Bitcoin Forum

I have just seen this thread and discovered Bruno is alive and kicking.  That can only mean he scammed me when I donated personal funds (and Known Alts funds) to his "Plead" to cover funeral costs.

If Bruno is not dead then the funds were taken under false pretences.

Known alts of Bruno (there could be more):

Phinnaeus Gage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24792)  -  Flag:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1911 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1911)

Gleb Gamow (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=349097)  -  Flag:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1912 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1912)

YuTü.Co.in (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=408246)  -  Flag:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1913 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1913)

Bitcoin 100 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=47977)  -  Flag:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1915 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1915)

I will support these flags as I have given some funds (not a lot, but it is the principle).
I have also worn the signature asking for more donations.
What a waste! hopefully someone finds the truth.

What evidence have you that Bruno is indeed alive and that it is not merely the case the Phinnaeus Gage account has been hacked? ???

Does it change anything ?
The flags are against the "account ID".

Even if the man is really dead (RIP), and his accounts have been hacked, A flag of some sort is still valid, no ?
Or does it just warry a neg  trust feedback ?

If Bruno is alive, this flags are okay but if he is not alive, I think flag created on Gleb and Yutu.co.in is not a good idea. I will now support only the flag on Gage. If he is not alive, Gage account has nothing to do with other accounts.

Not if only one of the accounts have been hacked, and not the others. There is no evidence that Gleb Gamow or YuTü.Co.in are compromised.

What evidence do you have that the account is NOT hacked?

QED.

It's a circular argument - neither of us can prove what we are saying is correct.  I note you have given the UID negative trust feedback AND on https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx you are now distrusting Bruno.

The Flag is a further warning to *not* trust* any links / wallet addresses "Bruno" may post from now on.

Support or don't, it matters not.

Um, yes, that is the gist of what I was asking. Are you going to produce evidence for your claim or not?

Funeral homes don't often publish obituaries (https://www.boersmafuneralhome.com/obituary/Bruno-KucinskasJr) of people who are still alive.

The address Bruno solicited donations for his 'dying wish' to, was not a new address. For what it's worth. Makes it more likely that at least until this point it was the real Bruno you were dealing with.

If I was a harmed party in this transaction I would show my support in the flags. Either way, the accounts are not to be trusted. Even if Bruno did not lie, then his accounts were compromised. So it's good to tag the accounts IMO.

Just found this Account Bitcoin 100 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=47977)  and looks like its maybe another Alt Account of Bruno , maybe !


Dont know if that is one of his other Accounts but it has the same tagg in the post as others .

So "Bruno" claims to be in Hospital in late May 2020 using an image dated December 2019 (month before day in the USA)

(See top right of image one and lower left of image one)

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob19fb8c7b937637e5.jpeg

and you never thought to phone the Spring Valley Hospital in Las Vegas and ask to speak to "Bruno"??

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob1f7a698c029137c6.jpeg

(Might want to ask "Cherie, Steph or Debbie" what they know)

---

---

@theymos - If Bitcoin 100 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=47977) has been banned since 2018, then that means Bruno is/was guilty of ban evasion (assuming Bitcoin 100 really is an alt of Bruno)

Which could explain why Bruno allegedly sold one of his accounts (Gleb Gamow (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=349097)) to suchmoon one month after the UID Bitcoin 100 was banned.

---

---

Bitcoin 100's last post (in 2012) - Archive [1a (https://archive.vn/SDmQG)], [1b (https://web.archive.org/web/20200526050358/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130490.msg1396630)]

---

---

Example of Phinnaeus Gage signing as ~Bruno K~ - Archive [2a (https://archive.vn/D0ldS#selection-641.0-580.35)]. [2b (https://web.archive.org/web/20200526050954/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118787.msg1338201)]

---

---

And Bitcoin 100's very first post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15911.msg650270#msg650270 - Archive [3a (https://archive.vn/xpSCg#selection-2763.0-2763.24)], [3b]

 Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?)
15 December 2011, 03:26:41

---

---

Given I consider Bitcoin 100 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=47977) to be an alt of Bruno (and ban evasion) I am starting a Flag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1915) against that UID.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1915

That person is almost certainly not Bruno and there is no evidence that they control any of Bruno's other accounts.

Foxpup is correct @Timelord. The only account that should possibly be tagged or flagged here would be the account that was posting yesterday. Until/unless the other accounts make a post, there is no reason to flag them.

I wonder if it is confirmed Bruno is 100% gone, theymos might consider locking all his accounts?

Yeb i agree with yahoo62278 and Foxpup also that normaly only the Account should be tagged that was posting or is posting.
If the other Accounts start posting too you can tagg them at this point .

I know that Cyrus already have taken away the Vip Rank from the posting Account but dont know if its already locked .

Do you agree that Bitcoin 100 is an alt of Bruno/Phinnaeus Gage given the evidence in my previous post?


Thanks for your impending support - the flag can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1911

This is very hasty. You don't even know for sure that the funds did not end up in the hands of the family. And your flag is based on incorrect premises:


No, you didn't "discover" he was "alive and kicking."


No, that's not what that means, at all.


That's a big impossible IF. Given the various obituaries and public outpourings of grief by his family members on social media, I would say he most certainly is dead.

What's funny is I explicitly told you that sending your Known Alts donations funds was NOT a good idea (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5239973.msg54239314#msg54239314), but you did it anyway. Now you opened a bullshit flag over it. You have an astounding ability to overlook reason and common sense to make the most unreasonable of connections.

You even still have "Probably Bruno" written as a neutral feedback in cryptohunter's trust history (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=92110).

Phinnaeus Gage needs a flag on his account but this isn't the proper way to do it. I was going to oppose it but I changed my mind, seeing as how it would be a shame if anybody actually donated to the hacker's address.

I have opened a Type 1 flag on his account which is based on Hakorede's thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1916

You scammed yourself. A fool and his money are easily parted. Several people told you not to send the money but you did it anyway. Even if it was Bruno that posted that address you didn't know whether anyone had access to it so it was stupid to do so.


What's the earliest instance of him using it? He could have sold his account and any addresses with it. It seems a bit suspicious that the funds move two days ago and then he resurrects from the dead today. The original donation thread used old photos and as I said back then it could have been someone trying to imitate him using photos he sent them to them for whatever reason.

Proof, or it never happened.


I was guided by the voters who overwhelmingly voted to use the funds in that way.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobb473511625bc7d38.jpeg 

Not even @marlboroza objected. (or @hilariousetc for that matter)  ::)


Perhaps, but no one else has stepped up to the crease to field that one.

---

---

Correction: You DID oppose it, then removed your opposition.

https://bpip.org/flag.aspx?id=1911

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob4100887173a16a62.jpeg

Lying piece of shit.

I don't think its appropriate to be posting links to his family's social media profiles here, or even their names. You're such a talented investigator that surely you could find them yourself.

I support the flag for the @Bruno account...!

How could this happen to the @Bruno account, after @theymos changed @Bruno to VIP status, this really can't be trusted.
And what about the donations that have been made by the bitcointalk community to @Bruno a few days ago, what is on target or vice versa.

I started to not believe anymore if someone died here and cried asking for donations. Lol

---

This is very silly and stupid, @Phinnaeus Gage say this, stupid, stupid.

If people voted overwhelmingly for you to jump off a cliff would you do it?


Wut? Not objected to what? I voted absolutely not and told you several times why it was a stupid idea.


You should be cautious or weary of these sorts of things, especially without any sort of verifiable proof. As I said before, being ill or dying are effective as scams because they prey on peoples emotions and people generally want to do a good thing.

Gleb Gamow account has not been compromised. Whether it's a hacker or Bruno himself rising from the dead - they won't have access to that account.

What would you do if someone came on and said they were Bruno, could prove word-for-word every conversation / provide every BTC TX signed messages from every BTC wallet address you could think of etc etc etc and asked you to hand back ownership of the Gleb Gamow account?

How can we be sure about that? Coins were moved out of Bruno's addresses after his mortuary was posted and not long after that someone posts from his main account.
If another person that compromised the accounts has access to so much, then it's likely a full compromise and other accounts aren't to be trusted also.

Thanks for your support alani123, my other flags can be found here (https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?accuser=Timelord2067).  I just read in the other thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251076.0) a suggestion Bruno's mobile phone may have been on-sold and someone is Pawning the Forum.

As far as conspiracies go it's a pretty good theory.

Personally I wouldn't be too hard on Timelord2067, as he was trying to do a good thing for someone and he didn't get scammed because he got greedy (which is how a lot of people get scammed).  On the other hand, I never would have donated bitcoin to a dying person for burial costs, as that's something I think is a scam in itself.  What becomes of someone's mortal remains is a trivial matter to me, and science can have my body when I'm done with it for all I care.

But what a nuckin' frightmare this is turning out to be in any case.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.  Even given how popular Bruno was, the donation idea was not a good one.

I personally secured that account with a strong password so I'm very sure.


All you need to know is that the account hasn't been handed over to anybody so remove the frivolous flag and stop making shit up.

I myself is leaning more towards that his account is also sold rather him being alive and kicking. The selfie he sent as a proof of life barely looks like him and his reasoning about the money donated for him for his medication is really out of his main goal which was covering all the funeral expense he is asking for donations in the first place, he didn't talk about any him fighting his sickness so I really wonder who is using all of his account. Probably a close relative have managed to know all of his passwords after he passed away?

Probably a close relative would have come here to say "Thank you all for donations", you know...

Oh, I must've missed that. I'd personally trust your word for it.
And I assume you're implying here that Gleb wasn't given access to the password?

No, and you can see that the account hasn't been touched in two years. I any of that changes I will make sure to announce it publicly as the whole point of me holding the account was to make sure it's not misused (it was in DT2 at the time). But I kinda doubt that Bruno - awesome as he was - will be able to pull a Jesus here and come back from the dead.

The OP knows the situation with Gleb Gamow (see his feedback ratings on the account) so there was no reason whatsoever for that flag.

at a glance seen from: ( Phinnaeus Gage (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Phinnaeus+Gage)[Bpip] ), Since @Bruno was declared dead, no changes have occurred with the @Phinnaeus Gage account, except in 2018, changing passwords and e-mails, currently there has been no change.

If @Bruno really died and the account is managed by his family, it is very clear that his relatives and family want to try their luck (donations) twice, it is a big mistake if done by family and relatives, want to cheat, want the help of Bitcoin donated by others, without difficulty working, only capital post covid-19 donations in the forum get money, great, why not everyone in this forum just ask for donations, because people in this forum are very generous, Can not see other people suffering and distress. very funny.

---

Yes, you are telling the truth, everyone including me personally, must be very careful and if someone who is sick, dies coming to the forum requires donations, which leads to fraud.

Change the OP to reflect what you can corroborate with strong evidence or conclusive proof.
There is absolutely no way Bruno would be a scammer.
If the account was/is under the control of someone else that if fine flag it until we get it sorted.

There is no evidence to say Bruno himself scammed you. Best not to claim that or even imply it.

Flagging the account is fine. Better to wait for some more investigative work before bruno is a scammer.

How hard can it be to confirm someone died?

Bruno would have found out and posted conclusive proof by now.

I

If Gleb Gamow account was held by you why there was a thread about both his accounts having a VIP tag as the real user was not even holding the Gleb Gamow account. I have seen you confirming that you are holding the account for a long time but why the VIP tag when the real owner was not holding the account.

Bruno might not have pulled the Jesus stunt but just like you have possession of Gleb Gamow account what is the certainty that Bruno did held the Phinnaeus Gage account ::) .

If a close relative knew his account details there is nothing wrong in explaining that but that is not what happened. As you said there is no certainty that Bruno held Phinnaeus Gage account while his known alt was held by Suchmoon and who knows who was holding Gage account.

I'm just opening up in several possibilities here, it might not be a close relative but someone who is close with Bruno so close that he/she is trying to impersonate him and trying to make him look alive. As we can all see his passworld and email remain unchanged so really Bruno might just have gave his account and email to someone close to him. But my point really is this guy using Bruno's account is an impersonator and is trying to scam people thinking that he is alive and well.

I will respond to everyone's comments later today - I've got other IRL stuff that needs doing first.

If anyone does have the ear of @theymos, perhaps you can whisper in their ear that I have a thread here: [BitCoinTalk][COVID-19] Grim Reality (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5233954.0) warning of accounts being hijacked after a person has died.  If theymos is reading this, can I suggest that any account that's confirmed, or at least suspected of having died have their password changed with a 20+ random string of characters and their email details removed (but recorded for confirmation) so that anyone who tries to hack in is unable to do so.

Thanks.

Wait, these accounts are not locked down when made "in memoriam"?

Well that seems like a pretty amateur oversight.

The special title and VIP status were given to Bruno's accounts as a one off. It's not part of a bitcointalk policy AFAIK.
Most websites don't have a plan set in stone for when a person behind an account dies. Let alone bitcointalk, where most users are pseudonymous and don't connect their IRL self with their forum handle.
But my view is that it makes more sense to leave the account untouched after the person's death other than lock it. The deceased might have had plans for the account that were not announced to the admins anyway so why hinder that possibility. 

I seem to remember a post now that if the account started posting it would be stripped of the VIP or some such thing, It just seems to make sense to lock a account that has been memorialized. Someone could hack it and then go and edit all the posts otherwise. I'm pretty sure Satochi's account is locked so it is an option.

I think we are being punked.

Phinnaeus Gage account is clearly hacked or overtaken or the F. This is clear that Bruno died (RIP brother) and this MF whoever he is, now in control of this account. I already left a neg to this account with my statement but I can not support this flag on Phinnaeus Gage account.
It says:
The real Bruno never did that to us. Supporting this flag for me is hurting the real Bruno. Sorry, I can not do that. The wording of this flag really do not go in a way to oppose it too.

P.S: I have opposed flag for Gleb Gamow, YuTü.Co.in since there are no evidence that those accounts are compromised. I have do not have much idea about this Bitcoin 100 account so no comment for it.

I think you should support the flag on Phinnaeus Gage account. Flag has been created so that the account can't scam anyone and other user can see what's wrong with the account.
Since Bruno is dead, you are supporting flag against the account owner, I uunderstand your point although.

Support Nutildah's flag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=24792

Thank you for your comment @Pffrt - I'm not sure how we can convince BitcoinGirl.Club as the evidence is very clear: The scammer has control of the funds as well as the account.  Those funds have not been used as intended to cover funeral/transportation expenses.

It saddens me to say that @Hueristic is Trolling this tread trying to entice people to support a near identical thread while being indecisive in neither supporting nore opposing this Flag.


Bitcoin 100 has been identified as an alt of Bruno and has been discussed already.

Sorry Timelord2067 and Pffrt. I really want to protect Bruno's intellectual asset but not this way which interprets wrong to me. I just can't make up my mind. But nutildah's flag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1916) looks better and the reference is also somehow excusable. I supported nutildah's flag and I want to move on that way brothers.

I will wish theymos to lock his account so that no other shithead get access of any of his account unless anyone proves that they are from family and possible next of kin.

Maybe you need to understand what the term "mutually exclusive" means as they are not.

Enlighten me.

One "can" be a subset of the other.

So who has the most to gain from destroying Bruno's reputation?

I have no clue but its pretty fucking shitty.

We all agree on that, so let's not bicker splitting infinitives.

At this point, given the Bruno Hacker has knowledge of BCT and Bitcoins, who's writing style does the hacker remind you of?

Where did the donated funds for the Plead go to nearly a week ago?

/Enlighten me

You don't know??  The thread you posted a link here doesn't know either?  Goodness gracious me oh my (https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/Bm/george-takei)!

---

---

Getting back to reality though, what efforts have you made to track the bitcoins that have been stolen?

You can't donate to a man on his death bed and call them stolen. Besides nutildah claimed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236380.msg54211789#msg54211789) and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236380.msg54218801#msg54218801) that they had some sort of higher knowledge and assured everyone that a relative would receive the funds.
Hopefully it was actually Bruno speaking with nutildah and not the hacker/compromised account pegging them as an easy mark for their upcoming bitcoin100 scam attempt.

TECSHARE has provided sufficient proof that everyone should believe Bruno has passed on. Bruno stated he had to dictate his posts through a voice to text generator.. do you really think he would be able to get onto an exchange, 2FA, password, email confirmation and everything else involved with trading BTC to USD and then log into his bank account and accept a deposit.. all with Google Voice to Text? There should have been a trustworthy intermediary that was dealing with this, not a severely disabled man nearing certain death. Any coin sent should have been considered burned, not once did Bruno say that family had access to his keys.
Luckily somebody did and lets hope that this somebody wasn't the same person involved with the post mortem scam attempt otherwise the funds probably weren't used for the reason they were donated.

The flags only serve to show that nobody should be dealing with these accounts as there is a bad actor on the other end of the Phinnaeus Gage account/mobile now.

Stolen... by whom?  A scammer?  The scammer has no right to them, don't you think?


Would that be the same Tecshare that I just caught out lying in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247427.msg54514588#msg54514588)?

No one's thought to phone Bruno's number to find out who answers the phone?


That much is true.  I'm looking forward to you supporting the Flag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1911).

Ask nutildah.

There was no written contract. You donated to a man that could have died minutes after posting with no proof that anyone else in this world had access to the private keys. Due to your negligence in not confirming this you should have considered these coins burnt. I have however supported the other flag against the account as it is the proper flag type. Your reference is to a link that claims he is alive and kicking.. which I do not believe as I have no reason to doubt multiple obituaries and TECSHARE's claim to have phoned the funeral home (A post from a compromised bitcointalk account is not proof of life).

Thanks for feeling the need to strikethrough the s in my "flags" post. There is actually two flags so you're immediately wrong there and shouldn't be changing the text in my quote to something that is easily proven false.
FLAGS:
Yours (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1911) - not correct format
Not yours (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1916) - the correct format and I have supported it

From what I've seen you're actually quite an investigator and I'm very surprised you were caught with your pants down on this one. Unfortunate really. To be fair I voted No in your poll whether funds from the alt thread should be donated.

Let him come here.


Thanks, but what was my end-game?


But didn't feel the need to voice an opinion to save the Known Alts donation funds from oblivion.  I appreciate you sharing your thoughts in this thread.

---

---

(and it's one flag - against Phinnaeus Gage as the other three that I created don't have the necessary support to become active, hence Flag singular)

Because that helps hey?



My whole statement was about the Phinnaeus Gage account in general as it is the only one with activity post mortem. Two flags currently (hence Flag plurality). Your OP should be updated to include the more proper flag and include the link to the one started by nutildah. Probably also shouldn't be editing others' quotes without understanding the world doesn't revolve around just you.

Not withstanding there are actually three flags just against Phinnaeus Gage [Link (https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?accused=Phinnaeus%20Gage&status=inactive)] [Link (https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?accused=Phinnaeus%20Gage&status=active)] AFAIK there are no other Flags other than the (so far) four I have created that link to this thread.  

The rules on Flag creation are quite specific - You can't have duplicate flags for the same occurrence - same goes for a thread being locked invalidates a flag.  I'm sure @theymos can confirm that one for you.  This thread is to discuss the four flags that I created, not to give running commentary on other flags in other threads.  You seem to be fence sitting on these four flags.

Not at all Timelord2067, I believe that in your Flag against the Phinnaeus Gage account that each supporter may have also been a donator and each feels they entered into some sort of agreement whilst donating, hence your use of a written contract would be correct for these supporters (even though he jokingly called it his final exit scam which it very well could have ended up being). I did not donate and I feel no need to support it as my funds are safu for a properly done donation thread in these sorts of cases. If I opposed it then I feel I would be taking away from these donator/supporters that feel they were wronged so I will not be doing that either to honor their voices on the matter.

Your other three flags for his known alts have insufficient support as other DT1 members have opposed them and that is the joy of having 100 DT1 members, not every single one needs to come to the table and put their name down on every single flag. Its more of a collective effort to shut down flags that are improperly set out and as they have and will remain with insufficient support I feel fine not also opposing them. If this changes in the future then I may very well add my name to support the opposition due to the improper type/reference.

Nutildah's flag was posted after yours and it links to a more appropriate thread with information on the flagged subject.. instead you wanted some sort of hero cookie and linked yours back to this shitbag/low quality thread with close to zero actual information in it. Fail on your part. You could have made your reference link the archived page of the [Plead] agreement but ya know.. maybe daddy @theymos can give you some tips.

Its alright to feel jaded that you made the wrong decision with the funds that were in your possession and I truly am sorry that nobody did their due diligence beforehand to make sure this money actually got to somebody that could provide us with complete proof that it was used for its intended purpose.

In my experience with death or jailed members of the bitcoin community there has always been a foundation or someone close to the family that ensures the funds get to where they need to be. NOTHING about how this [Plead] thread played out instilled any confidence in someone that could look a little further past blind compassion and/or pity.

RIP Bruno. Fuck whoever is in control of the account now. This is my last response here as I've said all I have to say.

Nice deflection.  Nothing responded to.

The real Bruno did sell his accounts whilst he was alive though, so he certainly would do it if he knew he was dying. Now, the question is did he sell or give away the account or has his next of kin recovered it as someone else suggested in the other thread that was just locked. I find his next of kin deciding to post a scam here less plausible and the more likely scenario is he gave it to someone who he was in contact with behind the scenes.


An unscrupulous individual. That's what scammers do. Some of them will steal money from the dying and needy. They don't care and have no morals, so taking over a dead man's account is probably nothing to them and ruining someone's reputation will be irrelevant.


I would take anything Nutlidah says with a pinch of salt as he's obviously bias and can't look at this situation objectively. You've got to be pretty gullible/niave to think all it takes to prove someones death is an online obituary that anyone can make for anybody. I think the most likely scenario is Bruno probably sold or gave away the account to someone he talked to privately. Either that or his next of kin recovered his funds and account which would make them an utter scumbag. Which is the most likely though? A scumbag family member or an opportunistic scammer who managed to get the account from Bruno before he died?


Assuming that it was Bruno who made that original post. That could have been the scammer for all we know. The pictures he used were old.

I believe that its purpose is not to destroy the reputation of Bruno. It is simply a scam to earn some other money in this difficult time. And this fraudulent intent destroys accidentally Bruno's reputation. The crook doesn't mind if he destroys someone's reputation. I see too much speculation around here. So my question is if Bruno decides to sell his account? Will he sell all or just this? Has his other accounts started working yet? Phinnaeus Gage is the most valuable, but the other accounts are also valuable, I think he will also sell them  8) Right?

Since you won't let it be I feel compelled to respond. You can't make an obituary for "anybody" -- the obituary isn't published until a death certificate has been requested by the funeral home (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-get-death-certificate.html), which in this case is Boersma Funeral Home (https://www.boersmafuneralhome.com/obituary/Bruno-KucinskasJr).  Obituaries aren't added to more general sites like Everhere (https://www.everhere.com/us/obituaries/edit/10682556) until it has already been published by a funeral home elsewhere. I don't understand why you would call me "naive" when its obvious you didn't do the slightest bit of research on this issue.

Except I did do the slightest bit of research, at least to the extent that I went through Everhere's listing process myself. Anyone can seemingly create a listing there without legal verification. The only time I saw you needed to verify the death was if you were collecting donations.

Whilst you're here, do you know if Bruno's family were able to retrieve his coins from his wallet? That would at least cross off one possibility on what happened to his account/funds.

I called the funeral home to confirm he passed, which I looked up independently of the listing just to be sure. Are you suggesting that they made up a fake funeral home complete with a manned phone and or the funeral home is in on it? That is the only way that would happen.

The creation of Bruno's obituary on Everhere was automated and taken from data provided by the Boersma funeral home, who did file and receive a copy of his death certificate. This should be evident based on the first line of the obituary:


It just happened to appear in the search results ahead of the Boersma one, which is why I grabbed it first. A few posts later ibminer posted the Boersma one, which should have been good enough for any unbiased person to conclude for certain that he was deceased.

I tried to create an obituary there to test out what you said and upon completion it was met with this message:


So practically you should apply as much rigor to your theory about not knowing the truth about something without firm evidence that you did with Bruno's death as you would to understanding how the obituary creation process works.

For whatever reason you are continuing to overlook common sense in order to pursue a long-standing grudge against a now deceased individual. As a moderator you should be able to be a bit more objective in your approach to these issues, even if you are writing about it from your shitposting account.


I don't know for sure if his family collected the funds from his account, they never got back to me about that, and it's not my place to pry any further.

Excuse me, can you tell me why you doubt Bruno's death? We can completely find out information about the disease he is suffering from. It seems that there is no cure for it, sooner or later, he will die for it. So why be suspicious? I believe he really died with those obituaries. Bruno may have some bad points, but if he's really dead, we just need to ignore those bad things, right? And now, the best solution is to lock his accounts. Avoid abuse from anyone. We're done here, why do we have to argue about what happened? We have accepted donations before, now just ignore it, don't argue about it.  ::) Come on, don't argue over it  ::)

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.


Well there you go. It's seemingly quite easy to fake an account on there, and that's all my concern ever was and that we shouldn't be merely accepting them as absolute proof of death.


It's common sense to not just blindly believe something that can easily be faked or hasn't been verified. And I don't have a grudge. My concern was always about the damage that could or was being done with his account. You even used the fact that the account hadn't posted in weeks as 'proof' that he was dead but Bruno's account is still alive and kicking regardless of whether he is or not. I mean, I'd love to never mention him or his account(s) again but if they keep popping up trying to scam people then it's going to be a little hard to ignore.


That's not what we're arguing here. This is a thread about Bruno's account(s) being used to scam. The discussion above isn't about whether he's deceased or not but whether an online obituary that seemingly anyone can create is sufficient proof or not.

"Having a fake account on there" has nothing to do with anything. None of this matters because the obituary from the funeral home (which the Everhere one grabbed its data from to generate its generic, form letter-type obituary) couldn't be published without a death certificate in hand. Obtaining a death certificate is part of the legal obligations of the funeral home (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/home-funeral-laws.html).



It's also common sense to have an inkling of what you are talking about before you start talking. The process can't "easily be faked" and it has been verified. You are still choosing to employ a ridiculous standard for "verification" in order to avoid having to admit you've been wrong on this issue since April.


Given your attitude toward him in the past and your persistent pushing of baseless conspiracies damaging to his reputation I find this hard to believe.


Now you have taken to straight up lying. This is what I actually said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5239973.msg54241841#msg54241841). I didn't say it was proof of anything -- I said its all you could go by to see if anyone had access to his account or not. I never thought for a second there wasn't a chance his account could be reactivated.


Then don't. Nobody asked for your opinion in the first place.


It's what you've clearly suggested several times based on nothing but rather insidious-minded speculation. I get it -- you always assume the worst in people. That's fine. Its your outlook on life, but we don't all have to share it, and it certainly doesn't aid you in navigating what is "common sense" and what isn't.

Have the last word if you must. I'm out.

Ignore the everhere site. It doesn't matter. It's an aggregator site like many others. The funeral home obit (https://www.boersmafuneralhome.com/obituary/Bruno-KucinskasJr) is the original and it's extremely unlikely to be fake. Can we let this go now.

The question here is why does someone have to create a fake obituary? I don't see any effect when someone fakes it  ::) I suppose this obituary is fake, then everyone  believe that Bruno died. As soon as Bruno's account was active and posting, people reacted violently to it. What are the benefits of fake obituary? Who will benefit from counterfeiting it? Nobody, I just see the disadvantage here, so I suppose no one tries to fake it without any benefit, am I wrong?

No ChuckBuck, you just got hilariousetc wrong. If the death certificate is fake, someone is taking advantages here. Why would someone would fake his death? If it's fake, it means Bruno's previous thread was also kind of fake, to get donated some money.
I don't think Bruno's death is fake although.

I have made zero effort to do any investigation into this, all I have noticed is unsubstantiated opinions being put forward as facts and have noticed you paramount in spewing those forth.

So why don't you try putting all your comments into a post with proper supporting evidence and then maybe your posts will receive the respect you think they deserve. Until then they will be ignored as the rant that they are.

Hence your sustained criticism.


As the creator of the Flag, that's my job.


You're a mind-reader now?


But not by you as you continue to reply.  Time to come down off of that fence.

Its not a fence and I am just pointing out you are spouting off opinions as if they are facts (and creating conclusions based on those non facts that you then try to force an action from us) so the onerous is on you to provide evidence while I have made no statements other than there needs to be an investigation which I think the supporting evidence of that is self evident.

Go right ahead and investigate.

So, outline where I'm wrong then.

Well I just checked and you have edited the OP so I am not going to waste time digging just to point out where your disconnects were.

Go ahead and act like you were not jumping to conclusions if you want, all your doing is lowering your credibility.

I'll not waste any more time on you, if you put something coherent together then feel free to pm me and i'll check it out.

Just struck that out as I had a bad link.


Right there you state he is alive, how you can possible come to that conclusion from the facts available is beyond me.

Feel free to lay that out.

Childish part of your post aside, the discussion has moved on from there.  I can't recall seeing other Flags where the OP gives a running commentary in their OP of the discussion that follows.

If I change it to read:

I have just seen this thread and discovered "Bruno" is alive and kicking.  That can only mean he scammed me when I donated personal funds (and Known Alts funds) to his "Plead" to cover funeral costs.

If "Bruno" is not dead then the funds were taken under false pretences.

Would that stop you frothing at the mouth?

So if Bruno is not really dead and what's going on here is a scam of him, like the title he put, the final exit scam. What will we do next? I want to know what we can do when we are fooled that way? It really took place, many people have donated large sums of money. It would be sad if it was a scam  ::)

if it really is that what really happened is very stupid all of us, it's easy to trust the dead & sick people who need donations, but I hope it won't happen...!
"@Bruno really needs that donation for his funeral" who knows.
And @Bruno is really gone.

That is, anything can happen here, fraud, extortion, oppression, etc., hopefully, with what is happening right now like the @Bruno case, be a lesson for us all to be more careful, thorough, need valid documents and accompanied by accurate evidence someone needs a donation or death and illness.

Nothing can be done at this time for @Bruno if it is dead or deceptive, just surrender, sincere all donations have been made by the community.

Maybe next time.
1. The dead/sick, (there is no donation from the bitcointalk community anymore), no one gives it anymore, unless it's really sick/dead giving accurate and reliable data, maybe.

In my way of calling, lost faith is what's possible here  ::) Maybe after this scandal, most people will no longer believe in similar things. And then nobody will decide to contribute to such things in the future, whether it is real or fake. Anyway, let's be happy when we made that contribution, it shows the generosity of everyone. Be happy for that  :D Right here, this community has always been generous in the way it used to be  :D

Right now the only thing I am sure is that Bruno isn't really alive and someone else is using his account to fool people here. There was a time where Bruno wasn't active in the forum after posting his donation thread and I thought that was the time he is taking care of his funeral expense. I don't believe that after knocking us all on out hearts he will suddenly come back online with an old project he wants to start again definitely this is not an action of a dying or a recovering person but another person trying to impersonate someone.


I don't think removing any kind of donations/charity programs for the sick people is something we can do just because something like this happened, in fact we don't even know if Bruno is the one talking to us right now as I personally he is dead given the the new user controlling the account has a different way of posting. If we remove all kinds of charity here in the forum for example then the Project COVID-19 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5246208.0) which is designed to give financial aid during this time will also be removed which generally I think is a bad thing especially if it is for a good cause.

He is dead. @TECSHARE confirmed that a few replies above this. It was just someone who was pretending to be him. Probably someone very close seeing the condition he was in decided to come in here and fool people. I am doubtful about that ANN asking for donation too. You might find that by the time the ANN was made, Bruno was probably unconscious or in critical condition or on life support because the photos that were used in the ANN thou "deleted" now were old photos.

If the money was meant to be for Bruno's (RIP) burial expenses, why did it move almost a month after his death and just 2 days before another attempt to ask for members to donate for the bitcoin 100 crap?

donations for covid-19 charity, for groceries given to the people so far are fine, directed....transparent and distributed, not one thing that should be compared.

I have also distributed similar donations to disadvantaged and disabled children, a bonus given by Yahoo, but clear and transparent.
Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5195085.msg52880767#msg52880767

In a donation to @Bruno, not transparent, it is in the form of btc, why not collect it by one person who lives close to @Bruno, then a photo of a donation given by the community, obviously, donations to the destination, (not like what is happening right now).

It is not supposed to be sentenced by everyone not to accept donations, while it is clear who receives and can be accessed, why not...

No one has the right to condemn others for not deciding to contribute. The meaning of charity is to help others based on a voluntary spirit. Whether donating to Bruno or donating to the Covid-19 funding, no one has the right to condemn others, it is wrong, you can't say I hate someone because he doesn't donate, that's not right.
For me, this might be a lesson, I might need to reconsider making other donations in the future  ::)

Well, for what it's worth, I cannot understand why the account was not locked, when it got that RIP badge.

Equally baffling is the apparent ban evasion with user Bitcoin 100 having been banned, then six weeks later the Gleb Gamow UID being on sold as well as anecdotal evidence suggesting both of the other UID's also being used to cover loans.

Do you understand what anecdotal evidence really means?
Hint: No evidence, this is a joke.

Also Gleb Gamow UID was not sold. It failed to sell. His bud covered, and that's the end of that.
I cannot speculate on the Bitcoin 100 ban itself, but there must be a lesson in there somewhere.

Don't take my word on it - ask @darkstar_ to confirm what occurred: [1a (https://archive.vn/0L4PH#selection-2177.0-2177.80)] [1b (https://web.archive.org/web/20200603130129/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4542394.msg40890071)] or @hilariousandco for that matter...  [2a (https://archive.vn/0L4PH#selection-1511.281-1511.414)] ::)

@darkstar clarifies that - in his opinion - it should be Bruno in charge. Bruno agrees.
But where is the Bitcoin 100 account in all this? No anecdotal evidence please.

The last part is just hilarious, really. ;D

Had you read any of this thread you would have understood the Bitcoin 100 is another alt of Bruno.

Huh?
I understand that, but fail to see where it links with the rest.

I also understand that a moderator should not be so biased, on a forum and the users he moderates.