Bitcoin Forum

@PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) is an alt account of @Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020)

Here is the proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215097.msg53538429#msg53538429


@PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) has nominated himself at BitcoinTalk's Newbie of the Year 2019. He was later retracted after being caught in red-handed
Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215097.msg53538453#msg53538453


He has no qualification to be nominate here. This is a competition made only for those who are really new. But @PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) tried to abuse it. It is not desirable in any way. @PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) can never be trusted. See his trust feedback then you can understand.
@PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) Trust feedback link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2561166

So @PrimeNumber7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2561166) just a fake people, account farmer, cheater.
Accounts connected with @Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020)

Where is the proof ?

Are you blind? Can't see the link?

Not proof fella

Allow me:
None of this proves anything.

I saw the link, didn't see the proof.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed QS's alt, but I wouldn't be convinced unless there was some hard evidence.  From what I can see in that thread, there's just suspicion.

Definitely not proof--not even good evidence as far as I can see.  The only real way you can link two accounts is if someone admits one is their alt, or with some blockchain evidence, or if someone screws up and posts something from their alt account that was obviously meant to be from their main one.  I've seen that before, but it's rare.

PN7 is Quickseller's alt.

OP is a dumbass and has no proof.

Unfortunately both of the above statements can be true at the same time. All this does now is discredit the accusation - exactly what Quickseller needs to continue his march into DT and into Chipmixer campaign.

I tend to believe you and I'm assuming this is a case of PN7 declines to deny the assertion that he is QS? Or something like that..

I agree 100% that it's a QS alt - The writing style is exactly his... He can't hide here, he's an idiot...

Also, I don't need any proof, I know that scammer's posts when I read them now, it's pretty obvious... :P

Edit - Paging @Tspacepilot ... ;D

A bad argument and lack of proof certainly has the opposite effect than expected.
Prime number7 always looked like an intelligent guy , and accounts may not be related. A proof is certainly needed, and make accusations without proof is just silly

He did post all his code (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0), so if someone is dedicated enough to try, I'd be interested to see the results :D

Agreed.

The OP is three months behind the times...

Aside from some rather weak circumstantial evidence... is there actually any solid proof that PN7 is an alt of QS? ???

At this point it seems we just have conjecture, speculation and the classic "their styles are the same"-type "proof". Anything concrete I'm missing? ???

As I've suggested earlier, anyone who actually cares and has doubts on the subject should ask Quickseller and/or PrimeNumber7 about it.

If PrimeNumber7 has posted a wallet address for their signature then follow the money.

Agreed, the OP is stirring shit as result of his butthurt for red-tags.  But I certainly hope no one adds PN7 to their trust inclusions.  So far I haven't seen PN7 try to do any trading or earn trust, so I hope that's not something we need to worry about.  

If PN7 truly is QS (which I believe to be the case) and his goal is to rank-up and earn signature bounties, I really don't care, and wish him luck.  Considering that QS has a history of account farming and selling accounts this would be the least of our worries.  Also makes it seem like the PN7 account was an inevitability.  It was just a matter of time before the more intelligent account farmers figure out how to work within the merit system.  



This seems like a shot in the dark, I think he's smart enough to obfuscate any blockchain connections.  And is it really worth the effort?  The connection seems pretty darn obvious.  

Certainly looks that way. He merited this post today in the chipmixer thread .. ::)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.msg53587999#msg53587999

Edit - I did have a copy of TS's code working at one point. I had to hit him up for a few missing pieces he forgot in his code thread. Not sure if he updated the OP, but will give it another stab when I get some free time and a new vps. (Probably have the code buried in thousands of PM's at this point). :P

PN7's UID is fresh enough that all their unedited posts will have been scrapped by LoyceV so even if QS/PN7 has gone back and modified old posts there'll still be the originals to look over for wallet addresses.

---

Another option is the gaps in QS' posts to see if PN7 was posting when QS wasn't.

The first time I scratched my head over PN7 was when he left me this reply in the CM campaign thread:


I was just wondering why this relative noob would care so much about this campaign, and why did they think they knew the forum rules so well? I didn't think it was QS at the time, as QS had spam blasted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124985.msg51713061#msg51713061) all the participants of the Livecoin campaign months earlier, telling everybody they risked getting red tagged if they remained in the campaign.


That would be cool if you wanted to give it a go. However, there are other ways to produce evidence of the connection. I'd just rather not give them away yet.

You mean, like, account farmers who create quality posts and actually contribute to the forum? I call that a win! Until it's sold to a shitposter, but they shouldn't last long in a signature campaign, which makes them waste a very expensive good account.

OP is indeed a baboon. I might act however against PN7 at a later point in time, as there are more than adequate warning signs. Literally almost everyone that I've talked to or read their posts knows that it is true, there just isn't any evidence.

Is OJ Simpson innocent or guilty? What OP posted isn't proof of anything and whilst there's no truly concrete proof tying them together and certainly nothing that would stand up in court, it's just one of those things where there's just too many coincidences and similarities and the likelihood of them being the same is very strong. So much so that I'd bet money on it. It's very hard to mask certain things about yourself even if you're purposely trying to avoid detection but many similarities often show over time and there's a fair few here but probably nothing op knows about and is just making unbacked claims out of annoyance because he was exposed.

I agree that contributing and creating quality posts are a win when looked at from that perspective.  However, I think most account farmers who are capable of contributing and creating quality posts aren't doing so for the sake of such, but they have ulterior motives.  Maybe it's my cynicism, but the question of motives does arise.

I'm not accusing QS of fattening up PN7 for a sale or a scam.  I think he's just putting in the effort to create an account that will earn him some income in signature bounties, and as I said before, that doesn't concern me.  I'm a firm believer in giving people second chances and if my hunch is correct that's what I think QS is trying to accomplish with PN7.



I'm not presuming to know what QS' motivations are, but I don't think his goal is to sell this account, or use it for anything other than signature campaigns.  I only think that because I believe that would be the smart thing to do.

However, as Suchmoon has insinuated, that's not the only cause for concern.  I think it would be quite damaging to the DT system if we allow a known account farmer/seller who's been involved in a self-escrow deal to be included in the DT system.  Forgiveness is noble, forgetfulness is foolish.

Currently there are two members who've included PN7 in their trust list, including one potential DT1 member (who, ironically has QS excluded.)

I would find it problematic to give a second chance to an account farmer who is engaged in the same account-farming and other activities that got him into trouble to begin with. I'd think some level contrition and/or restitution should be a prerequisite here. Quickseller seems to think that his fall from grace was not his fault and he holds a massive grudge, going as far as making active attempts to cause damage to people whom he considers his "enemies". Not a second chance material.

I bought some cheap brass lealana coins from him once with no escrow way before he went scam, it was fine.... A year or two later, post-scam - He posted half my info/doxx for "insert whatever fucked up reason here". So, that was not fine.

So... Yeah, fuck that guy. ::)

I think if someone has proofs of the connection he would open a thread about it with something solid. Bumping this thread is purely equal to stirring unnecessary drama.

You don't see any irony in your comment?

There is no concrete "proof" of the matter -- there is only varying degrees of evidence, most of which hasn't been posted. If you do the research yourself you might stumble upon it.

There's also no "proof" that gravity is real.

Whoever does ends up doing a text comparison should include all contributors to this thread, that would give a sufficiently random pool of contributors to compare with our two suspects...

Archive [1 (http://archive.ph/zITFX)] [2 (http://web.archive.org/web/20200113192929/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216961.0;all)]

I see no evidence at all this PN7 is QS. Also imagine people who DELIBERATELY replicate peoples style then start doing untrustworthy things to SCAM the bullshit writing style analysis. If something can RECOGNIZE a provable style match SOMETHING CAN REPLICATE a style match. Therefore that is NOT reliable and can be weaponized.


I don't think they appear the same person after comparing samples of both.

There can really be ZERO proof of alt. Like there can be ZERO proof of someone selling their account then the new person announcing it was not sold. This is anonymous forum for a reason. Can we give this kind of proof to your account selling??

I mean the evidence of you not being the original nutildah is VERY COMPELLING from a financial perspective.
But that is NOT PROOF.

Better we stick to the same standards for all members. QS is of is not an alt of PN7. You will need more than a possible style match for proof.

A vote for NOT the same person on the basis we will never know. I would rather not destroy and innocent account.

If you have him on ignore, just quoting it for you. That's what I think probably.

Yes, but that does not matter to the TRUTH concerning whether PN7 = QS. Everything we said is also true.

The fact you wish to assume the opposite is perfectly okay and in keeping with your usual MO.

If the source for determining a MATCH between posting styles is KNOWN it can be used to create MATCHES and therefore it can be weaponized to create FALSE matches.

If the source is NOT known then it is impossible to validate. So there is a certain issue with using it here.

Besides which I bet under deeper long term scrutiny it would be debunked as unreliable in the first place.

I see no solid evidence that PN7 is QS. We need to be very careful screaming things are true when there is no conclusive proof, like with your account sale.

This is the legendary thread where tracepilot used NLP and data processing to connect QS with Panthers52 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0 Maybe someone should invite tracepilot to the discussion again?  ;D

Regardless, I'm not really interested in drama especially given that OP has denied from that competition for whatever reasons and is just retaliating with baseless accusations.

Someone (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217921.msg53615630#msg53615630) who has time to report users who congratulated child birth and especially someone who has time for investigation in other user reputation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53507205#msg53507205) thread definitely couldn't miss this thread. Like they didn't see this thread and some other posts, right...

Silence is best proof you can get.

There's really no point at all in doing any stylometry here. It would just add drama and we all know QS loves reading these threads and laughing about how stupid we are etc etc... That's why he won't post here , under either ID.   

Besides, the referenced posts by primenumber7 all read exactly like QS posts. Suchmoon and I have been down this stupid road before.... He won't post here - he'd rather laugh at the drama ... :P

I agree, even if QS is PN7 he would be very sarcastic about the proofs discussed in this thread, even if he is not. He would be like " This is a Bitcoin forum you noobs, where is the connections between the accounts with Blockchain evidence ? They are even trying to find codes to compare the posting style, a big LOL"

Btw, I too would have a good time laughing at users wasting there time on getting links between both the accounts using "noob level connections" when the accused user has been around here from years and is expert in the same. That's not traces a experienced user would leave here anyways.

On the off chance PN7 isn't an alt of QS - please respond to my pm's so that I can ship you your raffle (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211780.msg53435049#msg53435049) win.

There is no chance for shitposters get acceptance from professional managers in good campaigns. You are right, even if one buy one good account, and get acceptance to join in one campaign. Maybe he will be kicked out after 1 or 2 weeks as a consequence of post-quality decrease. Professional managers will do easily to see such suspicious chances.

Another minus point is: Building a good account is a challenging so is it worth to sell it for $200 or $500. I don't think there are people want to do this. If I have a good Hero member account, I can earn $500 after 10 weeks so I will never destroy my account after spending 2 years to build it up.

Liberalism has damaged your mind if you consider that as a win. It's all fine and dandy until someone gets scammed, but hey at least they didn't shitpost after they bought the account. ::) Come on, re-adjust your risk-reward assessment.

It's just a matter of time before I turn mine into a negative. Off-chance for a flag too now, but the likelihood increases with each passing, silent, day.

You're right on the scam-part: A fool and his money are soon parted (https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-fool-and-his-money-are-soon-parted.html), and there are many fools in crypto.

If I look at Scam Accusations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0), most scams have nothing to do with account sales. That's why I mentioned spam as a possible consequense of account sales.
You could of course argue this is because account sales are heavily frowned upon, and instantly tagged, so cause and effect could very well be in the right order :)

There's a strong economic deterrent, or well there was (not that much anymore) for this. The incentive that The Pharmacist, I & co. created by going after account sales is that the people actually try harder to integrate (or well, try not to get caught being a shitposter with a bought account that quickly), which is better than the former. Other than that, there's no way to estimate the data on effectiveness (or lack thereof) of either approaches.

---

What some of you guys seem to refuse to accept is that a super majority of people are naive, slaves, sheep. This is reality, fact, indisputable. No amount of education and "let them learn the hard way" will fix this inherent nature of most of humanity. Therefore, I choose an active deterrent rather than praying and hoping for the best. Standing by and watching harm that I could have prevented be inflicted to users makes me no better than the perpetrator.

I don't think it's necessarily the majority, but their numbers are large enough to make "the internet" in general and "crypto" in particular a scammers' paradise. Most people just aren't ready to be their own bank.
We can't make the internet safe, so I still hope education will make (some) peoples realize it's their own responsibility to be careful who they trust.

Speaking of Quickseller:

---

PrimeNumber7:

Ha, that's fuckin hilarious... He distrusts the OP...  :o

Thanks TL,

Fuck QS and all his alts. ::)

That happened a day before this topic was created (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-01-11_Sat_18.59h/2561166.html).

I will not yet address any of the evidence about PrimeNumber7.  I should examine it later; but frankly, I have thus far avoided it, for reasons that should soon become clear.

I will therefore only address the points raised in this thread thus far—starting with my general observation of a forest that has been missed whilst scrutinizing trees.

---

For my part, I would be very concerned about PrimeNumber7’s identity if he starts trading under that name, or worse, running an escrow service.  I am also concerned any potential use of alts by Quickseller for DT-influence purposes (as, upon information and belief, I suspect that he has done before).

But otherwise...

If Quicksy wants to express his general opinions or engage in technical discussions without weighing his words under the baggage of a deservedly ruined reputation, and if he wants that so much that he’s willing to expend great effort to build a high-reputation account from scratch, then I would not knee-jerk shoot that down.  Anonymous or pseudonymous publication is often used exactly for the reason of divorcing an opinion from its author’s reputation—thus encouraging objectivity, and avoiding inappropriate ad hominem arguments (or avoiding inappropriate appeals to authority, for authors with a high reputation, as was done with “Publius” and the American Federalist Papers).

That is an important principle, with a long and important political history; the ideals of cypherpunks as to anonymity and identity are only the latest installment in that history.  And if I try to think of valid reasons for an undisclosed alt account, that comes up at approximately #2 on an extremely short list.  (#1 being for people living under tyrannical régimes to do potentially dangerous political activism, while still maintaining a “normal” identity—and #3 being those mysterious sock accounts which occasionally bust huge scams (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1887512).)

I speak mostly as to opinions about technology, society, politics, etc.  However, more generally, we also recently saw a concrete example of what happens when Quickseller-stench clouds a discussion about an unrelated topic.  Quickseller raised a flag on an odious scam account, and explained his flag with arguments which were objectively correct.  Lauda had sufficient objectivity to see this, and supported the flag despite being perhaps Quickseller’s very worst Evil Nemesis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2975479.0) on the forum.  A flamewar promptly ensued, wherein smart people whom I otherwise respect were reaching for patently absurd arguments to rationalize opposition to the flag.  I cannot imagine any reason for that, other than desire to oppose Quickseller himself.  I don’t want to potentially restart that tempest in a teapot by linking the thread; I think everybody posting here knows what I refer to.

If an unknown Quickseller alt had raised that flag, would the reactions have been the same?  I think not!

Now, generalize that problem to encompass PrimeNumber7’s involvement in discussions of politics and technology.

---

If Quicky is trying to get in on a plum signature campaign, I think that’s a matter for the sole discretion of the campaign manager.  Bring your evidence to the campaign manager’s attention.  I usually have no opinion about how someone else runs his business, as long as it’s not producing spam or promoting scams.

I think the best campaign managers will know how to best weigh any factors that may affect their own reputations and their clients’ reputations, if things go wrong and the whole thing blows up in their faces.  They are not newbies; and they should know as well as I do what may happen if a Quickseller alt with a new face turns over a new leaf, then later suddenly reverts to the same old behaviour that made him historically the forum’s most-distrusted user.

---

Not so.  In the general case, “but so-and-so did not deny it!” is a classic Quickselling fallacy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533.0).  Although it may not be fallacious in the face of compelling evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.0) plus the absence of any possible good-faith motive to ignore a charge, silence qua silence is weak evidence at best, and certainly not the “best proof”.

This is not to suggest that PrimeNumber7 should not reply; I wish he would.  I just can’t help but remember that there are so many accusations I myself have never explicitly denied, e.g.:



There are many potential good-faith reasons for a policy of neither confirming nor denying alt-identity accusations which are actually false.  I am not saying that PrimeNumber7 actually has such a reason:  Rather, I simply say that his silence should be discounted, and should not be a factor affecting one’s judgment either way when examining hard evidence.

---

I also couldn’t help but notice that exactly this form of argument has been thrown at me many times by Quickseller and others.  It is not evidence; and smart, meticulous people should not be punished for being smart and meticulous.

In my case, I was on-and-off casually lurking for years before I created an account; and before I started posting, I devoted quality time to reading old threads to find the lay of the land.  As a result, as of today, people tend to not even realize that I am still a relative n00b on the forum.  (Activity level gives a hint.)

Did PrimeNumber7 do similarly?  That is a sincere question, not a rhetorical expression of opinion.

---

I disagree with that.  I never forget; and I don’t forgive, if somebody’s actions were so despicable that I adjudge him to be a bad person (i.e., I judge him personally and not only judge his actions).

Although I am not generally in agreement with him, I think that C. S. Lewis said it best when he argued that “[the] essential act of Mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient....  As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice”.  (The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 1949.)

Really, please, reframe the question in terms not of “forgiveness”, but of pardon:  Is Quickseller worthy of a pardon?  Really!?

If you want to be merciful, save your pardons for the rare instances in which basically good people make errors in judgment that contradict their general characters.  Not for someone who was caught red-handed in rank dishonesty, even outright theft (self-escrow is theft by deception of escrow fees!), and then subsequently spent years remorselessly waging a personal vendetta against those who had the least tolerance for his criminality.

Leopards don’t change their spots.  Good people are still fallible mortals, who may occasionally foul up.  If they make a serious error in judgment, they will pay the price of serious consequences (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1397579.msg17608448#msg17608448); but they still are who they are, and the concept of pardon exists for a reason.  Bad people may sometimes put on their best behaviour, after years of getting whipped bloody in their attempts to get revenge for being caught.  Either way, all feel-good fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, it is very rare, arguably impossible, for the character of a person to actually change.

I have recently noticed from Quickseller himself a pattern of behaviour which, at its surface, suggests that he may be trying to “turn over a new leaf”.  But of course, it is exactly the same pattern of behaviour which would be shown by a longtime scammer who finally admits to himself that he lost the old game, and thus starts up a new long con to inveigle his way back into people’s good graces.  Which is by far more probable?  See above.  And Quickseller is certainly shrewd enough to pull off a long con; much though I have sometimes ridiculed him, I do not underestimate him!

If this assessment seems harsh, well—that is the problem with being criminal:  You lose people’s trust, and you can never get it back.  More importantly, it is the criminal’s problem, not mine or yours.  If he suffers the long-term natural consequences of his own dishonesty, then that is his just deserts; and nobody should feel sorry for him.  (Interestingly, PrimeNumber7 has made some posts which lead me to think that he does not approve of bleeding-heart liberal policies (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201132.msg53081092#msg53081092); perhaps he may agree with me here?)

---

At this juncture, I think it’s warranted to point out that the infamous self-escrow scam hasn’t been the only reason to distrust Quickseller.  Although he’s an order of magnitude smarter than the typical shill (a low standard = “faint praise”), he used to spout vicious nonsense as if he just bumbled over here from /r/btc, e.g.:


I have not yet read many of PrimeNumber7’s posts.  Has he commented on the fork wars and BSV, i.e. the logical continuation of a long-term attack on Bitcoin that began not later than 2015?

---

Well said.

I do not propose to “give a second chance” to Quickseller, much less to attempt the fool’s errand of deterring potential wolves by educating masses of sheep.  (I make the obvious metaphor with due apologies to wolves, noble creatures unlike human criminals.)

If (if) it is adequately proved that PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, then this is an unusual case that will require wise judgment indeed, to proactively prevent the new account from ever doing what its owner did with the old account—without preventing the new account from being used merely to engage in rational discussions without ad hominem attacks where there is no potential for fraud, if that is what the new account actually does.

Life is complicated, people are complicated, and potentially shutting PrimeNumber7 up on grounds of alleged Quickselliness may be an error in judgment.  This is a subtle, unusually complicated case, and should be treated accordingly.

I must also observe that such handling will not set a dangerous precedent, or make any loopholes for more ordinary cases.  How many scammers build a clean Sr. account with high earned merit before anybody even notices?  If PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, I believe that this is the first time such a thing has happened; and it will probably be the last such instance seen for a very long time, perhaps the last ever.

This is primarily why I haven't flagged him yet to reiterate the flag that Quickseller has. If his intentions are honest, and by that I mean behavior that was described in your post, then he wouldn't have acted the way he did so far. What he should have done is come forward, apologize, make his alt account publicly known and start properly posting from it ("turning over a new leaf") . Would his new account be spared of negative ratings? Probably not, but I for one would be much more hesitant to do anything (tag or flag) about it had that been the way this played out.

Here's the thing: the forum "rules" aren't really rules at all, and you can't really develop an understanding of their interpretation and execution unless you have years of experience with the forum. Its not a matter of being smart and meticulous -- its a matter of being wise and experienced.

Regardless, PN7 (QS) doesn't know the rules as well as he thinks -- accounts will only be temp banned for message spamming if several other users report them for message spamming. Its not inaccurate to say that the forum operates in a "squeaky wheel getting the grease"-type fashion in that only if there is an overwhelming demand for something will it happen (and sometimes not even then).

Double-regardless, PN7 is Quickseller by way of evidence not necessarily yet introduced publicly on the forum. So to answer your question, no, PN7 did not do so similarly.

I have stated multiple times that I have no interest participating in forum related drama and I refuse to participate in nor respond to baseless speculation that has no evidence. I have not seen anyone even claim to have evidence.

It is the onus of the accuser to prove their case, not on the accused to prove their innocence. In America, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Silence is not evidence of guilt, in general it is best to stay quiet when accused because anything you can will be used against you, anything you say will often be twisted to have its meaning changed.

Asking someone to respond to evidence they have not seen is almost always going to end up making the person responding look dishonest or deceitful because they cannot speak to the specifics of the evidence but would be judged as if they knew and understood the evidence.

This thread is reminiscent of Soviet Russia or Communist China, or of the McCarty era. This thread is the first of two (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216871.msg53581868#msg53581868) by newbies who are talking about me or some interaction involving me on the same day.

Good to hear. I concur.

The way Quickseller is trying to sockpuppet his way back into what he calls "power" positions of the forum is fundamentally dishonest. That's all there is to it, regardless of any narrow justification of his individual actions or out-of-context subjective interpretation thereof.

If he had admitted back when he was caught that escrowing for sockpuppets is wrong and account trading is shady at best and genuinely changed his ways since then - I'm quite certain that 4 years would have been plenty of time to rebuild his reputation. IIRC he never even admitted that Panthers52 is his alt and fairly recently tried to discredit the methods used to out him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141807.msg51377745#msg51377745). He's still trying to justify account trades. He brags about his covert sockpuppeting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50523936#msg50523936).

So this whole discussion about insufficient proof of PN7 being Quickseller's alt serves him very nicely. Not surprising when even the most obvious sockpuppets  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2708940)are allowed to evade their bans (I'm mean like WTF... what's the harm of banning that asshole even he is not korner, if all he does is impersonate a massive troll? but I digress) but in the long run this blatant abuse erodes the faith of honest users. For all I know that might be the ultimate goal of scammers like Quickseller.

---

It's a yes or no situation. Are you Quickseller's alt?

This was the final nail for me[1] given the behavioral patterns of dancing around simple yes or no questions. You are Quickseller.

---

[1] Apologized. Post has been fixed. Don't ask me for evidence as I need not produce evidence for something like this (unless I publicly try to pursue others to believe this too, which I won't bother with), and neither does anybody else.

I agree..
He would not be lone among the company of other previously account-selling and even sock-escrowing users who are still now very reputable, but who have taken different paths or who have displayed different dispositions..
These are not irredeemable actions if a good path to redemption is taken or are just past flaws in an otherwise trustworthy user behavior..

I am unaware of any seriously heinous crimes committed by QS other than not knowing when to put down the shovel to stop one's self from digging a deeper hole..

Maybe I should ask you if you were involved in any of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136289.msg50778677#msg50778677) before I got the rule actually enforced. Maybe I should ask you if you are the OP. Can you prove it?

Bullshit. If you want to prove something, you must present evidence. Someone refusing to deny something that is baseless is not evidence of guilt. The only thing that has changed is someone has told you, without evidence, or even claiming to have evidence that I am that person.

On the contrary, some empowered users have severely lax standards of DT operation well past the threshold of this example..

Not that I agree with it, but it is what happens..

It's a simple question with a simple (for an honest person) answer. Answering a yes/no question with "there is proof" and trying to turn this against me is very typical for you... what's next, thinly veiled threats of doxing? Comments about expecting mothers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207811.msg53293196#msg53293196)?

I'm not involved in account sales and I'm not the OP. Your turn. Are you Quickseller?

I don't think there's any answer that will help PN7: if he says yes, he gets tagged to pieces, and if he says no, people won't believe it. So there's nothing to win and only things to lose.

Would you ever believe that answer? Not et all. I have seen you judgement in a lot of cases. Trust me you were wrong. So, doesn it matter if he say yes or no? Not et all.

Sorry, I should have clarified. This was the final nail for me. I have fixed my post. I don't need to produce evidence for myself.

Wrong. He's avoiding to answer because explicitly answering is what caused his downfall the last time. Sure, people won't believe it but they wouldn't tag him either until we have another tspacepilot & BadBear event.

Sorry...


On principle, I will not become Quickseller for the purpose of smacking down alleged Quickseller alts.

---

Well, that leaves me to say, “I have been told by someone very reputable, and whom I trust that...” as quoted with added boldface above.  Because I will not say that, I must instead remain undecided as to fact here.

Although I understand the sensitivity of investigatory concerns, that just means you are still building a case which is not yet mature.  The cops can hold close all the secret evidence they want—until they are ready to bring a case up for prosecution.

I observe that this thread was not started by anybody investigating PN7.  It was started by The-Devil, for obvious motives that have nothing to do with protecting the forum.  Speaking of which...

---

There is another observation I wanted to state earlier; but I did not want to give The-Devil cause to gloat.  My mistake.

The-Devil has proved highly effective at manipulating others with a “divide and conquer” strategy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215242.msg53569952#msg53569952).  In another thread, he sowed discord that resulted in the flamewar to which I alluded above.  Now, we know he wants revenge on Quickseller for raising a flag against him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1208).

He can’t hurt Quickseller’s account, because Quickseller wrecked his own account years ago.  To really get revenge, he self-evidently wants to draw others into torching PrimeNumber7—regardless of whether that is right or wrong in itself.

If PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, then The-Devil’s revenge is total:  He just destroyed a considerable long-term effort to build a new identity.  If PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller, then The-Devil must laugh wickedly over ruining the reputation of an innocent person whom he also hates (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1212).  I oughtn’t need note that in the latter case, Quickseller would probably sneer at his longtime enemies for having taken the bait whereas he himself is completely unaffected.

The-Devil lives up to his name.

---

I had further thoughts in reply as to identity, reputation, and what would have been the right course of action for Quickseller, if he wanted to honestly build a new reputation.  Maybe later.

It sounds like your hate is so strong for someone, that you are refusing to exercise even basic good judgement, or allow for even basic fairness. By your own admission you are aware of no evidence, but you decided to leave a red trust for no reason other than I am accused of being someone you dislike.

You forgot to call me a Nazi as well.

I never said I'm aware of no evidence, I just said I didn't need to produce it to exercise a fundamental right to which I keep my belief mine. Do note that I am opposing the flag on you. Try again next time snowflake.

Detection this early is indeed an amazing feat.

---

That's about it for this situation at this point in time.

A slight clarification: I know I am not the only one who have suspected this link for months, long before The-Devil even registered on the forum. This thread has only served to verbalize what many users were already thinking. To say that this was all driven by The-Devil's manipulation and desire for revenge is a bit of a stretch. It was only a matter of time before someone started a thread about it.

Their are a lot of references to this subject completely unrelated to the devil..

In the unlikely event that PN7 proves they are not QS it will be quite comical, but how could they possibly prove such a negative anyway?
If PN7 proves he is someone else that is not QS, you will all just probably think that user is QS too..

I don't pay enough attention to the writing styles of users to have much of an opinion on it other than somewhat trusting the opinions of other users here who do claim to do just that..

This is just entertaining and I don't really care to research their compared linguistics much because I don't think that QS is that high of a risk of scamming in average trades anyway..

Now, hold on.  I think that is an unwarranted conclusion about Lauda; you’re demanding fairness, so please be fair, too!

I will here presume good faith on your part, because I really have not yet reached any conclusion about whether or not you are Quickseller.  If you are not Quickseller, then you are relatively new here; and thus, to adapt something nutildah said, there is much history here which you will not know...


Quickseller is a bad-to-the-bone scammer with just the wrong combination of cunning, deceitfulness, and petty spitefulness.  After he got caught red-handed, he spent years waging a war of ad hominem personal attacks against his perceived enemies—most of all, Lauda.  Oh, and I should mention, he is well-known to use alt accounts for insidious purposes.

I only learned the history of that because I got involved, and spent many hours studying the “drama” you said you avoid.  I did that because I care about the forum.  Since I am presuming good faith on your part, I presume you care about the forum, too—and you must understand, Lauda is just trying to protect the forum.  She is grumpy; but she has spent years doing a thankless job of cracking down on bad characters who will say anything, and do anything, to get away with spamming, scamming, and other wrongdoing.

You may have noticed that far from being driven by personal hate to “refusing to exercise even basic good judgement, or allow for even basic fairness”, Lauda supported Quickseller’s own flag on The-Devil.  She caught much flak for that, because—Quickseller!  I don’t question her objectivity.  I am just a bit mystified because, as I should also mention from my own experience, it is very rare for Lauda to be wrong about something.  I sometimes do question her judgment.  The usual result is to find later that she was deadly accurate—she saw something I didn’t.

Thus far, I find this whole controversy inexplicable.  And I do hope you are not Quickseller; you’ve made good posts, and it would be a shame to find that out.

You know, I am not jumping on the “Why does he not deny it!?” bandwagon; and if you’re innocent, I know it is quite difficult to prove a negative.  But if you want to make this discussion more productive than it has been thus far, then I want to hear you out—and I urge that others should, too.

[1] False logic.. PN7 could be the alt of any other veteran member and know things, even if not drunk like TMAN..

[2] "bad-to-the-bone scammer"?  What did QS ever even scam other than possibly a small % on escrows, depending on how you look at it? It's not like he is some infamous scammer that got away with a bunch of coin or something.. Unless you know something I don't????

[3] Man you talk about lauda an awfull lot..

http://HowManyTimesHasNulliusPostedLaudaToday.tk/ ??

https://i.imgur.com/Q15lGOb.png
lol 68 hits

You obviously have a lot more research to do.. Maybe start with flags..

I also find it very funny that you try to come off as some cypherpunk anonymous anarchistic idealist but can't stop blabbering you unwavering support of the greatest current authoritarian threat who would crush the liberty you portray to protect..
Shit don't add up bro..

So much philosophical pontification!  Unfortunately no level of verbosity can convince me that "forgiveness" "pardon" and "trust" are conflatable.  Any one can singularly exist independent of the others.  You make an articulate argument, but wrong nonetheless.

Apparently it is OK to self escrow funds if amount is under $(insert number).

I don't think "dislike" is proper word. I am not sure why you chose words such as "hate", "dislike" instead "scammer" neither why you are avoiding to answer? Your account raised some suspicion based on circumstances, and if you can see, it is not only one person who think this way, perhaps, instead of this:

https://i.imgur.com/bkAyQQ3.png

https://i.imgur.com/PigX9DT.png

...you should have tried with this:

https://i.imgur.com/3nMU7D9.png

When I “presume good faith”, I think it’s implicit that I am presuming that “PrimeNumber7” is PrimeNumber7 and not otherwise.  It could be far less damning if he were someone else, but that would not exactly be a resounding acquittal his questionable identity!  Anyway, it is irrelevant, for nobody (PN7 or otherwise) has alleged that he is anybody other than either just-himself, or Quickseller.  If you wish to bring such an allegation, please show the evidence.


Thank you.  Quoted for the useful knowledge that you consider stealing a purportedly “small” amount to be no big deal.  It suggests that I should avoid trading with you.

For brevity, I need not reach beyond that point to recount in excruciating detail all the other things Quickseller did wrong.  Suffice it to say, I remember when I first looked on BPIP and saw him competing with several long-ago banned accounts for the ongoing distinction of being the forum’s most-distrusted user, drowning at the bottom of a sea of red.  It is not a distinction earned by being other than a “bad-to-the-bones scammer”.


I know, but I can’t help it:  She cast an evil spell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2975479.0) that makes me do it!

Have you no empathy for my plight as a hapless victim of witchcraft!?


I know whereof you speak.  I agree with Lauda, albeit only moderately so.  I think the whole thing was an unfortunate clusterfork.  Lauda is firmly on my list of inclusions, and will probably there remain unless she shocks me by admitting to popping Quickpills.  Indeed, I lie awake at night wondering, “Why does she not deny it!?”


Oh, please...  What’s next, hyperventilating about “Blockstream Core” as Quickseller was doing at least as recently as I quoted above?

(Otherwise, you seem to understand little about my political opinions; but that’s irrelevant here.)

---

I consider myself to be a philosopher first, and a technologist as a consequence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215927.0).


I realize that I thereby expressed what is likely to be an unpopular opinion.  You have seen that I stick to my principles; and you seem to acknowledge that at least my principles are well-considered, even if allegedly wrong.  Agree to disagree?

I'm not trying to help him. I believe there is some value in being honest and I also believe PN7 can't honestly answer "no" to that question. FWIW I appreciate how hard he's trying to not lie here but that little detail is overshadowed by the entire deceptive sockpuppeting show.

It is obviously not OK to steal anything no matter the amount..
The point was that other reputable escrows, that are still reputable, have self-escrowed exactly the same way QS did..

The difference is that they didn't lie about it, deny it, admitted it was wrong/shady, stopped, and have remained reputable escrow..

It is/was not OK, but not irredeemable in itself, as suchmoon alluded to earlier..

Quoted for trying to make it sound like I condone "scamming/stealing" isn't going to work..



Happens all the time that accounts get slammed with a ton of red trust never having attempted to scam or scammed anything..
Look at TOAA.. What did he ever scam or even try to? Nothing..

When I think “bad-to-the-bones scammer” I think of much more serious and lucrative scams of noteworthiness..

For my part, I care only about the truth of the matter.  Therefore, what bothers me is the possibility that your “also” belief may be incorrect.  If (if) he is not Quickseller, then I am definitely trying to help him!


But what if he is not Quickseller?  His position right now is terrible, and more importantly to me, undeserved.  The flipside of my support for merciless handling of the guilty is that I am very protective of those who may be falsely accused.

I am less interested in looking for clues about a real change of character in Quicksy, and more interested in knowing if PrimeNumber7 is not Quicksy at all.  (And by the way:  If you are so interested in seeking honesty in Quickseller, please advise, has he, “Quickseller”, ever even owned up to any of his past wrongdoing?  Showed even the slightest remorse or regret, other than perhaps a regret that he didn’t get away with it?  No?)

That is why, although I do not want to imply some “he did not deny it!” style argument, I have repeatedly expressed from my first post on this thread that I wish PrimeNumber7 would somehow clear this up.  If he is innocent, I want for him to know that I, for one, will give him a fair hearing and urge others to do the same.

As LoyceV said, an obvious motive for an innocent party to just shut up is a reasonable fear that nobody will actually listen to anything he says—“people won’t believe it”—and moreover, a reasonable fear that anything he says will only be twisted and used against him, because he has been convicted in advance.  It is why the usual (wise) advice for dealing with actual police is to reserve your silence, especially if you have been falsely accused.

I like to think I’m better than that, and that others here are, too.  Perhaps I may be too idealistic?

---

You unreasonably minimized the severity of what Quickseller did with the self-escrow, whilst merrily ignoring all the other untrustworthy things he has done:  Shady account dealing, that reality-inverting dishonest BU shilling I quoted above (I’ve tagged BCH/BSV shills for less!), turning the forum into his personal battleground for extended, remorseless smear-tactic reputational warfare as revenge for his getting caught, etc., ad nauseam.

You continue to do so.

In my book, that is tantamount to condoning it—well, a half-step away.


Thank you for clarifying.  I still agree with what I just wrote.

Actually there is a bit of false equivalence in LoyceV's statement, a rare feat for our resident AI. The possibility that people won't believe a "no" is merely a status quo, no net gain or loss for PN7 as far as I can see. So if that was the truth PN7 should just go ahead and say it.

And yes, I'm aware of the numerous cases where Quickseller applied the same logic and others just laughed at him. There is a bit of a difference here in that unlike Quicksellers cockamamie conspiracy theories, this link between QS and PN7 was independently suspected by multiple users.

So I had to try, he refused to lie, good for him, inconclusive.

Nope... I basically stated that those are the reasons he is in the position he is in actually.. As I have previously in my comments about QS..

I don't want to come off like I'm excusing QuickSeller, but I think LoyceLight makes a very valid point.  I say the following with the assumption (and belief) that PN7 is indeed an alt of QS:

I appreciate that he's not outright lying and saying "no" to your question.  I too value the honesty, and I would like to believe that if he came clean, I would see that as a step towards redemption.  But can I really leave it at that and give him the benefit of the doubt going forward?  I think I know my self well enough to know that I can, but at the same time I'll admit it's easier said than done.  Again I believe in forgiveness, but must remind myself continuously of that belief.

I think if QS comes clean and admits PN7 is his alt, some of us would allow him to continue his effort to build an account with which he can earn some income, and hopefully at the same time we can prevent any effort to build false trust.  I would prefer this scenario over any other.  But, can other members of DT commit to being so restrained?  I fear the answer is no.  Many consider his transgressions as irredeemable, and would only relish in the opportunity to tarnish his alt account.  

Conversely, if PN7 comes out and says that he's not QS' alt, I would not believe him.  In my opinion, his reputation would be tarnished beyond his current status of being not dishonest.

So I tend to agree with LoyceV here.  There's really no wining in this situation.  Our desire to know will not likely be quenched any time soon.  In fact I think it's a bit arrogant to expect that QS/PN7 (the biological) would make his situation worse than it is currently just to satisfy our curiosity.




Of course.  I don't know if it's out of choice or necessity, but it's simultaneously my mantra and my survival mechanism.  I am a conservative in California, after all.  :-\

I'm done here, I know all I need to. That Primenumber7 is his alt. How Do I know? Well, I don't for sure, but I'd be willing to eat dirt if he wasn't. The way he responded in here spoke volumes to me, and probably SM as well...

/Over it, tagging and moving on.... ::)

Up until this very day, his transgressions haven't stop and this includes this very case. Where do you see him asking or being worthy of forgiveness? Fool me once is alright, but fool me > 100 times is what we're playing now? He could/should/would have at the very least stopped what he was doing years ago were there any intent for honesty in him at any point in time. Do you believe people like this change overnight? I really wish he had stopped many years ago, but he didn't..
Would you have forgiven me for this many transgressions? Surely the fuck not. So why are we talking about this?

You were already forgiven long ago.

QS was not !

That's why DireWolfM14 talking makes sense.

No, that is absolute nonsense. You may be talking about a singular error of mine. I'm talking about all my faults so far. I try to correct my faults as soon as they occur, whilst mr. Quicksie aka PN7 never stopped, and has actually increased in intensity over the years. Have I apologized for my errors? Yes, to many people many many times. Has Quickseller apologized to me or anyone else? No, because he is not sorry. So fork off with this hypocritical bullshit.

OK... But what if PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller?

I don’t care about the whole argument over whether Quickseller can be forgiven, or by how much.

I do care about the question of whether an innocent man is being accused here.  I want him to have his say, I am trying to tell him that he can clear this up if it’s just a terrible misunderstanding—and it is not helpful to just repeat the case against Quickseller, which I damn well know.  That may not be the case at all here!

Above, I told PrimeNumber7 that you are rarely mistaken; but “rarely” is not “never”.

---

Symbolism and colour are added with my condolences.

---

Unfortunately, it is not merely the status quo:  To answer a false charge dignifies it with the credibility of needing an answer; and worse, as I mentioned, there is the danger that innocent words may be twisted and misquoted for “proof” of guilt.  For the Americans, “...anything you say can and will be used against you.”

But this is the Bitcoin Forum, not a police station or courtroom.  I will go out on a limb and suggest discounting those factors here.

In so saying, I will speak from experience.  As you may (cough) remember, the anonymous scam_detector initially accused me together with alia.  It was a very bad situation for me:  I was falsely accused; but due to admittedly less-cautious judgment than I usually exercise, I had unknowningly, almost literally fallen into bed with a scammer.  There I was, intimately entangled with a very bad character against whom evidence was rapidly piling up from multiple credible sources—including theymos himself.  I knew that I looked quite guilty.

There was in that case no question of “dignifying” the charge:  It was objectively credible, not proved, but certainly a reasonable suspicion.  So I answered the accusations against me, openly and honestly.  Nobody coerced me to, or could have.  I thought it was the right thing to do.

As a result, a few dozen forum pages later, scam_detector actually apologized to me for having accused me.  I thought that was unnecessary, but I dearly appreciated the courtesy after such a bad day.  He did nothing wrong to me; and moreover, the thoroughness of the investigation had the beneficial side effect of dispelling any suspicions which otherwise may have lingered about me.

Although this is in some degree an apples to oranges comparison of very different situations, it is based on this experience that I don’t think I am too naïve in expecting that people here will be fair.  If PrimeNumber7 is actually innocent, it is to his own benefit to speak up; the problem is to persuade him of that, when it does sound a bit naïve for me to say so.  Of course, if he is actually Quickseller, eh—I probably don’t need to restate my opinion on that point.

---

Well, this is not America, much less an American courtroom—much less an American criminal-law courtroom, where the presumption is innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. “moral certainty”).

I think a reasonable standard is the preponderance of the evidence:  A more or less simple balance scale, where one side need only to weigh at least a bit more than the other.  If you want to think of it in American legal terms, consider it as if you are being sued in civil court on accusation of Quickselliness—or, to the flipside, you are sick and tired of rumours that you are Quickseller, and you are suing for a declaratory judgment clearing your reputation.

An American civil court has no presumption of innocence, although it does, of course, put the initial burden on the plaintiff to bring a prima facie case.  If you want to think of it in those terms, I do suggest as a practical matter that, given that many high-reputation forum members think you’re guilty, you should step up to affirmatively clear your good name.  Although it is very difficult to prove a negative, a “preponderance of the evidence” standard means that for my part, I will be satisfied if you show that you are more probably than not not-Quickseller (with the understanding that moral certainty either way is practically impossible here, and I will also be satisfied of your guilt if others show you are more probably than not Quickseller).


Agreed.  It is zero evidence either way.

---

eddie13, ok, so you did obliquely refer to Quickseller’s longtime disrepution of the forum to make it revolve around his petty spite.

Thanks for raising this quote; I forgot to address it earlier, in and of itself:


That implies that the reason to not do wrong is to avoid negative consequences, rather than because it’s wrong—whereas it’s a “seriously heinous crime” to make yourself trouble by doing bad things.  Although I realize it is a cold reality that many people avoid wrongdoing only to avoid the consequences (wherefore “deterrence”), it is an exceedingly low standard.  Please recalibrate your moral compass.

---

Thanks for admitting in substantial essence that the hate-Lauda crowd hates Lauda for the sake of hating Lauda, and not because of any past transgressions (real and/or imaginary) which were all “forgiven”.

No surprise to me.


Whilst I do agree with this, my cat sense is almost as certain if not more certain than it was with the hacked VIP account case. How many people were protesting me going after him? Was I right in the end? I strongly condemn the actions and statements of many individuals involved in this thread.

Then I would be mistaken with my negative, would apologize and remove it. Errāre catum est. However, have you considered what if he is Quickseller and it ends up another case which could have trivially been prevented? Looks like little thought is given to past and potential future victims. Have you forgotten how many unjustified attacks were launched just because of his spite, against others and against me? Don't be this naive, this is exactly from his playbook. If we had a scoreboard on likely hood of someone being mr. Snowflake/Quicksie then this PN7 user would nearly maximize the score without even involving himself in reputation discussion (precisely because he would be expose himself even more quickly).
Did you also get tainted by this new-wave of apologist pretend-liberals around here (pretend, exactly because of these double-standards)? ::)

Your uncanny cat sense has done much good, but it is not in itself evidence as the basis for me to make up my own mind; and your admittedly incisive past performance is no guarantee that you are right in this particular case, where the case against PN7 looks quite blurry to me.


Well, to reach that point, we need to examine the case carefully—and most preferably, give a fair hearing to whatever PrimeNumber7 may have to say for himself.  That last bit requires actually persuading him that he will get a fair hearing—which I will give him, and I am actively urging others including you to do, too.  The grumpy kitty speaking dog Latin is not helpful on that particular point.


Does not logically answer the question, what if he is not Quickseller?


As I have said repeatedly, avoiding this discussion is also what an innocent person would probably do unless we show him that he will not be shooting himself in the foot by speaking up.  Sigh.


If you think that real, non-pretend liberalism itself is about anything but arbitrary whimsical non-standards that please the emotions of overgrown children, then it is you who may want to get a blood test/rootkit scan for liberal memes.  That malware is infectious.

---

After so much back and forth, I think it’s clear, at least, where people stand on this—well, except for the star of the show.

PrimeNumber7, if you can tell us something useful for clearing this up, please don’t let the grumpy kitty scare you off.  Hey, you might also get grumpy after years of having had every possible type of b.s. thrown at you by pathological liars.  I don’t think her argument is helpful here; sorry.  But it is also not helpful for you to avoid the discussion (much though I agree that silence is not evidence either way).  Help yourself.

I can assume he's still engaging account sales, but I haven't seen significant proof of that.  I don't think account farming is as profitable or as simple anymore.  Look at the effort he put into PN7 to developed that account, it would be impractical to believe he could do that on a grand scale.  Even developing two accounts simultaneously would be difficult, or at the very least time consuming.  The self escrow thing isn't likely to happen again, I can't imagine anyone trusting CS (or PN7) for escrow services.

So the only transgression I assume he may be engaging in is account sales.  However, I don't believe that my assumptions should get in the way of PN7's ability to engage in signature bounties.  That's really the only lea-way I'm offering him.  I'm not suggesting "forgiveness" equate to DT inclusions or trusted trading.  Quite the contrary.

And when I really boil it down, all of this stems from our assumptions.  Sure we all came to the same conclusions independently, which is telling, but even a collective assumption doesn't equate to solid evidence.  As a result I'm willing to allow some lea way because their is a shred of doubt that I cannot ignore.

It's ultimately up to the campaign managers and we know that Quicksy can produce quality content when he's not fighting windmills, so if someone wants to hire a red-trusted Quicksy's alt - there is nothing to stop them. Except maybe the tantrums that ensue when he gets fired.

This - very much so, QS is entertaining and an intelligent poster when he wants to be, I actually enjoy reading some of his posts when his nickers aren't in a twist or he isn't rowing with someone (lauda)

When you say (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216961.msg53618637#msg53618637) that staying silent is a reason to tag someone, and that you "know" someone is guilty, but need them to admit to their guilt to avoid getting tagged, you are showing poor judgment and a lack of fairness. There is empirical evidence that Lauda hates QS. I will give you that I don't *know* the lack of fairness and poor judgment is caused by the hatred of QS, but the only alternative is a lack of fairness and poor judgement in all cases.

I chose those specific words intentionally and carefully. A criminal, suspected or otherwise, is given the opportunity to see, and refute if s/he chooses evidence against him/her. This is not what is happening here.

What Owlcatz posted is at least honest:
The rating Owlcatz left is even more ridiculous, it accuses me of cheating my way onto DT, of being "butt-budd[ies]" with Trump, and of Trump cheating his way onto DT. It ends with a "fuck you QS." I have shown --nor do I have -- any interest of being on DT in large part because of my desire to avoid forum related drama. I have never met Trump, and probably never will, but he is my President, as he is the President of all of the United States.

Courts do not care about what any witness thinks is true. A court will only consider what a witness *knows* to be true, and the witness must explain how s/he knows a fact to be true.

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense. As mentioned in my first post in this thread, "Asking someone to respond to evidence they have not seen is almost always going to end up making the person responding look dishonest or deceitful because they cannot speak to the specifics of the evidence but would be judged as if they knew and understood the evidence". It is clear to me this has been spread by Suchmoon since mid May (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-18_Sat_06.23h/2561166.html), this included by a trust exclusion and a neutral rating (I don't remember which one came first). This happened to be within a few weeks of getting a rule prohibiting the sale of KYC verified accounts without explaining how they are not hacked enforced (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136289.0). It has long been my presumption the rating was in response to my weeding out this particular type of fraud in the marketplace as a form of retaliation.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253


Solid evidence of an utter lack of evidence but I'm fine with applying the same standard to your sockpuppeting. Are you ok with that?

although i am loathe to get involved in this kind of forum drama, i feel it's necessary to point out the apparent weakness of that "evidence": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53658861#msg53658861

i'm disappointed in the bad judgment exhibited here and in that thread. the fact that people are tagging PrimeNumber7 on the basis of such non-evidence is disappointing.

i've always had a low opinion of the default trust system and its politics. somehow you guys have managed to lower it even more.

I also think tagging people based on circumstantial evidence is no no no (at least I don't remember tagging someone because of that), however, that won't change many opinions about account.

Quickseller for obvious and known reasons didn't miss this thread, and as it was pointed in other thread that they both post in the same forum boards and never merited each other, I think quickseller should send few merits to PrimeNumber7 for being good poster with 443 earned merits.

Quickseller, please send few merits to PrimeNumber7.

I was tempted to recommend PrimeNumber7 in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124376.0) but unfortunately he locked it before I got a chance to do it.

That is because they pick a target then arrange the "evidence" around them, AKA confirmation bias. This is just a convenient methodology to target people they have disputes with using the plausible deniability of "scambusting". They do it over and over again. Some one criticizes them or one of their buddies, suddenly they are all digging through all of their shit looking for anything they can manipulate to cast them in a bad light in retribution for daring to criticize one of the chosen.

Account selling would certainly be profitable and likely actually very lucrative, but I don't think this is what he's doing because it's far too much time and effort to involve yourself in and all it takes is the account sale to go bad or someone finds out that the account was sold and then bye-bye account and months upon months of your time has been wasted and for what? A thousand dollars or however much accounts are going for. I suspect QS just wants another account not related to him to earn from it in whatever ways he can and build up a bit of trust, and also if you're lucky enough to get one on Chipmixer then you can earn that 1k a month from as long as you're on there which would obviously be very lucrative to anyone.


I'm sure many wouldn't care but all it takes is the one or two that do to ruin his rep beyond all repair so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't and QS is smart enough to know this. If he admits the account is his then he's lost the game as all doubt would be removed and those who want to get one-up on him would surely pounce on that. If he says no then people will accuse him of lying and claim therefore he is not to be trusted and tag him for that so he can't really win. In this situation there's nothing really QS can say to try prove otherwise so it's wise for him to ignore this really even if some others will make their mind up based on that, but again, it's lose-lose.

I've given this a great deal of thought, considered the possibilities and their related probabilities:

• Case 1: They are alts, and he's trying to correct his ways - I will not damage his attempt.
• Case 2: They are not alts - I do not want to damage PN7.

Which case is the correct one, I do not know. I think he is not proved innocent and not proved guilty. I believe this does not require a long explanation, and will not give one publicly either. Therefore, hereby, I retract my rating.

If you indeed aren't alts, I am sorry PN7.

Signed,
Queen of Cats (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098579.0).

Quoted for reference.. I don't know what the fuck is going on right now but I like it - QS and the cat are having an online romantic get together... tinfoil hat "they have a common enemy and are about to fight a much darker force as the new QSCAT team"

It just looks to me like Lauda being logical.  Why risk damage to either of the two good outcomes she stated?  If there is any bad new development in the future, eh—I do not think she is running short on red paint.

With due apologies for being such a robot.

/me hands TMAN another drink

Since Lauda got rid of the "Grumpy Kitty" custom title (s)he almost looks like Switzerland nowadays! Needless to say: I like it :)

I sent you a message early this morning thanking you for this, and I also wanted to publicly thank you for this. I appreciate that you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt.