what is driving this attention is in retribution for their speech, not because they did something wrong that harms the community and needs to be stopped to protect people. The only thing this is attempting to protect is Laudas prolapsed ass.

Yes. He also got a time machine and a memory eraser.


Protect from what? Lauda is not even in DT anymore. You are in DT and you're including shitheads like hacker1001101001 in your trust list so if anybody benefits from this information that'd be you.

Do you ever stop to ask yourself why you are attacking others?  Is is the instant gratification you get knowing you'll be paid $5-$6 per post from your signature campaign when you do attack others?  When was the last time you paused when clicking reply/quote and ask yourself - "Is this the best reply I can make?"  Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if replying to every post to or about your is the right thing to do?

No? I didn't think so.

This thread is delivering some much needed entertainment in a time of crisis.


What's funny is the only reason he included hacker was because I, then you, excluded him.


His inclusion triggered a chain of events which ended up with hacker being in DT2 (apparently he is back off since 4/5).

The only thing that is going to prevent these tit-for-tat inclusions and exclusions from affecting DT is when people higher up in DT1 (with political capital to spare) exclude users like TECSHARE.

That is one way of putting it. I know I should not but I did end up laughing at that because if the bagel and strawberry jam were even found in a scan in his stomach he would deny it.

What strikes me is that the evidence is in abundance but those deliberately wanting to close their eyes to the facts because of forum-politics should be ashamed of themselves because it leads to encouraging forum members with ulterior motives to continue to be duplicitous and that is unacceptable from them both.

I inserted time machine into giant dildo and went back to past to spank hacker with it. He repressed everything that happened back then.

---

OK, I will stop asking questions about you funding various payed ICO bump accounts then  :)

The ONLY reason nutilduuuh? There you go again pretending to Ms. Cleo claiming you can read my mind and intent. You clowns make a habit of targeting people for the wrong reasons, so anyone any of the clown car exclude I look into.

WAAAAA people I don't like get to have a say in the system! ONLY ME AND MY FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE A SAY! < Thats you Nutilduuuuuh

You got nerve talking about tit for tat. You are the biggest tit I know.



Ah here we go again. Hacker1001101001 speaks out about trust system abuse against me and gets targeted. I defend him, then you target me because I defended him and suddenly I am equivalent to him. You Bozos need to get a new narrative, this big floppy red shoe of yours is worn out.

OK, then why else would you include him? If there was another reason seems like you would have taken the opportunity to mention it right now instead of just crying at me. Seems like this is the primary explanation:


which was coincidentally written the same week you included hacker (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-14_Sat_06.11h/1021758.html).

Do you really stand behind those words?
I have noticed ( and i have been around way longer than you )
That you avoid objectively analysing any negative histories of your " friends " here.
So although when you do look into things you may give a near balanced appraisal it is still a clear double standard you are pushing
You also seem to get interested in peoples histories when that member falls out with your "friends"
This is wrong.
I Can provide a public test of this if you wish to refute the assertion i am making.

Hacker is guilty of less than those you fear or are unwilling to criticise.

What do you say to this? And are you willing to attempt to prove me wrong?

Either punish all fairly or stay out of it. Playing favourites is corrupt and a form of colluision.

You seem to value your own popularity over playing fair. That is my core ctiticism of you.
Hacker should treated fairly

Not sure if it was really a question since you answered without waiting for me to respond, but yes, I spent a lot of time on the strawberry jam post. Initially I was planning to go with a bloody knife or a ski mask and a bag full of money but that's too cliche and doesn't quite reflect hacker1001101001's childish excuses and denials. I'm sorry it didn't meet your high standards.


Ah, the Jedi mind trick again.

You have no credibility with posts such as this and any attempt to target other users with mock indignation cannot therefore be taken seriously.


This same goes for this terse deflection.

No credibility at all.

Why wouldn't I stand behind the words of my post?

I am not necessarily going to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to prove anything that I said because I believe that the words of my post largely speak for themselves, whether it is the referred to above post or any other post that I made.  I never delete any of my posts, and if I edit any of my posts, it is usually within a relatively short period of time after i had posted them in order to attempt to make them more clear... In other words, I stand by whatever I post, so you can go back and look through my posting history to your hearts content, if you have nothing better to do... or if you believe that such search and extraction can serve some kind of meaningful or insightful purpose.



If you have been around so long, then why are you hiding behind one account.  Are you going to list your various other accounts, or are you asserting that you have been around a long time merely as an analyst of posts, rather than a participant.

You are trying to assert that you have some kind of credibility that is greater than mine, and surely I am not proclaiming anything about myself, except that I largely have been participating in this forum in order to bat around ideas regarding bitcoin, and surely other topics have come up from time to time, including various meta topics.



I did not know that I had friends, but sure I suppose I might have friends, I guess.

Seems that you are striving to make a BIGGER deal out of some kind of supposed pattern than likely exists, but hey, go ahead with your little playing.... and by the way, can you give a list of all of the other accounts that you have used on this forum, too while you are at it.



Did I claim to be balanced?  Not sure what you are attempting to get at here.  You are trying to assert that there is something wrong with what motivates me to post or what I type or how I give out merits.. or who I put on my trustlist, etc?  You are really grasping with whatever vague assertions you are making.


Again, I did not know that I have friends, but sure you are trying to assert that there is some kind of abusive pattern of behavior that I have been engaged in with my posting, my merits and/or my trustlist... Still pretty damned vague you are bonesjones, or whatever your other names happen to be.



I doubt that there is any need for me to refute any vague assertions from someone who seems to be hiding behind a shitposting and seemingly non-accountable account.  You likely have some kind of burden to substantiate your claims with something better than your merely feeling that you sense a kind of pattern of injustice that is purportedly flowing through my motives.... blah blah blah or whatever you are wanting to proclaim.



I did not realize that I was prescribing any kind of guilt to hacker that would be greater than guilt of any other hypothetical person that you are suggesting to whom I need to be prescribing more guilt.


I say that you are coming off as vague as fuck, and also that you seem to be suggesting that you have been around the forum a long time and implying that you purportedly know some purportedly important things and can identify purported patterns based on your experiences (whether interacting or merely just reading posts), yet the account that you are posting from only shows about a month and a half of forum history and a lot of questioning of your motives for being here based on what you have already posted and also whether you are in breach of forum rules.  You seem to be the one who has questionable patterns rather than yours truly.



I don't see that you have said much of anything beyond vagueness and likely untrue lame spin attempts... so I am likely being too nice to even acknowledge your self-proclaimed insightful inquiries.



Yes, you can label what I do as "punishing," "playing favourites," "corrupt" and/or "collusion," but you have hardly provided any evidence or logic to back up your conclusory assertions.  Your proposed remedy is that either I clean up my purported bad acts/motives or I stay out.  Again.. lots of presumptions coming out of you and even attempting to impose vague standards upon members that might be in a similar position as me.  



I suppose the longer that an account is around, the more popular the account becomes.  I did not realize that I was courting towards popularity, but I suppose that some popularity is kind of inevitable, especially if I have had quite a few interactions with members over the years.. sometimes good interactions and sometimes NOT so good.  Surely I have had a few battles over the years with some members, and sometimes we find a mutual ground or at least reach a truce, and other times some of the battles will re-ignite themselves here and there.  

I have actually found some members to be quite annoyed at some of my posts in terms of their length and sometimes even positions that I have taken on various matters... or maybe even annoyed by my tone, and other styles that can sometimes be unnecessarily confrontational.   Some people seem to like my posting style, and other do not.  

Even you, bonesjones, seem to be saying that you do not like me, so I am NOT very popular with you, right?  Maybe we can attempt to become better forum "friends?"  Are you capable of trying to create a forum "friend?" #nohomo  

As I suggested earlier, I don't really tend to label members as "friends" or not, but hey, maybe I can make an exception for you, since you seem to need (or want) a forum "friend" and we can try to work something out?  

I am thinking that maybe from your perspective, I will only be considered as your "friend" if I comport with your vague standards of behavior?  

I get the sense that you might end up being a kind of bossy friend, but hey, maybe you will prove me wrong?  I do get the sense that something that I had been doing historically seems to already have been causing you to NOT want to be very friendly with me even though it seems to me that we have only been hanging for this one interaction.  Are you interested in bitcoin?  Maybe we can find a mutual interest?

Do we happened to know each other from some other account that you might have had?  Maybe we can begin our "friendship" based on one of your other accounts?  Or do you want to start from this account, or maybe if you start another account?  Perhaps we can figure some way to become buddies? #nohomo.  

Maybe you should let me know, so that I can get to know you somewhat better?  You seem to know me better than I know you, but that is o.k.  we can try to work out some of the bugs, no? even though you don't seem to be coming off as genuinely anyone who is attempting to share meaningful information or trying to make mutually beneficial contributions to the forum that will help other members to use the forum in a way that will be beneficial to them sharing information about bitcoin and sometimes other cryptos...   But, hey, maybe you have some good intentions, and maybe we can both attempt to become more popular by becoming buddies?

So, yeah, even if some of our motives for participating in this forum might not overlap very well, we still might be able to find something in common.  For example, I consider the forum to be a place to share information (and mostly I continue to be interested in bitcoin.. like I already mentioned), and surely, I know that there is a decent cohort out there who are using the forum for various business purposes, and I don't really have anything against those possible business motivations or members who are involved in those activities, but those activities do not really align so tightly with my own motives and purposes for hanging around the forum.  But, I don't mind getting to know someone who might have different interests from my own, but I do tend to gravitate towards members who seem genuine, so there is that... but hey, we can work on your NOT seeming genuine.. and maybe you can improve ur lil selfie, in that direction?  Perhaps?  Perhaps?  We can try to find mutual ground.  I don't want to impose to much upon you in our mutual quest for popularity or whatever ends up being the mutual grounds that we end up agreeing to.


I agree with you.  Hacker should be treated fairly.  We are making progress, no?  ;)

Firstly it was good to see that you made an effort to address my points
I see we agree that hacker should be treated fairly. That is a good start.

Let's work through this together.
On a scale of 1 to 10 ( 10 being the worst) how would you rate the " claimed" negative behavior of hacker and what are you suggesting should be done about it?

To provide some context let's throw some other members histories into the mix. Please read these threads and conduct your own research.
Then attribute their behaviors a rating 1 -10 and  what should be done about them?
Here are 2 threads for you to take a look at.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238490.0


I would like to see the rating and hear your reasoning.

It is possible that you are not pushing double standards or making favourites here. Or may be you are but you simply are unaware.
I will be more than pleased to have misjudged you.
Your own popularity must not cloud your judgement and cause you to contribute or compound the 2 tier system.

Context is clearly important when determining what is fair or rather consistent.
I mean you can refuse. One must ask themselves though why would you refuse now that you have an open and public opportunity to clearly demonstrate you are fair or that you at least want to be fair.

You need not get into an offtopic discussion here you can compare hackers "claimed" negative behaviors against those other two on their respective threads.

The results after we work through your reasoning and the suggested action can be listed here.
You simply can not and should not be willing to let more serious wrongdoing from your "friends" go " unnoticed " but then join in with those friends attacking other members for possibly far lesser evils.

I am not here to make enemies. It is sadly just how it must be when you put ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members above your own popularity. Im sure if i wished I could have plenty of alts all being very popular. I know this for sure.

Let's see how you respond. I am hoping you will demonstrate you are fair. I will not shy away from fair appraisal of your actions though. Be consistent or be called out for playing favourites.

It is nice to talk to persons that can demonstrate some degree of maturity.
You write very long posts. You pick each piece apart and answer it individually. I like this style. The content is not quite as valuable as my own but I think with some pointers and a little less reaching you do have potential.

After you have demonstrated that you are standing behind your words of fair treatment for hacker.  Then you.must come and break down all of my shitposts and help me see where i have presented all of this false and incorrect shit. I thought it was all just truths with the motive of fair treatment for all members.  Leave that for later though. Lets get hacker sorted out fairly first.

Hey we agree on something.  I cannot believe that I might get to become progressively greater and greater buddies with someone who hardly anyone else seems to like.



uh oh?  I am starting to feel manipulated, already.... This is not going as well as the first sentence seemed to have had suggested.


I don't feel qualified to rate the matter without doing some homework.  Are you suggesting that I need to do some homework?

I have noticed through my years in various forums that troll shills tend to assign projects to me...

But, o.k... let me attempt to give you some benefit of the doubt here.  You are not trying to assign me any homework, you just would like me to assess based on the homework that i have already done, perhaps?

Still seems like work.  This is a friendship that is requiring me to do work that I do not want to do.

Hey, bonesjones, good buddy (potentially).  Didn't I say that I was mostly interested in talking about bitcoin related matters?

You want me to get involved in some topic that is of very little interest to me?

Let me just say, everyone should be treated fairly including hacker.  Feel better bonesjones?



Well, I was NOT planning on doing anything other than what I had already done.  Are you asking me to get involved in some kind of way beyond whatever I already have done?  Is there something that I need to consider?  Are you suggesting that I need to read through some parts of this thread that I may or may not have read and/or to refresh my recollection about something?  I don't usually like getting assignments unless it is a topic that interests me.  I am currently trying to juggle a few things in my life, so maybe you need to direct me at something specifically that you believe that I need to look at, good buddy (potentially).


I clicked on those two threads and I saw the subject matter.  One is about your assessment of something related to Lauda and the other is about your assessment of something related to Nullius.  I am not really interested in homework.  Geez.  This friendship is seeming to digress into something seeming quite one-sided.  You want me to do a quite a bit of work, and we are just barely getting to know each other.. Fuck.  I thought that we were going to possibly be buddies.    Yeah, of course, I had a few reservations, including the fact that I barely have gotten to know you, including my questioning about your various other accounts and how you purportedly already know so much about me, but then you want to assign me homework for me instead of attempting to get to know each other MOAR better.

 



I would have to do homework to engage in ratings of these matters.  I am not even interested in the subject matter.. well at least not superficially.


I don't have double standards.  I know a lot of people who do not give me assignments, and it makes me feel much MOAR better to NOT have matters imposed on me.  Didn't I already disclose to you that one of my main interests in the forum is related to bitcoin, and you want me to do other things.  Also, corona virus and some other personal topics are interesting to me, currently, but you want me to jump into some topic that is not interesting to me, at the moment in terms of my current happenings and thoughts.. including merely just attempting to figure out if we have any mutual interests.. besides a superficial one that everyone should be treated fairly, including hacker.


Yeah... I wasn't aware that I was either pushing double standards or favourites.  I just thought that i was randomly following what was interesting to me, but it ends up skewing towards my feelings and my interests at the moment. For example, I am getting a bit hungry right now, and I keep thinking about if I should have a snack or if I should keep responding to you.  I also have some papers on my desk that I need to sort, so I am kind of favoring  putting them in order rather than reading some assignments from someone who I barely even know beyond our couple of posts, already.  This possible friendship is not going how I was thinking that it might go, and so yeah I did not realize how I prefer to kind of get to know peeps before taking orders (assignments) from them...


It seems that you have misjudged me, if you want to start out our budding friendship through homework.  Maybe there is some other mutual interest topic that does not require me to do homework?


I feel that I am not going to be very popular in my allowing you to drag me down these seemingly increasing off topic lines of inquiry, including that I am responding to your questions about my supposed clouded judgement, and seems that we are getting way far afield.  

So in essence, it seems that I may be sacrificing some of my purported and potential popularity just for interacting with you about these nonsensical views regarding what motivates me and if my views and feelings might cause me to inadvertently compound a 2 tiered system.

Fuck what everyone else thinks.. I am trying to answer your questions... and fuck all you guys (and gal) who think that bonesjones is not worth responding..  I am going to sacrifice some of my potential present and future popularity to entertain him, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not devolving into nonsense.


I agree.


Thanks.  I am refusing to do homework that is assigned by you until we become better buddies by getting to know each other a bit better.



Yeah.. sure.  Some members, including you, are not going to like me very much because they might believe that I should do some more homework.  And, I suppose that I am feeling like a bit of a jerk because I don't want to do any homework, especially the way that the homework seems to be getting imposed upon me... so yeah, that might not be fair, exactly that I had come into this dialogue considering that I had already done enough homework in terms of my previous posts and my previous decisions to give merits.. etc etc.. .  I believe that I am fair by trying to read your post and respond, but members are not going to like my response, including you, so what am I to do?  you surely are coming off as a bit over bearing and even putting me in a pickle.., and we are just getting to know each other.  But, hey,..  maybe I should stop complaining and attempt to work with you some more, even though this surely, is not going very well, so far.  Sucks to be me, currently.



I did not believe that I was engaging in any compare contrast of hacker versus lauda versus nullius, but you believe that before I had posted I should have been engaging in some kind of compare and contrast of the behaviors of these three members?  Pretty high standards, and I did not know that I had not been sufficiently prepared to post or to send merits or whatever I had done earlier in the thread.  



I thought that I already said that I did not believe that I had any burdens to provide information.  I said that in my earlier post.  I mean I even had asked some questions about how you know me so much, but you did not even respond to some of my inquiries, instead you launched yourself into giving me assignments.    We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so far... beyond a couple of superficial agreements... otherwise, you just keep assuming that I need to study certain topics... and make some kind of compare and contrast of the actions of different members in a way more than I already have done.  Seems a bit burdensome to me.


You are saying that Lauda and Nullius have done equally or greater evils than hacker, but did I accuse hacker of doing an evil in this thread?  Yeah, he interacted with me, and I posted a response. I also liked one of Lauda's posts.  What are you saying, exactly bonesjones? What judgements have I been making in regards to hacker that I should be making regarding Lauda and Nullius?   I am just having troubles with whatever connections that you are making regarding how I may have done some unfair actions, and then I am supposed to justify my behaviors?



Well I thought that we were working on being friends.. so please don't go in the opposite direction.  Let's try the friend part first.


We might need to start over, because so far the friend part is not working out very well.



You are saying that in order for us to try to become friends, then I need to study into Lauda and Nullius first?  I am getting more lost regarding what you are expecting of me.



Oh?  You are going to tell me about your alts?  None of your alts are popular, so far?   By the way, I actually did not realize that I was striving towards popularity, but I was attempting to concede that the longer that any member has an account and the more than the member interacts with other members, then the account is likely to become more popular.  I still do not believe that I was striving to be popular, even if I may have become more popular with the passage of time.



O.k.  If you suggest that there are only two possible outcomes, then I suppose that you have reached your conclusion, right?

Are we done then?

Are we breaking up, before we even got started in our friendship attempt?



That's true.  I think maturity is a good thing, and having a sense of humor is good too.  And, not being a bully is good too.

But, I am still not sure if we are getting very far in our discussion, and lots of peeps are probably going to get pissed off at me for trying to respond to you, when they are going to conclude that we could never be friends, and that I am entertaining you dragging this aspect of our conversation into way too much off-topicness. However, I keep trying to see if we can work something out, even though the whole discussion seems to be devolving into nonsense.


This might be another area of agreement that we might be able to explore - even though I am not sure how far it is going to get us, but at least there seems to be some additional possible shared interest....




I have found that there is likely a decent amount of subjective assessments concerning whether content might be more or less valuable.



I agree that frequently there can be room for improvement, but still discretion in that too.  Many times, I have found friendships that strive towards accepting me for who I am to be more beneficial than ones that seem to be trying to change some aspect of me, but if there are other areas in which there is a mutual benefit, then sometimes flaws can be overlooked.  I do agree that sometimes people do get a bit of a tendency that they want to change things that might either be beyond their control or NOT very likely to be easily changed.




I am surely behind my words, yet I never said that I was striving for anyone's treatment to be changed, including hackers.  I said that hacker deserves fair treatment, which has implications that everyone deserves fair treatment.  I doubt that I was saying much more than that.  



Hopefully, I don't have to analyze you.  I was preferring that we just try to find things that we have in common and build our friendship from there.  Of course, along the way of building our friendship, I may incidentally find some things that I might be able to help you with or to analyze you, but I am not really interested in analyzing you, unless there is some topic that you post about that is interesting to me.  Do you have any bitcoin-related posts that might be interesting to me, for starts?  There's gotta be something to get us going a little better than we have been able to accomplish so far in our short (only two back and forth posts) relationship.



Sure... truths, fair treatment for all members and leaving it for later.  I agree on all of those points.


Why can't hacker sort himself out?  

I come from a kind of self-help background.  Of course, sometimes people need a hand in getting their shit in order or figuring out if there are things that they can do to better help themselves, but many times people need to make sure that their shit is in order and even to figure out if they need to change or if there are ways that they can fix or tweak their shit.  

You really believe, bonesjones, that there is something that you and I need to do, and we will find some commonality in some kind of approach that might work with "getting hacker sorted out"?

I am thinking that a good way to frame the matter would be to ask how can we figure out a way (or ways) for hacker to better help himself?  I don't want to spend too much time on this, and surely I would not want to enable some problematic issue.  I have hardly any clue about the whole underlying background, including not knowing hardly shit about hacker either, except for some interactions with him in which I recall that he was trying to bully me.. but hey, let's let bygones go for now... and anyhow, let's just say for example someone has a certain kind of problem (not saying that it is necessarily true for hacker), then there might be a need for him to change an approach instead of engaging in the same problematic behavior on an ongoing basis?  

Anyhow, if there is some kinds of ways that we could figure out a mutual way forward with this situation that you believe that I should be interested in to help hacker to better help himself in this current situation that does not come off as rewarding bad behavior, then that would be great.  

From criticism. Any time anyone criticizes the clown lord, the same group of Bozos always mobilize to attack the one making the criticism. It happens over and over and over again. This is designed to send a message that anyone openly critical of them will pay a price, and silence that criticism. They aren't on DT anymore? I wonder why that is? Could it be because of this exact behavior pattern I just outlined? How the fuck does what happens to hacker1001101001 effect me whatsoever? I am just fed up with you chumps and your little trust abuse cartel.




Because I decided to Nutilduuuuh. Why did you try to sell your account? Oh right, only I owe you answers to you, because you are part of The Grand Clown Inquisition Council, but that doesn't work the other way now does it? Fuck you and your demands. I don't owe you shit. Yes, string together some more assumptions Ms. Cleo. Keep trying until something sticks.

Even though he has logged in multiple times (even as recently as an hour or so ago), hacker1001101001 has not posted here and allowed his guild team buddies to argue the case on his behalf  ::)

A special mention to JayJuanGee... you have the patience of a saint. I mean the way you meticulously answer the trolls with point-by-point clarity is very impressive even though you probably know you are engaging with trolls and attention seeking deluded individuals/groups.... your way to engage them and manage them is without doubt impressive. No matter how much you address them they have their own ulterior motives and sometimes hidden sometimes overt agendas but you still present your points and answers in the most professional manner imaginable.

How did a thread about wrongdoing by the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167410#msg54167410) become a discussion of whether JayJuanGee has adequately considered the evils of Lauda and nullius.  ← Rhetorical question intentionally concluded with a full stop.


More to the point, even assuming arguendo that I am the most “evil” person on this forum in the world (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221041.0) (and Lauda is #3—sorry, kitty, Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is still #2; try harder), what has this to do with the bad doings by hacker1001101001 that are evidenced in this thread?

Objectively, my and Lauda’s allegedly most-evil doings would not excuse “hacker’s” allegedly “possibly far lesser evils”.

Of course, such diversionary tactics are just that.

---

Some people dislike reading; others, to the contrary.  “Unnecessarily confrontational” is another way of saying, “no bullshit”.  At least if you disagree with me, I know that you will explain substantively and without beating around the bush, instead of just tossing off insults, snarky one-liners, or animated GIFs.


I miss talking about Bitcoin.

---

That is completely off-topic here, so I will only provided a cross-reference to “bonesjonesreturns” claims that “Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238493.0), with a very short excerpt:


Not taking it up in a thread about hacker1001101001.

---

Agreed.

Doesn't make any sense, other than being a massive projection on your part seeing how you completely ignore any facts and just relentlessly attack the messenger.


I never said it does. I said the information may help you. You're just too stubborn to make use of it.

Jayjuangee

This was an excellent reply. It would seem that you are speaking the truth here
You have correctly noted that digging deeply into those links would indeed perhaps cause conflict with others.
I do not believe any member should avoid reviewing evidence scamming but since you are not advocating any action with regard hacker, then there is no need of context for that action in order to ensure fair and consistent treatment.
The only real flaw in the post was the assumption that you know which alts are mine if any.
Genuinely though thank you for the mature reply. I do believe your posts are of value
When someone addresses each individual part of a post a clear and valuable debate can take place.


Suchmoon

Again with the lies and false accusations of trolling
Bring the specific examples of the false and incorrect information i have presented
I see you ran away from the challenges i set you to stand behind your claims
Repeatedly labelling irrefutable evidence of your friends scamming as trolling is scammer shielding and you will be held accountable

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238678.0

Nullius

Lol well this coward is the most pathetic here.
Tries to defend and shield confirmed scammers then when I challenge him to work through his faux defence with m step by step he runs away to his own thread to present a bunch of rambling assumptions that are irrelevant and he can not even prove and bans me from replying on that thread lol
I explain why his " defence " is clearly bogus and he just pretends not to see it and just keeps presenting his nonsense as if it really does present  a rebuttal

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238490.0

Now he asks why is setting context on topic for the discussion of hacker by these same scammers?

Well it is quite clear. If you are setting punishment for hacker then it must be given context to be fair and consistent

Starting threads poking around and making thread titles like this is clearly punishment as are the red tags he has been given? Where are laudas tags? Tmans tags? Nutildahs tags?
Why is malboroza not making threads about them?

Why are these scammers and scammer supporters always found colluding together targeting those that speak out against them even one time?

I see bullying mentioned. These people are the bullies. I simply wish to see all members treated equally.
There is a pattern that anytime someone says something they dont like a character attack takes place.
Sure if they have done something wrong they can be punished but not by scammers or scammer supporters
Everyones punishment should fit the crime and be consistent

I'm never said I am trying to make friends. I will be civil and reasonable with those that are civil and reasonable with me.
Fair is fair. A concept many here are yet to grasp.

"Misdirection" is a word that comes to mind. There is a certain group full of attention-seeking users that just cannot help themselves but create all sorts of dramas without addressing the core issues. They prefer posting about various non-related things instead of the specific reasons the threads were created for and will ignore any evidence presented just for the sake of their misdirection ploy.

It appears the fake scam hunter jollygood has reared its duplicitous head.

How can providing context for malborozas red trust and your own red trust of hacker0101000101
be misdirection?

Are you claiming punishment of possible ico bumping should just be isolated from all context that you and malboroza set?

As opposed to the derailing of just random false accusations of trolling people spam on my threads?

You and marlboroza have given hacker red tags? I believe you want to prevent any context because it will reveal you are pushing double standards.

I see that people here are classed as on topic discussing whether or not hacker010010 should be added to a persons trust list??
Again to answer that we need context do we not??
I mean i am trying to make sense of what you and others are claiming? Hacker00101 should not be on a trust list for possible ico bumping you say? In the context of you guys including confirmed scammers??

Is this what you are saying yes or no?

Scammers you include
Possible ico bumpers exclude

Scamming you ignore or try to defend
Possible ico bumping you make threads and publicly denigrate?

Just trying to make a summary of the thread so far?

Hahaha

yeah.. I am thinking that bonesjones might be incapable of trying to make a friend.  I was hoping that he could be one of my first forum friends, even though he asserts suspicions that I have already made other forum friends.  Bonesjones might have trust issues.  Perhaps?



I am purposefully NOT going to even attempt to respond to such "rhetorical question" beside just noting that I am not responding.   :P


I really like the thought of that assuming arguendo part and attempting to rank such levels of evil on a world-wide scale including living and presumably dead people in such competition.

But, the second part of that proposition is that you are correct, you presumptively evil bastard.  Your admitted (even if merely hypothetical, but I know that you are really admitting something deep down on the inside) level of evil is not even relevant to this thread.  You could be like the worst level of evil, and hacker might be evil like a mouse and even the most minimal level of evil, but the thread is not talking about either you or even that other pointed out evil cat one.  It is about little intsie winsie teenie weenie evil of hacker, to the extent any evil exists in hacker.... I am not even going to presume any evil in hacker personally, even if he may have been mean to me one time, but the topic of this thread happens to be about hacker and perhaps whether any evil actually exists therein.




Repeating the same point in another way.  Exactly.



Sure.  And, I must apologize for participating in such diversions, too.  I was just attempting to figure out if there may have been some round-about way to get some meaningful dialogue going with bonesjones.  Might have been greedy of me.


I suppose that largely I agree, yet any of us sometimes might prefer to dance around certain topics, anyhow.  I mean we do not necessarily need to get to the truth on every single topic, and sometimes if you just "call bullshit" that is really not very nice, and may cause someone to become hostile to your sending them a message, but if you dance around the topic by sending a meme or something, they still understand the point, and may even kind of save face, too.  I don't necessarily get any pleasures by insulting someone if it is not really productive, but sometimes some great exaggeration, even when you don't mean it, can be productive, too.... and usually more effective if you don't use it all of the time.  Sometimes members make fun of me, because of certain patterns of saying things, and so then, that might be a red flag that I have some annoying patterns of speech that I might want to try to correct because the pattern is taking away from the intended message.


I have been lectured pretty harshly about spending too much time in the WO thread, and I am not going to concede on that point, but mostly, I am able to focus more on bitcoin in that thread, even though we have been spending quite a bit of time on the virus lately, too, which is understandable and on a lot of minds of posters in recent times.. and some of the posters do try to bring it back to bitcoin, too.... and even though so much goes on in bitcoin, sometimes, we like a little distraction from the topic, even sometimes we might be thinking that the BTC price is not moving enough or it is moving in the wrong direction, so yeah, it is NOT necessarily bad to have some other topics from time to time.

You may have misread me.  I had not said or even meant to imply anything about additional possible research from me causing any kind of possible conflicts.  Largely what I had attempted to say was that at the time that I posted and I had sent whatever merits in the thread that I had sent.  I had made those comments and sent those smerits based upon enough information to support whatever claims that I was making within my posts, and I also had enough justification to send smerits.  There was no reason for me to do any further research into the matter or even to justify why I had either made my posts or sent smerits.

You, dear sir, are bringing up new topics, and you, dear sir, have the burden to bring facts and/or logic to your claims rather than attempting to put burdens on me to either research or to justify my behaviors that are well within my discretion and not even any bias or favor or anything beyond your merely continuing to make baseless accusations of such.  

Like I tried to say, it is going to be difficult to become friends, if you are continuing to accuse me of bad motives when I am bending over backwards attempting to explain to you that I don't want to go out there and read a bunch of stuff that is NOT of any interest to me merely because you want to assign such to me and to suggest that I have some kind of obligation to research your links beyond my merely reading the titles of the links (just in case they might have seemed to have been relevant to some topic or even something that I might have been interested in, and those links were neither, at least not on the face of it.. .so you need a bit more than a link and some meandering into irrelevance to cause me to consider that the links might either be relevant or interesting).



I am not avoiding evidence.  I made a comment in this thread, and I sent an smerit to lauda based on one of her earlier posts in the thread, and then thereafter, I have been responding to other posts in the thread such as responding to khaled0111 and to hacker, and thereafter you chimed in to tell me something about my posts not being sufficiently justified, and I believe that they were sufficiently justified already. No further homework or research needed in order to support the points that I made or the smerit(s) that I sent.

I have not edited any of those posts, so if you believe that I either said something that was insufficiently researched or that my merit was somehow not reasonably within my discretion, then please point out some more specific aspect rather than giving me an assignment and then asserting that I had some kind of obligation to do your assignment.  That makes hardly any sense to me, and causes me to tentatively conclude that you are not even trying one iota to be friends.  You said that you do not want to make enemies, either, and I am trying to give you some benefit of the doubt, but you surely are not helping me with your difficult to follow logic about some supposed obligations that you believe that I have.



I don't recall ever advocating any action in regards to hacker.  It seems that initially I was merely responding to comments that khaled0111 made, and then after hacker chimed in, then I said that I had recalled that hacker had attempted to bully me on one occasion, and then you jumped in to proclaim that i was bias.  Even with all of that, I was not really advocating anything in regards to hacker, except I suppose maybe when you suggested that "we" help out hacker, I suggested that we figure out if we can agree to a way that hacker can help himself. I don't recall going much further down the path of advocating anything against hacker.. at least, not based on anything that we have covered so far.



I was asking.  I don't want to research about any of that either. I was preferring to just hear it from you instead of investigating into the matter.  I suppose if I looked into the matter, I probably could find some accusations, but what do I care?  I was just trying to figure out if maybe there might be some space that we might have some mutual interests, and surely, I am not really going to be able to become buddy buddy with you if it seems that you are hiding possibly important and material information from me...  but whatever, that is fine.. if you do not want to share, then that is your choice. I suppose at some point, I will either come across further information or maybe someone will tell me, but it not really top of my concern at the moment.

I mean, you are not even responding to various proposals that I made, either, so I mean we really don't be seeming to be jiving in a lot of ways, so I don't really need to hear more about your various alts, unless you think that it might be helpful in some kind of way, given the kinds of mini-disasters that we seem to have already been having about seemingly more trivial things.  I mean, if we cannot resolve some trivial things, then why should we even attempt to address more complicated matters?  My tentative thinking.



I try... when I am able to.



I agree that it does sometimes help to get down to the nitty gritty and to clarify which parts are being responded to.. which parts are agreed to and which parts are disputed, to the extent that might be helpful, and also when a lot of sub-ideas seem to be flying around.

The thing has already stuck. It is the Occam's Razor of what happened. You had plenty of chances to refute said thing, but you instead chose to verbally assault me, which makes it appear all the more so that said thing was correct.

You had plenty of opportunity to explain why you listed you account for sale. Since you didn't answer my demands for a response, I can only assume you did it for personal gain at the expanse of others, and that my assumption is 100% correct. Weird how its offensive when its you, but assumptions are ok to be applied to everyone else isn't it?

You seemingly completely forgot what this thread was about. If you give a shit so much, ask your question in the proper thread. Any one of the billion that cryptohunter and his alts have started about the subject will do.

In all of your topic sliding, you still never said I was wrong about my assumption.

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about

1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

---

Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this:

Marlboroza

What is the threads purpose?

You have already decided that hacker0100101 is an ico bumper in your mind right? I mean i see the red mark you left already?

So if you already decided along with jollygood to leave a possible ico bumper and red tag but not leave a proven scammer a red tag then can you tell me what this thread is for if not to demonstrate  your double standards?

What is this thread for? Is not to discuss the correct punishment for hacker010101 ? Are you possibly starting to doubt your red tags are valid?

To jayjuangee

I see no real conflict between our view with one exception.
The exception would be due to our prime reasons for being here.
Yours is primarily the discusion of bitcoin.
Mine is to push for transparent rules and standards that ensure the fair treatment of all members
The forum needs both types
When someone asks me to review irrefutable evidence of scamming by a DT1 member
I would not see this as a favor to the member asking me to review. They would not need be my friend.
I would see it as something i need to investigate for the purpose of honest members safety and for me to help ensure that things are operating in as fair and consistent manner as possible

I am happy to leave it here. As you say you are not advocating punishment for hacker100101 so no context for fair and consistent treatment is required.

If i were here to primarily talk about bitcoin then i would likely see things from your point of view.

Anyway malboroza. Your thread can you explain a little more what the intended purpose is since you already made up your mind?
Are you garnering support for your red?  Solidifying your reasoning for red?  Analysing your own decision to leave the red?

Is the thread itself a form of further punishment for hacker in your mind?
Are you trying to get others to exclude hacker or red trust him themselves
Other reasons?

Did you intend just to discuss this with hacker himself?

He pops in and of this thread but is very happy to let his buddies continue the misdirection tactics....

I haven't forgotten anything. Look in a mirror if you are concerned with topic slide. Your assumption is wrong. Happy now grand peanut hunter?



Actually it is about Lauda, because his criticism of Lauda was the impetus behind your peanut hunting expedition. It is all ways the same group of people with big red floppy shoes coming after anyone who does anything but wash the balls of The Clown Pope. This tactic designed to silence criticism is demonstrated by all the same users, over, and over, and over again. Still no one can tell me the imminent threat Hacker1001101001 poses to the community that warrants this kind of continual and endless prostate exam.

My main qualm with hacker1001101001 was his response when I was asking how to report a member for posting an invite to kill another member in the personal message space. (The one found below the avatar.)


Thank goodness that the administrator disagreed and ended up temp banning the offending member. Poo pooing death threats clearly shouldn't be what this board is about.

I meant to ask earlier: What's with the goofy


Is this some sort of baby-talk / secret code for "let's hammer one unsuspecting person in this thread who will be unable to respond to our increasingly off topic downward spiral of posts that we are happy to get paid $5-$6 per post from our various (or the same) Signature Campaign." ??

Can any of you say what the actual topic or contents of the tread have been so far?  What are you even attacking?  Do you even know?

---

---

In any event.

FYI, I was not advocating for death threats to be allowed on the borad, rather the reply was based on the minimal effect of the death threat you mentioned in the OP ( i.e A newbie with an personal text containing death threat ) on anyone around here. I didn't knew it was offensive and would land me up with being on your exclusion list. :-\

This "newbie" account was being actively used to promote casinos. I hope he learned that it is never a good strategy to call for the killing of a complaining customer. Let's keep it somewhat classy around here. Also, I am not accusing you of advocating death threats. I am accusing you of "poo pooing" the gravity of the situation.

That was spot on but he has poo pooing around many situations in this forum for a long time.

Ever since he has had backing from a couple of users that encourage him in this thread and ever since he has had some support from the handful of Kamal Pasha loving Turkish language board members that like to attack everybody that they believed scuppered their (non-existent) chances of getting lucrative signature campaigns, Mr Poo Pooing has got a little ahead of himself. It is as though every so often something new is being stated about even though he every opportunity to come clean once and for all.

He has a mountain of evidence against him which he never replied to because his buddies are always trying to deflect attention away from the seriousness of activities he has been behind.

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

But is this not like you poo poohing racism on the thread that was dedicated to the pharmacists aka hugeblackwomans racist trolling. Your argument was that because you claim to be black that you found it amusing for pharmacist a white guy to be pretending to be a hugeblackwoman and pushing racist troll spam everywhere? Other persons claiming to be black were not amused.  They may claim you were poo poohing?

Or poo poohing irrefutable evidence of scamming as trolling?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

There still seems to be no stated purpose for this thread. If marlboroza wont tell us the purpose ( since he already decided hacker0010101 is guilty and should have red) then what we discussing? If we rhink he should have red or if he should be excluded or is malboroza unsure of the red or exclusion he gave hacker01001 and wants opinion?

Is the thread itself some kind o further punishement?

Why no answers here?

Let's not have double standards here

People who poo pooh must be treated equally i think. We must not poo pooh poo poohing around here it seems.  

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs.  Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one person’s ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.

I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.

A person's use of the trust system is usually based on them forming an opinion and taking the action they think is appropriate. Also, my quip about the death threats appears under a quote of another member, so it is not directed at you.

If you don't trust someone's judgement you can surely exclude them without waiting for them to start [ab]using the trust system.

There was also this lunatic DT1 member who claimed to be including people based on whom they argue with, I wonder how that squares with your valid reasons.

It seems that I was largely suggesting that there are differing kinds of behaviors, and there is a difference when words are used for the purpose of threatening people in the real world, whether that is death or bodily harm as compared with having differing opinions about race or if someone has or does not have credibility to speak on a topic, such as race.

Regarding excluding or excluding someone from trust, there could be a variety of reasons, including that you might exclude someone because you believe that they do not understand certain kinds of meaningful distinctions, such as the difference between having disagreements about race or whether it is acceptable for a member to advocate for the physical harm of another member, whether death or some other lesser form of physical harm.  

So, yes, some members might conclude that NOT understanding such differences between differing kinds of threats or different kinds of advocating is NOT a BIG deal to them, but to me it seems a fair reason to NOT trust someone's judgement if they are making comments that seem to not recognizing a difference in various kinds of forum conduct and that from their perspective physically threatening crosses over a line and not understanding that physically threatening crosses over a line of a person having bad judgement, and cannot otherwise be trusted (from my opinion).  

In this hypothetical, you, TECSHARE, might include that person in your trust list in spite of their beliefs, and that is in your discretion, but I might decide to exclude them in my trust or even exclude you because you have told me that you don't believe that there is a difference between physically threatening and advocating racial beliefs in one direction or another.  

In other words,  because in this hypothetical, I believe that you and or that other member has poor judgement, I decide to exclude you and that other person.. while at the same time both you and I are potentially being reasonable in our own way of thinking and we have discretion regarding those kinds of inclusions and exclusion decision matters, and we each have discretion to explain our reasoning for inclusions or not or to choose NOT to explain our reasoning for such inclusion or exclusion decisions.

So you were poo pooing scamming and racism? Poo. Pooing those is ok.

I think the point is that they didnt perceive the noobs childish death threat as a credible real life threat. Like you say scamming is probably not scamming and to say that it is is trolling
Or that racism is funny because he does not mean it because he is white?
Those things are okay to poo poo
I mean thats the point of poo pooing right ? You don't beleive it is that real or credible ?it is not serious?

If you really thought that pharmacist was a racist or lauda was a scammer you would not poo pooh it would you?

It's I guess about perception of how real something seems to you.
Perhaps people make miscalculations or maybe they dont?
Lauda is a scammer but did that guy kill anyone yet? Who got it more wrong?

That is the point..he perhaps didn't think it was a serious death wish just like you didnt think it is serious to scam or that pharmacist was not really a racist. Its the perception of the real intent. If it is not serious then it is not serious right?

I don't agree with any of it personally.

Hate speech, scamming, stated death wishes....... possible ico bumping ?

Poo poo

I see a suggestion of exclusion punishment. I do not feel it is consistent or fair.

Kinda stretching your reasoning a little thin aren't you?




Cute. I like how you absolve yourself from responsibility from your statements by being vague. Too bad that was never actually said, you and others just implied it and ran with it as if it were fact.

I think moderators should delete scammers accounts like yours too

However since this appears to be an either should we red tag hacker0101001 or should we excluded hacker001010 from DT thread, then it can only be correctly appraised and decided in the context of malborozas other punishments he hands out for other more serious evils.

What does malboroza hand out for

Laudas scamming = no red trust no exclusions
 Nutildahs willing scam facilitating for pay = no red tags no exclusions
Tmans auction scamming = no red trust no exclusions

Therefore possible ico bumping = ?

So if the full context and for malboroza to be seen as consistent and fair he should be ??

That is what we can all review, discuss, and debate

You can not discuss appropriate punishment in a void or in isolation from other wrongdoing you have encountered and reacted to previously.

Now go cry elsewhere or keep on topic. No more derailing and trying to force and unfair and inconsistent  narrative  so you can punish whistleblowers or just anyone that disagree with you.

And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm:

"possible"   ??? ???

1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic:

That is important part. And first reply was:

That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.


Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238597.0, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there)  ???

Nobody is burying anything
You say you have proved hacker0101000101 was bumping ico?

What is the point of this thread? If you have proven this to yourself and you already gave him red tag and excluded him?

Which seems strange because you take zero action against proven scammers.

What is this thread for.  You want others to ignore scamming or support scammers but red trust members you say you have proven are ico bumpers?

Can i know the purpose of the thread? I thought it was a

Should marlboroza give hacker0101000101 red tags and exclude ...is this a sensible consistent and fair punishment that other should follow thread? If not what is it?

Why are you upset? We are comparing what you claim hacker0101000101 has done to other wrong doing and deciding what to do right?

How is comparing = burying?  Are you confused?

I will be ready to talk about hacker0101000101 and compare his alleged ico bumping or any other alleged crimes with you marlboroza. No burying and 100% sensible debate but you want to discuss punishment but you want to bury the context of your prior behaviors so you want only the narrative that suits you not fair assessment.

If this is true put in your thread. I want to unfairly punish hacker0101000101 and be inconsistent. I dont care if i want to support scammers sometimes i just need to on this occasion punish someone no matter how unfair or inconsistent it seems. Please dont mention that and just pretent my narrative is not double standards abuse.

Then we can understand to just all be unfair and inconsistent like you and you will enjoy your thread more??

Is this what you wish? Then please adjust your title and op

So you quoted my post but you didn't read it? Create your own topic to discuss about not related things to this topic.

What, I don’t merit a mention?  If trolls aren’t spamming personal attacks about me, then it means that I must be slacking off...

...probably because I keep losing track of this thread.  Because it keeps being derailed by trolls, and I currently have no time to wade through many pages of deflections to see if anything was said about the thread’s subject.  Or by the thread’s subject.  Have marlboroza’s questions been lost in the noise?

The silver lining is that Jay’s posts are always worth a read.  Bookmarked to catch up on later.

Speaking of lunatics....

I was told by a DT member that he was being excluded by another DT member just because I was on his trust list  :o

He was given an ultimatum to either exclude me in exchange to be added in his trust list or if he was going keep me included on his trust list he would remain excluded on his.

This is one of the handful of ultimate betrayals because DT rank was never supposed to be used for these types of reasons.

The strange thing was that particular lunatic DT member had never really engaged with me before he was sending PMs to selected DT members campaigning against me.

This is worse than “trust abuse”:  It is total corruption of the trust system.


I encourage—no, I call upon the recipients of such PMs to publish the PMs in Reputation.  It is whistleblowing.

A person who is engaged in corrupt practices, and sends unsolicited communications in furtherance of corruption, has absolutely zero reasonable expectation of privacy.

The DT system was never supposed to be subject to backroom campaigning—let alone backroom strong-arming, replete with ultimatums demanding that people change their votes or else.  Who knows also what else is going on.  Bribes?  I think that we may safely assume many quid pro quo deals.

I also think that people who engage in backroom DT campaigning, bribes, or coercion of any kind should be administratively blacklisted from DT.  I hope that theymos will consider this.  Of course, for such administrative cleanup to work, the evidence must be brought forth in the same manner as done in Scam Accusations.  When there is evidence of corruption, the people who would police forum scams via DT must be subject to no less a searching public inquiry than any scammer.


Agreed.

---

Where are decency and common sense?

The only time that I have ever politely requested in private that another individual change her own trust list, with no significant attempt at persuasion, was when I asked Lauda to remove me from her inclusions list.  (She politely ignored my request.)

The only time that I have ever tried to PM-persuade someone else to make different trust-list decisions was when I was publicly debating the same issue with the same person—and I was not the one who started the parallel PM discussion!

Besides that, um...  I once politely asked someone to confirm my inference of why he had excluded me.  I often express my own opinions of other people, just as I did before democratic DT existed—and without ever directly urging people to change their “votes”.  And I have been generally complaining for months that the trust system is broken—in public and in private.

Where the hell do people get the idea that it be acceptable to issue PM-ultimatums demanding changes in another person’s trust list!?

I promise that if I ever receive such a demand, I will publish it, and I will both red-tag and exclude the person who sent it to me.

It is a backroom demand that you change your vote in a quasi-democratic system.  If that is not textbook corruption, then nothing is!

I urge those who are receiving such demands to think carefully on all that I just said.

For I called it:


Told you so.  (And after my return to the forum in January, it took me all of 76 hours to figure that out.)

Lol at this scammer lauda.

He is clearly saying i will keep the red tag while you are part of the objective standards guild and disagreeing with me. Very clearly this thread is simply the trust system being used by proven scammers to punish those that dare speak out.

Malboroza is claiming early in this thread " soon i will add a type 1 flag."

This thread is another clear attempt by lauda, malboroza and their new pervy old panting bitch nullius and the very willing scam facilitator for pay nutildah to dig up some possible dirt on hacker0101000101  because he disagreed with lauda the scammer and wants objective standards to ensure the fair treatment of every member here.

This thread needs context. As the old desperate perv nullius says context can be important. Go read his atriz vs alia posts

I would advise hacker to tell the scammer supporter malboroza and the other scammers here to keep their questions for later.
I would say to malboroza i will answer you after you answer my questions on supporting scammers like lauda would lied and shilled for a proven scam until he dumped his bags.

You answer questions first marlboroza then hacker can answer yours.  We will compare who needs excluding and red more urgently.

After reading more through the pages here you no need to longer avoid my questions for clarity of the central purpose of this thread.
You are clearly using it as a tool to garner support for your double standards punishment of hacker10000111

Trying to avoid others bringing context for your given and promised forthcoming punishment of hacker01010 is dishonest.  You are trying to hide and obscure your double standards and your true motivation for raising this issue at this time.

Nullius is a creep. Nobody can take this coward seriously. I am enjoying reading the alia debacle. Nullius is a creepy predator type and since he feels that empathy is disgusting and wrong, that together with obviously a predatory creepy old perv nature is quite a dangerous combo. The reader should investigate this idiot and new female members should be extra cautious. I think his past conduct is actually a cause for concern.

Even possible or probable ico bumping is way below the level of danger posed by this motley crew of scammers, scammer supporters and creepy old cowards pervs who claim empathy is worthy of punishment.

Let me restate. In the context of the others you shelter and support then hacker is a far less danger to the members here based on the evidence here.  I find the timing and the lack of concern for more serious dangers here very telling

Marlboroza spend your energy hunting your scammer friends or alts first like lauda and tman and nutildah. After that you can pretend to want to save the board from.ico bumpers. Also keep an eye on nullius if any young female scammers come along he will perhaps support them too if they just talk-him-off verbally since he is too old for the real thing.
Or maybe he tells them he only enjoys verbal stim until....well it does not bare thinking about

There dear pervo coward nullius you got a mention

The more I read of this thread about hacker0101000101  the more I understand your reluctance to state its purpose malboroza.
Clearly context is very important here whilst you and the other toadies and creeps discuss fair and consistent punishments and even possible paths to " forgiveness "

Carot and stick


This is not to say i would condone ico bumping only that we must place it into full context of other possible dangers here before we decide suitable action and the order of actions. We want to take care of the most serious evils first.

What a waste of time using the unIGNORE on him to read this waffle and then to re-add him to my IGNORE list.

Is this the best they can come up with? They think they are insulting or attacking users that are trying to uphold the morals of this forum but they are just a group of misguided attention seeking users that have ulterior motives.

Just the idea, just the notion that a user such as hacker0101000101 who self-admitted taking payment to post fake information in ICO ANN threads and has thus far an unknown number of alt-accounts could in any way be compared to marlboroza or Lauda (who have given so much to the forum over the years) is absurd.

Sure some of us might not be liked by everybody but when it comes to contributing to this forum in a positive manner, outside that small political group of disgruntled attention seekers, it would be mightily difficult to find anybody (with any serious standing within this forum) who would claim hacker0101000101 is bringing more to this forum than others yet those regular suspect alt-accounts and deeply troubled users continue trying to create animosity here by deliberately closing their eyes to the obvious.

Instead of holding hacker0101000101 to account they continue to deflect attention away from him, they harbour and shelter him, like he does them akin to bosom-buddies just because they have personal vendettas against users such as Lauda and marlboroza.

What an dump person you are to waste your time even after knowing you are wasting it at first. You are as dump as not able to utilize the IGNORE feature of the forum in an intended way. Your childish ways of putting it on and off and crawring in every thread with nothing of an matter and vomiting your uncalled wisdom are pretty naive and should be noted by the user's including you in there trust lists and thinking your judgement is vaild ( moderators too should see this deflections ) . BTW, YoBit drama was an nice attention seaker for you with your power hunger. ~JollyGood is the best course of action left for anyone with an right mind as your digging your own hole with flexing your ulterior judgements and motives around the board.

What part of lauda is a proven scammer  did you miss? Tried to prevent a 2000 000 000 usd compensation airdrop and lying defending and pumping a scam. Remain silent noob peasant fake scam hunter coward.

Jollygood is a fake scam hunter.  He busted some scam and went crying about them making some comeback here. Then mozprognoz laudas alt or bitch tried to help this " scam " jolly good said he busted  get back on the forum and get to work again

Mozprognoz said the scam would need to work with ....yep perhaps lauda for a fee and he advised them to set up under an alt

Jollygood knows all of that but that weak ass scammer supporting fake scam hunter didnt say anything to them. He let that silde or was he in on this? Bust scams that can only return if they get a cut? Hmmm

Jolly good also went around slapping yobit sig spammer with red trust but when it was pointed out he was not punishing dt working with yobit he ran away.

Jolly good fake scam hunter or scammer partner?

Seems you also missed the part where marlboroza is a nothing burger scammer supporter and fake scam hunter like you  are..

Fake scam hunter  = lets the top level scammers go free but cleans out their scamming competition from lower levels or maybe busts them so they have to work with his team for fee to be allowed to operate on this forum

Suchmoon knows this but keeps quiet until mozprognoz calls her names

I have no idea why jayjuangee is giving merit to your post.  It makes him appear a liar now. Said he was not interested in examining irrefutable evidence about lauda scamming becaue he only cares about talking about bitcoin

Now willing to support a post that conflicts with that evidence he says he is not interested in

This looks very strange. How about some research before making excuses not to read it?

Let me say again.  I am more than willing to compare lauda, nutildah and tmans documented wrong doing and compare to hacker0101010 then discuss fair and consistent punishment. You dont want that right?

You dont want any context for the punishment you are pushing??

This lies of me trying to distract from hacker01001 is typical scammer tactics.

They are trying to distract from my challenge to find suitable and consistent punishment because they want to protect their scamming pals and push double standards.

Stop being scared of me scammer supporters.

Let's talk all about hacker0101000101 punishment now .... no derailing. Let's discuss fair and consistent punishment by analysing your real standards not the bogus crap about you wanting to protect the forum

You want to control the forum so you can milk it dry.

Sig spammers and scammers.  Not interested in protecting this forum at all
Milking it for every satoshi they can.

That needed a Cats and Coffee [C&C] (https://web.archive.org/web/20040408093924/http://www.catsandcoffee.org/#about) warning.

Add “scared” to the list of words misunderstood and misused by members who also do not know the meanings of the words “objective”, “standards”, “guild”, “testimonium”, “libertas”, “iustitia”...  Actually, I think that it would be easier to list the words that they do know (http://file:///dev/null).  Anyway...

JollyGood, you yellow bastard.



New theory:  The gang of sigspamming fake scamfighters has a few alt/shill/whatever accounts post without paid signatures, because our unlimited rapacity and greed for money money money makes us—um, I’m not sure how to conclude this one.  Surely, it is a brilliant strategy for “milking it for every satoshi”.

Unless you allege that my PGP fingerprint and Latin motto are paying me?  (It is real Latin, a quote from Seneca—not Bitch Latin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53986806#post_bitch_latin).)


Scamming, and proof thereof.


Lovely, just lovely.  Thanks.


Setting aside the grossly dishonest mischaracterization within the four corners of that quote, you missed the part where the thorough documentation by JollyGood and others made me realize that it was time for me to step up and announce that I myself would tag said DT1 member first.  The Yobit campaign was then shut down almost immediately; and I was kicked off DT almost immediately, due to another DT1 who suddenly found a shallow pretext for very vocally excluding me within about two hours of vehemently arguing against me in the Yobit thread.  Somehow, I doubt that all these events were purely coincidental.

For obvious reasons, I had considered creating my Yobit thread under an alt, and simply calling on DT members to do the right thing.  I did not do so, because I thought that it was important to take a stand on that issue with the reputation and credibility that I had built in my name—and most importantly, to lead by example in announcing my intent to tag a DT1 member before tagging members of his campaign, damn the consequences to myself.  Although I think that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for using an alt account to address potentially explosive controversies (e.g., scam_detector (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1887512) in the alia case), I am not like you, Mr “bonesjonesreturns”.

Anyway, that is irrelevant here except insofar as it rather contradicts your above-quoted mischaracterization of me as a “coward”; and I wanted to take the opportunity to commend JollyGood for his yeoman’s work in the Yobit case.

Now, let us please refocus the thread to its subject:

Quote from: marlboroza on April 11, 2020, 12:45:35 PM

---

Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this:

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

I rarely complain about moderation; but in this case, I must point out that moderation is not only useless, but counterproductive if a complaint about the permitted level of off-topic trolling and thread derailment is deleted, while the off-trolling itself proceeds unabated, and the thread is repeatedly derailed.

I respectfully request that moderators reconsider this policy going forward, delete future posts which are blatantly off-topic or self-evidently attempt to drive the thread off-topic—and don’t delete posts that reasonably criticize a moderation policy that permits trolling.

Thank you.

I also request that moderators and administrators consider a rule against scatological content.  It makes this thread unpleasant to read, for normal human beings who do not wish to see pictures of poop.  So-called “NSFW” images are categorically forbidden, even tasteful images that would not disgust anybody who is not generally disgusted by the human body or by sexuality.  By comparison, why should TEChSHARE, with his disturbing coprophilic fixations, be permitted to turn this thread into a sewer of literal shitposts that are obviously intended to shock and disgust with graphic imagery?

Not deleted by moderators who deleted Lauda’s opinion that “Moderators are useless.  ::)”:

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 09, 2020, 09:55:12 AM

Quote from: hacker1001101001 on March 09, 2020, 08:52:17 AM

~

I KNEW IT! You ate a Payday bar back in April 3rd of 2016! These peanut fragments submitted as exhibit #2 prove it! Just wait until I start counting them!

https://i.imgur.com/daM2fOa.jpg

I am so hot on your trail I can feel it!

(If an appropriate rule is set, then I will edit this post to add spaces and break up the image bbcode.  I may do that anyway, after a day or two.  Meanwhile, I think that I need to drive the point home here.  Sorry.)

Deleted by moderators who don’t delete pictures of poop, and don’t delete repetitive offtopic rants about users who are not the subject of this thread:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5421/54210084.html

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

---

---

---

Unanswered Questions

In my last post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54217457#msg54217457) on page 12 of this thread, I backlinked marlboroza’s unanswered questions to hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54199872#msg54199872) from page 10—in which marlboroza was quoting his own question from page 9.

Whilst skimming past the off-topic trolling, I had somehow completely missed another important, on-topic post by marlboroza from page 11, which I believe deserves to be here on page 12 (with highlighting added by me).  I didn’t realize that OP had quoted Lauda’s deleted post, until I wrote the above and had reconstructed the quote myself.

Quote from: marlboroza on April 13, 2020, 02:13:10 PM

Quote from: Lauda on April 13, 2020, 04:24:55 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on April 11, 2020, 12:45:35 PM

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

---

Moderators are useless.  ::)

And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm:

Quote from: bonesjonesreturns on April 13, 2020, 01:26:56 PM

possible ico bumping

"possible"   ??? ???

1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic:

Quote from: marlboroza on December 31, 2019, 03:04:34 PM

What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?

That is important part. And first reply was:

Quote from: hacker1001101001 on December 31, 2019, 05:45:18 PM

I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.

That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.


Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238597.0, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there)  ???

I also think that two of marlboroza’s substantive posts from page 9 deserve to be here on page 12.  They have not been answered other than with evasiveness by hacker1001101001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54186654#msg54186654) (more evasiveness (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54186842#msg54186842)), whereafter they were buried by his off-topic troll buddies.

Quote from: marlboroza on April 09, 2020, 09:45:11 AM

[— snip by nullius —]

---

Ok, back to topic.

Quote from: hacker1001101001 on April 07, 2020, 02:46:45 AM

For those of you judging geniunely, none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions.

But you said you were payed and here is you paying someone:

Quote from: marlboroza on April 06, 2020, 09:41:20 PM

From hacker to 0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x24329e495e0f96362c4a64594b186829d277003e661388264cc62b905dbc6792
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6ad7fc0c28bc67c1c462c2b809d7f96005f133b25a89dcd20b72d63509015743
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7a42f3c2e7cb43b6beb7b3de03b5bd71e9cfca2ab8915305cff69d916e6c14db
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9ee327d6749c902be1fe63e05052567ddf1326e80f28a8dbff42e2714226ad15
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb670d5d1a7e79421744c74731bcfa36c55c688e449f88ba8f1086ae3d79d68b9

Quote from: salita23 on July 18, 2018, 01:03:07 PM

#JOIN

Bitcointalk username: salita23
Forum rank: jr member
Posts count:  34
ETH address: 0xf4E98bAC953Ee81Ee3438aA97BDA0cCfE63C95E5

Interesting address (https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5). So, red marked address is hacker's address:

https://i.imgur.com/mxc3wYU.png

Transactions TO green marked addy (0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5) can be found in hacker's transactions:

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x12eb3157346ef9b814f68a186c2f899886be3d36a942386f9234140ec7f526ae
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa051c04e9baa9bc65c7824c49f21c3f976cf95185636fba54ec5ef52734ff01d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa9a0bfbdfb0f63deabf03549c5fd989a4d575743237b4332969a18775abe93e6
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7bb2aad7eb8fb1f7d80cfa85e9e99122a26836fb14f361b3ac519890f27110d5
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6f8deff8b46ff20dead3bf2af1792966c743c87c4e94a323f51025ba22be5a4d
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xb7e0535a7718bc5c6b80d183b46d59fef518e86aa58649f968683da0129779ff

And as for purple marked address (0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854, https://etherscan.io/address/0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854), it has only one transaction from hacker but:

https://i.imgur.com/Yx8NAzR.png

Each address has more transactions FROM hacker:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x89e4c4454bf048edf2536bb6387c2760dd429e8e
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xd6ae5106df28742e8729b13d5497b07c0ee9f0c3
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840&p=2  [1]
https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ff4b05829785e012a2df60eefcbda7e6b1d3f49
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x6446df84035f8083191ce2a27c76d4b5f5c11c10
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xf9960f024fa69014dfcccc4dc63222295856e091
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ed83e973c3e50cfbe483398ab17e347ebd244ce&p=2
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x0c0369267e791283651899acf23636535d955019
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5

(CTRL+F hacker addy 0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde)


I am so lazy to look into this deeper, one of addresses previously mentioned [1] was used by account farhan28 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1194201) (who is banned btw https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=farhan28 and looking at posts it is just another payed ico bump account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1194201;sa=showPosts))

Quote

##PROOF OF AUTHENTICATION##
Bitcointalk Username:farhan28
Telegram Username : @farhan2894
Campaign :Twitter
Spreadsheet # : #1555
Ethereum Wallet Address : 0x391FBB990900cCcac5fa7E96F01211cC93cE2840

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4405290.msg43396614#msg43396614

There is one transaction from hacker https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7d8f5884c950f8cf66f310a08cb755dc6f7285956c3f4acea6094688e96beae8 and 3 transactions from this addy 0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x56248063d9406ad46267b9bd021e88a191daebdefed0951d274ca74ae8489367
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc8f3d40471890811ef3263994ff3da59665b01cf3b644538f3770b0aa20d3651
https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc61f9e17262e7c8a12036feaca7e0f4c6b7fbc5fa3bb318ce6d56f6b61b92c4d

(scroll UP, I have already marked it as green in screenshot above)

Further, that ico bump account farhan28 received so many payments from this address 0x5af75bf78984f3e22cfcccb52bf62f529bcb440b (ctrl+f here again https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840) and I previously mentioned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) that address on first page of this topic, just after hacker denied everything.

---

I understand that bump whore accounts are receiving money from bump services, but account hacker has large number of transactions TO such accounts, and, as he is giving his best to deflect this topic I have no other reason than to believe hacker is behind one of such service or he was filling addresses of alt accounts while receiving money from bump service. I am not sure, but I would place my bet on "behind bump".

Quote from: marlboroza on April 09, 2020, 10:37:17 AM

Quote from: marlboroza on April 06, 2020, 09:41:20 PM

For another example, from hacker to this addy 0x390ae66ef2f7424619d092f3ada3c9592a572b42  https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6f763f2299c380c413343a0ee5cff9e74fb01838b8bcc9e8e161e61435aa2ba9

Quote

#JOIN

Bitcointalk username: olumyd
Forum rank: Full Member
Posts count:  700
ETH address: 0x390aE66ef2f7424619d092f3ADa3c9592A572b42

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3142918.msg32494700#msg32494700

Except it is shitposting account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1080, account was used to bump various ICO's (randomly selected: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1080 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066312;sa=showPosts;start=1160) Sintez, sintez, dafak is sintez??

Actually, dafak happened with sintez (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2305454.0) ICO? (https://sintez.global)

I figured that not-my-account Mysterious01 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238) bump-shilled for sintez many (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330;sa=showPosts;start=380) times (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=829330;sa=showPosts;start=420)  (http://archive.is/kFmw6). I wonder how much funds this "Server Not Found" has collected.

---

---

---

Beyond Good and Evil

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 11, 2020, 03:43:41 AM

Quote from: nullius on April 10, 2020, 08:25:34 PM

More to the point, even assuming arguendo that I am the most “evil” person on this forum in the world (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221041.0) (and Lauda is #3—sorry, kitty, Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is still #2; try harder), what has this to do with the bad doings by hacker1001101001 that are evidenced in this thread?

I really like the thought of that assuming arguendo part and attempting to rank such levels of evil on a world-wide scale including living and presumably dead people in such competition.

But, the second part of that proposition is that you are correct, you presumptively evil bastard.  Your admitted (even if merely hypothetical, but I know that you are really admitting something deep down on the inside) level of evil is not even relevant to this thread.  You could be like the worst level of evil, and hacker might be evil like a mouse and even the most minimal level of evil, but the thread is not talking about either you or even that other pointed out evil cat one.  It is about little intsie winsie teenie weenie evil of hacker, to the extent any evil exists in hacker.... I am not even going to presume any evil in hacker personally, even if he may have been mean to me one time, but the topic of this thread happens to be about hacker and perhaps whether any evil actually exists therein.

QFT—and with the brief note that whatever I may or may not be admitting “deep down on the inside”, I do not merely admit, but proudly proclaim that I am “evil” in exactly the sense described by Nietzsche (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221041.0) in Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals.  I would like to elaborate on that, but an extended discussion is off-topic. :-)  Also, sorry, ENOTIME now. :-(