Bitcoin Forum

Yahoo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846) suggested not to have a new topic for every group they suspect but seems they never listen and just started another topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5412229.0) today.


And, spamming on my trust page.
I do not know how non-alt accounts enrolling a same campaign can be unethical.

I would also recommend him to keep everything in one thread but you can't exactly call them spam. It’s okay to create different thread for different cases.

Regarding the feedback on your profile, if they aren’t true, you can argue on thread with facts and proofs(did you, I haven’t checked yet). It’s a tag based on his finding and it's neutral. I don't think you should also create a thread for this instead of having the issue solved in PM.

Trust is not moderated and its neutral so it's not really a big deal. I am not a fan of the guy making multiple threads myself, but it is his right. Try to pm him and work it out. Making threads on each other isn't gonna solve anything.

Crypt0S0ul is a product of our own mistakes as a community.  Many established members have taken to rewarding "Alt Hunters" simply for connecting alts with the most circumstantial of evidence.  Regardless of whether the alts are breaking rules or not, some members shower the Alt-Hunters with merits and attention just for linking accounts to each other.

Crypt0S0ul is just the latest (probably an alt account in it's own right,) to take advantage of the situation in an attempt to rank up.  Next thing you know, some DT1 member will add Crypt0S0ul to his trust list, making him DT2.  It wouldn't be the first time.

So, I'll ask a question to those established members who reward this kind of behavior; what value do these Alt Hunters actually add to the forum?

What you're hinting? Do you want to be rewarded too for discovering a second Chahan account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5410602.msg60791269#msg60791269), or for hunting down mythical non-existent scams?

So, I'm asking you a question, what value do you bring to the forum with these searches?

Why not try and defend yourself if what is said about your account is not correct. In the other thread, you didn't even bother to say anything.

If you feel a user is spamming, you could also report their posts and the mods decided whether to delete or not

Let's add more.
Scam busting. It seems to be a profession since the merit system started. Very easy way to climb on the DT network.
Tutorial. I have not seen so many tutors in the forum before 2018. I used to be in Beginners & Help section but these days I occasionally visit there.
Then there are translators of course. A great invention was copying local websites and translate them to English or copying English websites and then translate them to local language. People did that and they have done well before it was noticed by others.

Anyway, one thing forum users realized that they have to do something to rank up.

Please stop. You don't care about the forum but yourself.

It's okay the forum rule don't stop them doing. Of course they need more views to get some more merit.

I like when a campaign cheater is exposed but I feel like some go to the extreme to expose some users and try to gain a fast reputation normally pulling the trigger a little too fast in some cases and coming close to ruining some members reputation.

There is a great difference between informing the community about scam and scammers, and continually trying to link alts, without proof, and even when the said alts haven't broken any forum rules. With exposing scammers you are saving forum members their money, and warning them to be careful so they will not lose money, as for linking alts, it may not be a bad thing if you have strong evidence that they are cheating, but to continually link alts without evidence, and without them being responsible for breaking any rule, may be ruining member's reputation when they haven't done wrong, and the 'alt hunter' is not being helpful that way at all. Though going by DireWolfM's post history, it goes without saying that he is not a 'scam hunter'.
If the evidence is strong enough, then will the accused person even have to defend themselves before action against them is taken? But if the reports have so much doubts, and the evidence is weak and still needing the accused to defend themselves, then should the report ever have happened. I feel people can decide whether they want to talk about someone's accusations against them, or if they want to ignore it and do other better things with their time in the forum.

This is exactly what DireWolfM14 and his "friends" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5410602.msg60791269#msg60791269) are doing, accusing everyone of scam, including accusing me of non-existent scam (it turns out that a token exchange with a detailed description is considered a scam)

Are you trolling here? You clearly tried to take advantage of users who might not have known any better with your little exchange. Maybe you're not a scammer per se, but you're definitely a scumbag for trying to screw users over if they had engaged in a trade with you.

With such detailed exchange conditions, it is probably impossible to deceive a child, let alone an experienced forum member who knows how to use cryptocurrency, trading

Yeah, I don't think I was the worst offender but I definitely stopped doing that recently after hearing what Timelord2067 had to say about it with respect to his local rule on merit-giving in the known alts thread.  I think it's a silly local rule, but his point was taken.

I'm not sure that's the reason, though.  I always thought when I saw an alt hunter who was very low ranked that they were just trying to build a reputation, because those members have existed for years and before the merit system even began (I'm pretty sure).

In any case, with the departure of a few old-time DT members who used to feverishly tag every offender of everything everywhere, there seems to be a sort of "meh" attitude toward bounty cheaters as of late.  Or it could simply be that over time people realized that sniffing them out and tagging them doesn't do much good and isn't really worth the effort.

Yo, that dude's insane in the membrane.  Try starving him into silence.

I would also suggest keeping everything on one topic. However, Crypt0S0ul is most likely trying to create a new drama each time, but his evidence is frequently insufficient.
Linking alternate accounts seems like a good thing to do when you have free time, but yes, it's more and more of a waste of time as the forum doesn't prohibit new accounts from being opened after one of the alternate accounts are tagged.
I wonder if we changed our actions and started tagging former cheaters, would we reduce the number of new alternatives? Since each new "old" account does not even think about how to change or prevent in the future the possibility of linking according to the past data that has already been revealed. Since it takes some time to create new social accounts and promote them, we may have scared away those who want to create new accounts on the forum so easily.

I think this is the purpose of AnotherAlt posting and exposing scams or cheaters with this account, you should read this one from the comments.



I noticed that the more we expose cheaters, the better they are at hiding behind all their accounts. Look at how many thousands of newbie accounts have been caught because cheats bounty, but nothing will stop them from creating new accounts after the old ones are tagged. They can easily change their social media account username, it will be used to work with other accounts.

In my opinion, if the forum adjusted the rules about only full rank members being able to join the bounty then I'm sure less cheaters would be caught. This will obviously force every newbie to post something quality to rank up to full members and each and every one of them will no longer be able to go straight to the forum just to spam their social media with a new altcoin project.

I do not deny anything already discussed in this thread. I accept all the blame given by everyone. The Community created me. You always see me creating drama with this account because I use this account only whenever I feel it's controversial. All things mentioned in this thread are not my intention. Of course, I want to rank up and I believe everyone else wants to rank up too.

One thing I want to say; You always won't be correct. If you believe you are 100% right and you don't do mistakes. I would say you are not human or maybe you are superhuman. I am not worried about my accuracy, one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports. That was from Report Page 😜. I was thinking to be more careful and do more research before saying something. But, look like everyone wants me to Shut the fuck off.

Yes, that's about accuracy of the spam post you report and it is never same as any account that you expose inaccurately due to cheat ^{[if any].} Reporting spammer to moderator is actually much more valuable than having to dig deep into an account you suspect is cheaters ^{[even if it's worth it].} I can even say I will be very careful now because it concerns the reputation of other users.

I've reported 2K more posts with 100% accuracy, so I guess it should be a useful contribution to the forum in an effort to reduce spam posts. But you don't have to be an asshole just because you want to help the forum catch scammers or cheaters, just do what you want as long as it's true and doesn't create drama and never gives the impression to established members that your contributions are meaningless. Don't give the impression that you want to earn merit and want to become DT member just because catching scammers and cheaters.

One neutral tag isn't spamming.

As long as they're bounty spammers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399966.0), it adds nothing. It's only useful if they have for instance 3 accounts in one high paying campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5313637.0).
Then again, maybe I'm not the one you were talking to ;)

I am human (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4826180.msg48268705#msg48268705) :D

The same thing I also thought after I got a PM from a reputed member. No, I don't want to be an asshole. If you see my last thread, I just gathered some information and asked the community if it's sufficient or not. Because it was suspicious to me, and I wanted to report it. But, before reporting, I was trying to make sure I was right or not. That's why My thread title has a (?) Question mark.

Well, that's a problem, in my opinion.  If you aren't confident enough to post an accusation from your main account, why post it from an alt?  I'm not suggesting you only post accusations from your main account, I value everyone's privacy and encourage people to use alts if they have a specific privacy need for one.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use alts, and exposing cheaters is a valid one.  But at least use the "would I post this from my main account" measuring stick to consider whether a post is worth publishing.

As LoyceV alluded to; countless threads about exposed bounty cheaters who are relegated to the armpit of the forum anyway, is pointless.  If they're spamming, report them to the bounty manager and the mods.  If there's a legitimate abuse of a forum rule or signature campaign, and you're confident in your findings, you shouldn't even feel the need to use an alt.  The example LoyceV provided is absolutely perfect.  Uncle nutildah didn't need an alt to expose the figmentofmyass farm.  That farm included DT1 members and popularity among other high ranking members of the forum.  There was a very real risk of retaliation against nutildah for what he was posting, but did that scare him into hiding behind an alt?  No, because he was 100% confident in the evidence he was presenting to the forum.


I posed the question rhetorically, I don't need or want any one to answer.  And I certainly don't want to call anyone out, as I'm not claiming innocence myself.  I posed the question to get us all think about the ways the forum has evolved over the last few years, and whether some of the changes are necessarily good just because they may appear that way on the surface.

Crypt0S0ul has an alt account and that has been declared publicly- AnotherAlt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3461867)
It’s none of a secret. He has publicly posted that long ago.
However, a lot of people are doing this, hiding behind alt when exposing someone's alt (when they are high ranked). Because they fear to get neg tagged or maybe they don't want to make enemies.

Crypt0S0ul,

You have not explained your stand on this yet:

I've also exposed some high ranking users instead of newbie. Some of them have been proven guilty and legally tag. There's no reason to be afraid and hide behind alt if what you're trying to convey is true, even if proven guilty users are against the tag then I'm sure they won't have the power to stand against you.

It takes courage and enough reason to tag and accuse someone, if we are wrong then this will damage the reputation of other users. In the real world the police won't jail you for no reason and they won't make arbitrary accusations without being backed up by solid evidence, so they have to understand that the system works for the wrong things.

Would you mind explaining what connection you have with FanEagle and Captain Corporate? According to the blockchain, You have made some transactions with them. Based on that, I suspect something.

Don't you feel awkward on asking me where and why I spend my bitcoins? You are not my government legal/tax entity to ask such questions.

I suspect a lot of things, that doesn't mean anything without proof.
Did you know several instant exchangers and payment processors recycle Bitcoin addresses? I've made payments to addresses that were used before, which doesn't mean I'm connected to any of the other users.

Please tell me how much you earn per month, where you live, provide a copy of your drivers license, and explain in details how you spent your money between February 14 and March 14 last year :D Or just tell me to piss off because it's none of my business. Protect your privacy whenever you can!

I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't expose scammers and cheaters at all, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. It's easy to accuse, of course, just posting something without valid and credible evidence. I doubt that much harm would be done by such an accusation, if it's not impartial, fair and correct then people are going to see right through it. But if you present things correctly then people will more likely accept your argument for what it's worth instead of dismissing it as biased. Regardless of whether you use your main account or your alt account for it.

If you feel the need to expose someone, at least make sure that you have valid evidence and they're actually guilty of doing something wrong first!

---

But he didn't ask you where and why you spend your bitcoins. If you are not comfortable answering such questions, you don't have to. No one has the right to force you to do it, but then don't complain when someone else validates their suspicion by the blockchain evidence linking your accounts together and leaves a neutral tag on your account based on that.

No, he asked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5412326.msg60891847#msg60891847).

This is not making sense. If this community enforces KYC or similar like we need to furnish where we are spending bitcoins then I will bind to all the practices of this community and based on that you may suspect me on my blockchain footprints. But, nothing is breached as per current official/unofficial rules and practices of this community, what you have to suspect? So, simply this is an attempt to ruin someone's reputation (and wasting time and resources) then why should not I complain?

Firstly, I will say that no, I will not ask you to shut up, because you have the right to vote, just like everyone else. But it seemed to me that you previously asked about opening one topic for your searches, or was it a proposal from the members of the forum? Wouldn't that be more convenient?

The second thing I want to say is that if you yourself are not sure, then you are suggesting that others complete the check that you did. To round everything up, you can ask about any account that "seems" suspicious. And it loses confidence in you. Be confident.

Also, there are rules according to which alternative accounts are considered violators of the ban. Xal0lex spoke about this in great detail.



I am more than sure that if you had submitted a report on ban evasion to the moderators without the opinion of the community, it might not have received a "bad" mark, but it remained unprocessed.
Just follow the advice above from Xal0lex.

Crypt0S0ul, you have to be brave enough to take this case and solve the problem. You can't force someone to admit they're guilty of an off-forum transaction between one and two other accounts. I've had a similar case where 16 accounts were involved in send all their assets in one wallet ^{[off-forum transaction],} but after they proved my suspicions wrong, I happily removed the negative tag.

I think your suspicions will be valid for determining they are alt if you can prove that they are using the same wallet or the same social media account. But if it doesn't exist, then I'm sure the existing evidence won't be enough. Again, the lesson I learned from the case I worked on was that if you can't prove all of those accounts with valid evidence have violated the campaign rules, then don't try to damage their reputation by throwing your doubts into the community. I completely gave up on the same case.

So you just bother people for nonsense accusation?

Do you think its right to bother people? While for sure everybody cares about there privacy?

For this forum exist for so long for sure many forum members do transaction for ones or even more, so this txid proof is totally nonsense at all.

And no one owes explanation to anyone since as I said privacy is more important, im sure that many people will do the same if they think the accusation is no basis.

Hopefully there's a penalty for people rising wrong accusation. Since they just do that for a show and for farming merits.

Again, he didn't ask you where and why you spend your bitcoins, and you don't have to refer me to his question, as it was already quoted in my previous reply.


Don't push it. No one is enforcing any KYC here. All blockchain data is public information anyway, so that cat is already out of the bag. If you are really concerned about your privacy I suggest you stop posting your bitcoin addresses publicly. Besides, I think you are over-dramatizing the situation. A simple neutral tag on your account can't ruin your reputation here in any way.

Somehow I managed to get your attention after a long day sleeping on the couch, is that worth discussing or do you want to say something interesting to hear?

If you don't bother reading or finding something I said in the previous case, then continue your sleep. That's much wiser than you producing a lot of dopamine in your body.  ;)

If you cannot interpret that post on that way, here you go:

No wonders that third persons view this that way. But, for me, why should I bear something which is not true?

You can leave the same neutral feedback if you don't agree. This will clear up the fact that the neutral tag was wrong and provide a link to that thread.
To anyone who will be interested in your situation, you allow understanding of whether there was a mistake or not.
Only those who leave them can remove tags, if this cannot be done, you will simply have to ignore it.

It's reputational protection--the same reason whistleblowers in the real world prefer to be anonymous.  If you think about it and try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who might not have a very strong personality, one that can withstand criticism from lord knows how many members on a discussion forum, it's not that hard to understand why.

Personally I don't have a problem with people using alt accounts that way, and if I ever said otherwise I'm retracting those statements here and now (lol).  What happens when you've got a real problem with a member with whom a mutual friendship/trust/respect has developed?  There are some members who'd rather deal with it via an alt account rather than confronting that person directly.  Yeah it sounds weak, but there's nothing shady about it as long as the argument being made is sound.

That's interesting. I didn't know that.
Do you believe my argument is invalid, and I am accusing them without any reason? Yeah, I don't have any right to ask someone for personal information. But, I saw they did some transactions with the three accounts, and one of them said he was doing marketing. I removed the feedback from one of their profile. Waiting for others to reply, none of them want to answer. Instead, they are here with counter-question and twisting my words. As you can see, I just wanted to know if he had some business deal or what connection he has with the two of them. But, He gets it negatively. They must be angry because I created the thread and left neutral feedback, which they consider spam.

---

Now, I can see almost everyone saying those blockchain transaction doesn't prove anything. I believe in the future; You will see a lot of ban evaders here on the platform. You will understand. But, you will end up watching them. If scammers and cheaters also do the same. You will have no choice other than to watch them. This is my last response about this case.

Case is not yet solved. You bypassed my question:

You must explain how it is unethical.

Blockchain transaction could be a prove if they're a part of farm accounts, but not all transaction send to one address are farms, that's why it's not a solid proof. Since it's not a solid proof, they're not obliged to explain it here, but there's nothing wrong if they want.

The reason why they're angry is you're drag them to get banned (evade ban) not spam case. I have no intention to give you counter question, but what if someone accuse you're ban evader? I believe you're also angry.

This forum record the whole IP address, if they're come from a same person, they will got banned by the administrator.

If they are adept at separating their profiles from matches, assuming all accounts belong to the same person, one might also think that their IPs might be different. 
The style of the language can also be deliberately forged by the way it is written, with commas, paragraphs, capital letters, and so on. 
They can offer us the version that they are all friends, relatives, and so on. 
And until there is clear evidence, it is difficult to directly accuse people of fraud. 
This is quite a difficult job. If one person owns these accounts, one could applaud.

They don't get banned, they are only unable to post upon registration, that is the IP and Evil fee ban, but if they pay a small fee or are whitelisted, then they can post normally like other members. Even if they have all the record, the forum administrator does not ban members through connected or similar IP.

I was supposed not to respond here again. I had removed the feedback but seems you are not happy with that. You started spamming via PM and asking the same question here over and over. So I had to re-write the feedback and answer again here.

Non-alt accounts enrolling in the same campaign isn't unethical. But, Connected alts that trying to be a different person enrolling in the same campaign is unethical.

---

Can you please quote where I accused them as ban evaders? Don't mix up the cases, please.


Forum administrators don't have time to check everyone's IPs and ban them. People Use VPNs. If you use VPN, You might be using someone else IP right now. To not make mistakes, Forum deployed an IP ban (Evil fees ) system.

I remember a guy asked theymos, Does it mean I can create another account even after I get banned? theymos answered, Yes. Each time you get banned, The evil fees will be higher (I am unable to find the thread now) So, to get ban evader banned, you have to find the connection and report manually.

Why?

You were the first one to send me a PM. So, you cannot escape by saying "no more response here".

When I asked you to respond, no tag was removed.

You are coining new terms to back your ego (firstly "connected accounts" and now "connected alts"). You were proved wrong on tracking blockchain and you agreed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5412326.msg60893618#msg60893618) that still what you expect to clear tags? Do I need to contact on telegram to beg?

All you need is, accept your mistakes; remove the tag; remember all the suggestions made to you. Move on.

Yep, since it's too difficult it make it's difficult to choose whether the investigation by @Crypt0S0ul is correct or not, which is we can't draw the line.

I still remember @theymos post about his detective work to compile the whole alts by IP address, but I'm unable to find the post. This mean it's possible for @theymos ban the account by IP address matched with the ban evaders.

Sorry I'm wrong, it's a different case I read on your thread. But seeing the thread that you accuse they're have intention to participate a same campaign is deserve a red flag too, getting red flag is similar like banned since your journey in this forum already destroyed.

You forgot to ask about any identifying tattoos or birthmarks, and the name of his first-born male child.   :P

Really, who the fuck do these people think they are?  After behaving this way for the last two or three years, one would think that the more rational DT members purge them from their inclusions.  It's like they've all gotten so drunk on power they have to intimidate and harass less prominent members to give their lives meaning.

I am not sure if you are talking bout this one;


But yes. Theymos can figure out alts.

Theymos can, but won't use that approach, it can cause many mistakes and members that aren't the ban evaders themselves may get banned, that is why the forum uses the proxyban method to ban members who share evil or banned ip's, but this takes place when they register, and getting whitelisted or paying a small fee solves the problem.

Are you sure Theymos ever said he will compile 'the whole' alts by IP addresses? Theymos answers just once out of a thousand times his attention is needed, surely he would not involve himself in any detective work that will be more time consuming.

I can't really tell, your "evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5411625.0)" isn't convincing.

So what's the problem? The whole point of Bitcoin is to make transactions. Sending from A to B doesn't mean they belong to the same person, that would happen if A and B both send funds in one transaction to C. But even then, it could be coinjoin, or it could even be A shared their private key with B. It happens! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2836875.msg29086320#msg29086320)
Blockchain evidence always requires an interpretation.

It's none of your business. He may choose to disclose his deals, but if he doesn't, it proves nothing. Ask me about my business deals: if I wanted them to be public, I would have created a thread when I made the deal.

That's been happening for years.

---

---

Or, you just move on :P You're putting way too much weight on a non-DT neutral tag. Anyone can leave any feedback they want. Check The Pharmacist's Untrusted feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418;page=untrusted;offset=0) and scroll down real quick. It means nothing :)

---

---

From the history of Bitcointalk:

You're very right here and i also supported that, there should be a supporting rules that can limit the engagement of newbies directly on the hunt for bounty since such is applicable in most signature campaign that you must be a member or full member as the case may be by the signature campaign rules before you can get enrolled for a campaign, when such is place on bounty sections as well, i think it will definitely go dome miles in reducing the ever increasing pumps on alts and the existing ones will not want to misbehave because they know what it takes to get 100 merits before joining a campaign.

I like how you put it, it's very close to what theymos called "very harmful":