No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.
Then why not give a negative trust rating to every single person that has ever scammed in this forum? The truth is that you can't and you won't because you'll only search for a reason to and give them out with ease to the people that have spoken against you thereby attracting your attention. If I come across, or am otherwise made aware of someone who has scammed then they will get negative trust from me. If you are implying that I should go searching every single thread for scams, then that is ridiculous as I obviously have a limited amount of time/resources and doing so would not be logically feasible. |
|
|
|
If you are going to trust the forum enough to encrypt a PM prior to it being stored in the DB then you might as well be okay with it not encrypting the PM at all. While you could, in theory check to ensure that your messages are actually being encrypted in Javascript prior to being sent to the forum, it would be more difficult to ensure that this fact does not change, nor that the messages are not being encrypted to your PGP key plus some other PGP key (that an attacker has access to).
If you encrypt your messages manually (prior to them ever coming into contact with the forum) then you know for sure which key(s) exactly your message is encrypted to.
Well, in this case, why not have the public key stored per user, and then have a chrome extension that encrypts the text in the textbox? That would be one possibility, however you would still need to trust the forum enough to maintain an accurate list of PGP public keys. You would also need to trust the dev of the Chrome extension enough to not launch similar attacks as described above. If the forum changed the public key, the actual user cant decrypt the messages. Correct, however if the information is very sensitive then the attacker would have intercepted the data and there would be nothing that the sender could do about it. They would know however to stop sending additional sensitive information/data to that recipient. The Chrome extension could be open source, and if people are paranoid, they can build it for themselves.
I like this idea (the bolded part). It would be essentially the same as encrypting it themselves 1. Sure, the forum could change the public key, but lets hope that they dont do it. I cant really think of a clever way to solve this problem except for manually checking. 2. Yes, except its much less of a hassle. 1. In theory, the user could change the public key as well (for example if an account is hacked). It would also defeat the purpose of any kind of PGP web of trust, or any other level of trust for a particular PGP key. 2. It would result in (nearly) the same level of security |
|
|
|
If you are going to trust the forum enough to encrypt a PM prior to it being stored in the DB then you might as well be okay with it not encrypting the PM at all. While you could, in theory check to ensure that your messages are actually being encrypted in Javascript prior to being sent to the forum, it would be more difficult to ensure that this fact does not change, nor that the messages are not being encrypted to your PGP key plus some other PGP key (that an attacker has access to).
If you encrypt your messages manually (prior to them ever coming into contact with the forum) then you know for sure which key(s) exactly your message is encrypted to.
Well, in this case, why not have the public key stored per user, and then have a chrome extension that encrypts the text in the textbox? That would be one possibility, however you would still need to trust the forum enough to maintain an accurate list of PGP public keys. You would also need to trust the dev of the Chrome extension enough to not launch similar attacks as described above. If the forum changed the public key, the actual user cant decrypt the messages. Correct, however if the information is very sensitive then the attacker would have intercepted the data and there would be nothing that the sender could do about it. They would know however to stop sending additional sensitive information/data to that recipient. The Chrome extension could be open source, and if people are paranoid, they can build it for themselves.
I like this idea (the bolded part). It would be essentially the same as encrypting it themselves |
|
|
|
You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation. Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.
Thinks=no proof=speculation Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. The description of the negative trust button says "strongly believe", not proven beyond any shred of doubt. His statement was strong enough for me to believe that Salty's statement was more then just speculation. Meanwhile... I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago). But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating. No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust. Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams. Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation? It is not up to me what other people do with their trust. I have pissed off enough scammers in the last few months that it is safe to say with a good amount of certainty someone speaking out against me is either a scammer or an alt of a scammer (the correlation is nearly 100% on this). |
|
|
|
If you are going to trust the forum enough to encrypt a PM prior to it being stored in the DB then you might as well be okay with it not encrypting the PM at all. While you could, in theory check to ensure that your messages are actually being encrypted in Javascript prior to being sent to the forum, it would be more difficult to ensure that this fact does not change, nor that the messages are not being encrypted to your PGP key plus some other PGP key (that an attacker has access to).
If you encrypt your messages manually (prior to them ever coming into contact with the forum) then you know for sure which key(s) exactly your message is encrypted to.
Well, in this case, why not have the public key stored per user, and then have a chrome extension that encrypts the text in the textbox? That would be one possibility, however you would still need to trust the forum enough to maintain an accurate list of PGP public keys. You would also need to trust the dev of the Chrome extension enough to not launch similar attacks as described above. |
|
|
|
|
If you are going to trust the forum enough to encrypt a PM prior to it being stored in the DB then you might as well be okay with it not encrypting the PM at all. While you could, in theory check to ensure that your messages are actually being encrypted in Javascript prior to being sent to the forum, it would be more difficult to ensure that this fact does not change, nor that the messages are not being encrypted to your PGP key plus some other PGP key (that an attacker has access to).
If you encrypt your messages manually (prior to them ever coming into contact with the forum) then you know for sure which key(s) exactly your message is encrypted to.
|
|
|
|
Why don't you bother to stop spamming useless posts and read the reference and maybe you will see that the feedback was not something intended to silence him, but rather was given information that I feel is credible that suggests that he is in fact an alt of supa
Personal attacks again? Fine, I'll still take you seriously and respond to your question. The reason I posted this was because you gave him a negative rating just after he started posting in threads that were against you. Besides that, linking to a post SaltySpitoon made speculating that he could be an alt isn't appropriate proof. Salty is not an admin, he doesn't have access to IP data. Only BadBead and theymos can detect alt accounts with credibility and I'm sure you know that already as you've been dealing with account sales (and probably farming too) for a long time. Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa. When BadBear gives a negative trust for being an alt of a scammer, it is because he thinks that is the case. The fact that Salty doesn't have IP data (or other identifying data) does not mean that he is wrong about someone being an alt. I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago). Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams. |
|
|
|
[...]
the link in your sig doesn't work for me, check it? BTW, just got neg repped -  Will state it's not true, whatever that's worth  Accusations with no proof. Way to silence people...  Why don't you bother to stop spamming useless posts and read the reference and maybe you will see that the feedback was not something intended to silence him, but rather was given information that I feel is credible that suggests that he is in fact an alt of supa |
|
|
|
Do you have any examples of this? It seems that most scams are attempted by low level accounts and accounts that are unlikely to have been purchased.
If you can't get a signed message for any reason then it would probably be best to have that person send first or to use an escrow service to protect your money
I posted the case above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=936429.0 (where the accused had sold his green trust account which was later used to scam a well known scammer). Krishatnet's account was sold and it had green trust. The person who traded with him trusted him because of the trust rating. But unfortunately, the person who was scammed turned out to be a scammer himself so his case wasn't entertained. There can be more cases as well but they might not have been addressed. What makes you think the account was sold? I see that you had posted in that thread saying you know him from elsewhere, but unless he gave some kind of proof then him claiming it was sold would likely just be him trying to protect his reputation. The account was likely worth more then 1.3 BTC (the amount scammed) so the scam in question was not economical for the owner of the account. Sure the victim is out $325, however account owners would have incentives to not scam with such accounts. Also banning the sale of accounts would likely cause the prices of accounts to decline (there would be an additional risk the account get banned if it is discovered to be sold) so the above incentive not to scam would be removed (or lessened) |
|
|
|
I am not talking about already established members/members who already know the meaning of a signed message or how to read it. Scams mainly take place with newbies. Very rarely I have seen established members getting scammed. The scam accusation boards are filled with claims from newbies.
Some don't know the meaning of escrow/signed messages/account sales. They get scammed mainly because of the trust or by an old account that's trusted. I know that it happens very rarely as mainly accounts are bought for Signature Campaigns but some are bought to scam as well and this has been proven to be true as well. A person can go about editing/deleting all his previous messages which reveal the original account holders identity and in that case, a signed message would not work. It would be only theymos who could get back the deleted messages/edited comments.
Do you have any examples of this? It seems that most scams are attempted by low level accounts and accounts that are unlikely to have been purchased. If you can't get a signed message for any reason then it would probably be best to have that person send first or to use an escrow service to protect your money |
|
|
|
Yes. This is true even if account sales were somehow 100% eradicated as you would still have the possibility of hacked accounts. A signed message is also necessary to prove the terms of a trade with someone to the community in the event of a dispute. (PM's can also be used however it is more difficult and slower to prove content contained in a PM.
But a person would not NORMALLY go about asking the person to prove he owns the account while having an exchange/trade. Nobody till date has asked me for the same nor have I seen in other sections of this forum that anyone asks for a signed message openly while trading with them. People should ask for a signed message when trading with someone and the trade would involve them taking any kind of risk. If there is no risk on a trader's part, then there is no reason to ask for a signed message - for example if you are selling me 1 BTC for 200 LTC and our agreement is that I will send you 200 LTC after I receive 1 BTC from you then I have no reason to ask you for a signed message because I am taking no risk. It is a good practice to always provide a signed message whenever trading with someone, especially when giving an address to send to as when a dispute arrises you can simply ask your trading partner to provide the signed message you provided and the blockchain should provide the rest of the evidence. Hacking happens now as well and there would be such a possibility whether or not the rules are implemented.
Correct. This is why you should always ask for a signed message when taking risk on a trade. [...]When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts [...] It's called "arguing in the alternative," and it's a complicated thing best left to grownups. What me and Salty are currently in the processes of is establishing where he stands on account dealing. If he is happy with accounts being bought and sold, discussing the feasibility of banning the practice is a waste of time, because he doesn't want it stopped. What's the point of discussing how to stop murder if murder is desirable? Like that, see?  No it would not be a waste of time. If/when you can make a strong argument that account trading is bad (you have not presented such an argument), then SS would have a leg to stand on to back his position.
Does the trust list on your "main" account look something like this: theymos (1)
Gavin Andresen (1)
jgarzik (1)
Luke-Jr (1)
Miner-TE (1)
Noitev (1)
eleuthria (1)
luv2drnkbr (1)
MemoryDealers (1)
Digigami (1)
gmaxwell (1)
E (1)
zapeta (1)
bitpop (1)
TECSHARE (1)
SebastianJu (1)
ipxtreme (1)
Philj (1)
os2sam (1)
yxt (1)
knybe (1)
sveetsnelda (1)
conv3rsion (1)
bitcoin-rigs.com (1)
BitcoinEXpress (1)
Vod (1)
dtmcnamara (1)
John (John K.) (1)
notme (1)
Mushroomized (1)
greeners (1)
dribbits (1)
echris1 (1)
SaltySpitoon (1)
bitcoiner49er (1)
BadBear (1)
freshzive (1)
arklan (1)
glendall (1)
Pistachio (1)
tarrant_01 (1)
tbcoin (1)
ElideN (1)
TheJuice (1)
Bees Brothers (1)
Christoban (1)
Stale (1)
af_newbie (1)
eroxors (1)
camolist (1)
MrTeal (1)
cncguru (1)
Mendacium (1)
PsychoticBoy (1)
Dabs (1)
mem (1)
Namworld (1)
lky_svn (1)
Xian01 (1)
mr2dave (1)
DobZombie (1)
Adrian-x (1)
gektek (1)
johnny5 (1)
dyingdreams (1)
Zillions (1)
phrog (1)
Domrada (1)
Mapuo (1)
philipma1957 (1)
jborkl (1)
RicRock (1)
jmutch (1)
MonocleMan (1)
b!z (1)
PatMan (1)
CoinHoarder (-1)
absinth (1)
mitty (1)
(^_^) (1)
soy (1)
super3 (1)
iluvpcs (1)
batt01 (1)
AirWolf (-1)
xstr8guy (1)
MJGrae (1)
mobile (1)
nubbins (1)
ThickAsThieves (1)
hephaist0s (1)
Rawted (1)
BitcoinValet (1)
Timzim103 (1)
Rounder (1)
Nemo1024 (1)
TheXev (1)
ibminer (1)
jmumich (1)
Mooshire (1)
Benny1985 (1)
mrbrt (1)
hanti (1)
ssinc (1)
dogie (-1)
Kaega (1)
finlof (1)
elchorizo (1)
fewerlaws (1)
bitterdog (1)
Swimmer63 (1)
locksmith9 (1)
Krellan (1)
Spendulus (1)
MikeMike (1)
statdude (1)
bluespaceant (1)
Hiroaki (1)
keeron (1)
Bigdaddyaz (1)
Polyatomic (1)
palmface (1)
flowdab (1)
SpaceCadet (1)
photon (1)
dwdoc (1)
xzempt (1)
jdany (1)
mackstuart (1)
bmoconno (1)
jdot007 (1)
mrtg (1)
maxpower (1)
Chris_Sabian (1)
xjack (1)
CommanderVenus (1)
daddyfatsax (1)
Plesk (1)
helipotte (1)
aurel57 (1)
gambitv (1)
boyohi (1)
LaserHorse (1)
joeventura (1)
xhomerx10 (1)
slashopt (1)
drofdelm (1)
canth (1)
zackclark70 (1)
cdogster (1)
DBOD (1)
addzz (1)
DefaultTrust (1)
DustMite (1)
pixl8tr (1)
namoom (1)
blblr (1)
Taugeran (1)
arc45 (1)
smscotten (1)
Cilantro (1)
chadtn (1)
kinger1331 (1)
guytechie (1)
rumlazy (1)
fractalbc (1)
fforforest (1)
KyrosKrane (1)
ZBC3 (1)
rj11248 (1)
bitdigger2013 (1)
Damnsammit (1)
jaslo (1)
BorisAlt (1)
ASICSAUCE (1)
sidehack (1)
IYFTech (1)
steelcave (1)
Rotorgeek (1)
buyer99 (1)
daddyhutch (1)
digeros (1)
west17m (1)
Trillium (1)
sbfree (1)
BrianDeery (1)
ziggysisland (1)
devthedev (1)
ryhan (1)
zac2013 (1)
atomriot (1)
metal_jacke1 (1)
Apheration (1)
johoe (1)
spacebob (1)
2byZi (1)
terrapinflyer (1)
cxboyminer (-1)
BenTheRighteous (1)
gsr18 (1)
Paddy (1)
eman5oh (1)
Jennifer Smith (1)
BITMAIN (1)
J_Dubbs (1)
BitcoinFr34k (-1)
00Smurf (1)
firejuan (1)
rikkie (-1)
ldh37 (1)
thomslik (1)
argakiig (1)
Cheeseater (1)
ManeBjorn (1)
redsn0w (1)
Ski72 (1)
cesarm (1)
CoinLearn (1)
suchmoon (1)
Thai (1)
Silverspoon (-1)
NotLambchop (-1)
Spondoolies-Tech (1)
KaChingCoinDev (1)
cathoderay (1)
SpanishSoldier (-1)
mrcable (1)
sjc1490 (1)
Kialara (1)
MobyDick_Poloniex (1)
FACTOM (1)
Ragecat (1) |
|
|
|
You do understand that there are different levels of proof required for different transgressions, right? You must, because otherwise you couldn't possibly ban ban-evading accounts, where's the proof? Where's the due process? And yet, I'm sure it happens. How? It is much easier to tell when someone is the same person as someone else then it is to tell when they are not the same person anymore. There would be evidence that someone sold their account any time they change their password, move, get a new computer, switch ISP's among a number of other things. Many transgressions are punished on "more likely than not" basis, such as a 5-yr-old being made to stand in a corner for eating his cookies during class - no trial, no jury.
You need to be fair about any punishment/consequence you impose on someone. |
|
|
|
Security Log isn't enough. People can't truly know whether an account is sold or not. Only way we can assume is to ask a signed message considering Bitcoin address can be sold.
So every time I or any other member trades here should ask the user for a signed message?  Yes. This is true even if account sales were somehow 100% eradicated as you would still have the possibility of hacked accounts. A signed message is also necessary to prove the terms of a trade with someone to the community in the event of a dispute. (PM's can also be used however it is more difficult and slower to prove content contained in a PM. 2. "account dealing" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are could be created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)
I don't see a lot of people saying that we don't want account dealing to happen. Nor have you given any reason or argument backed by facts as to why account trading is bad. The post was a reply to Salty, I understand that you want to sell as many accounts as possible - you're an account dealer The reason the "(yes/no)" thingy is stuck in there is 'coz I want to narrow down exactly where Salty [not you] stands on the issue. If he feels that it's great that accounts are being bought & sold, then all further discussion of plausibility of enforcement is moot, don't you agree? Hope this clears things up When arguing a stance on something it is advantageous to make multiple points to back yourself up. That way if/when one of your points are shot down (like all of your points have been so far) then you still have something to back up your position. There are two (primary) points to why there should not be a rule against trading accounts - It is not possible to enforce such rule and attempting to enforce such rule would create a high level of unfairness among innocent people
- There is no harm in trading accounts (there are actually sever positives to trading them)
|
|
|
|
2. "account dealing" - things we do not want to happen. Laws, rules, etc. are could be created to minimize the occurrence of these these things. (yes/no?)
I don't see a lot of people saying that we don't want account dealing to happen. Nor have you given any reason or argument backed by facts as to why account trading is bad. |
|
|
|
Wow those lealana coins sure do look nice. Where did you get them from?  |
|
|
|
|
If you received a response (or if you sent a message in response to a PM) around the date you sent the PM then you can search for that message and once you find the date you can hunt and peck in your outbox trying to find the page with the date of the sent PM.
Another solution would be that you assign a label to each of your sent PMs and then search messages with only that label. Although this needs to be done manually and doing this at the time you need to find a particular sent PM would kind of defeat the point of needing to search.
|
|
|
|
From the looks of it for some reason it seems that the manager of the 777coin campaign always tends to get banned. I don't think I have ever seen multiple campaign managers from the same campaign get banned before.
It is pretty rare for even one campaign manager to get banned
It is not that uncommon. marcotheminer got banned for 14 days because of PMs. FortuneJack too for the same reason. And I usually don't pay much attention in all campaigns that are open How do you know FJ was banned? (do you have a thread/reference?) Even if so then that would only be two people who were banned out of 25 campaigns currently open and probably at least as many others that were open (but are now closed) in the last year. That would put the ban rate at roughly 6% which would only be double of the form average of 3% |
|
|
|
New loan request as per pm.
Amount: 1 btc
Repay: 1.2 btc
Repay 08th of Mai or before.
Collateral: This account
Please send 1 btc to: 1HwYCNDJEp5CtgAC688hNYWSTTBcTNvLw4
Approved -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 This is quickseller from bitcointalk today is april 26 2015 The loan to IronMarvel has been funded via TXID 6c7ed108ec7f0c858d311a359f78ba1fc6143f8db34b0fa01f2e6e34f03462c5 Please repay 1.2 BTC to 1BFWwYhpA4Zp5pXKok2xTY5zAWqjbHRA6y by May 8 2015 A output of .01 BTC was sent to the above address as part of the TX that funded the loan. Thank you. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVPRqzAAoJEFMt0pDwvrUWiEYH/RCVb2C9rykhKIB49ugdJ4lP UpU30M3tGY4Q8K9gPdjINv04fp1zV8xX+nezkJSlatmydU9L3XIkH5fB6r1gqH2q IJrHIwPlTwOO2l7sSt80NHWDghn6z0AVKB9i7Rg+jZfkJxb2mJnrT/ciGCo9vrg5 gCVpfKzUuduyojHU7hV+gHUkMaivLvdaN/xx7qfas6xd2qYaqttV+5zWU54zu3Mq 8RpVJ+qAZJciL9rCJaxeW2hsewD7Rxm/HgIj96Rh1BX5MCsPmO/D1ZHCA1bz4zq1 aADvG+fOh1tPZX53aEOglm/QhWjoZNPXQl6ApQiPzPGoy7rOuVAXEpqhJreJ20s= =FyaF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
Your alternate account dmugetsu posted the address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD here ( archive). The address 168RopXoEYRsFYXGPLFZTvZzd8RNo8bkdD and 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs both signed c575d3624907d0593158901bb45e398abcbcfa3bcda627d1eaa0371bb45f23e6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. The addresses 1K9VP3NC75mZP8RiugP43DyvCB4d5mLaMs and 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 16PUsV75ahM7jy2gfErpbcFaA6SKWJpLHh all signed 12972d307be00c564710553b024a1bb0fa2b0f63912bb382410f2963f58055bb and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person. 1vtUh2Mw57ybm2b72Wg9SsqKzRyPdXYxL and 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ both signed 68db84599ca8e78ae03b4389f392c7d6c2d070eb2a608f2d09b7d8a7f35f2d3b and therefore are most likely (are) are owned by the same person 1NekdBBkjzjrbRM3rnTtruCDbA4hSoYsWJ and 1EUMtJ2wRPjioKhiS8qyENjnzvq3B4TZQ5 and 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS all signed ba6ce401ee3ae428bc79e6d4cc3b48dafad8bf943ffcf41a0ba98917ce1768c6 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person 19SEvQkaRguSrujqsy9rDfwWvQt5nNGPwS and 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy both signed 5629ee41edfedb525e03098a00e174220814f88f103c2346c5287baa883f4756 and therefore are most likely (are) owned by the same person You ( TheGambler) posted 13SHyKDR46Yng4V1M8ACo6Vmqz8TwPc8hy here ( archive), and as a result you are an alt of dmugetsu 1. here are screenshots of you trying to send malware to the owner of Moneypot. Here is an exactly similar claim by fairproof that you sent maleware as the claim that MoneyPot made. IMO this is conclusive that you sent malware to casino operators. Casino operators should reasonably be considered gamblers as they are betting that players will not have higher then expected winnings. Considering the lack of other similar reports, as well as the lack of other reports of malware being spread by other users, as well as the fact that you posted ( archive) the day the malware was initially reported (yet did not post for almost a month after the fact) should make it conclusive that you had sent malware to gamblers on the day in question. 2. See below {although you did not specifically ask, you were the 2nd ( archive) investor in bit-dividends.com with your alt/shill dmugetsu was pushing it, and you even admitted to running bit-dividends}. I think this is proof that you scammed this year. Additionally, you then reviewed several sites with that account, but did not invest anything until you started your own crypterest scam ( archive). 2a. Similar to below, and similar to your other scams, you quickly invested ( archive) and were later upbeat ( archive) about the site until I called it out as being run by you (which apparently carries more weight then BadBear giving a similar warning to your previous HYIP scam). 2b. - Again, your alt dmugetsu is making positive comments about this site (while making no positive comments about other sites). Here ( archive). You even tried to sooth investor fears ( archive) when they were skeptical about the site. I think this is reasonable that you were running this site as well. I also put a question mark when I gave your dev negative trust as I was not sure if it was williamJ or not, however evidence collected after the leaving of such negative trust indicates that it was not him. 3. - This should be fairly straight forward. One day you asked me to buy a specific hero account that turned out to be hacked a very short time later. Then another account that also matches the description an of account were you selling off forum happens to also get hacked via the same way then first account gets hacked (this second account was on default trust at the time). I think the above facts are more then enough to prove that you were hacking accounts. Although if a court were to demand my presence in front of a notary then I will do that. It is none of your business what other accounts/assets I own/control. Prepare your anus for yourself to get thrown in jail/prison for a very long time. probably a very long time edit: The shilling of dmugetsu was very similar to the shilling done by a number of your accounts in bitcoin-stocks( archive) -OMG how did a thread where the OP of a self moderated thread deleted all the posts have all the posts displayed ?!?!? it is a scambusers's miracle. |
|
|
|
bump...
compiling more evidence in OP
lol moreia, you haven't added anything to the OP. Again I ask you what you are smoking? You seriously need to lay off the drugs. I'd also suggest putting your sales/marketing skills to good use and get an actual job instead of constantly scamming as you are getting much closer then you think to getting caught in RL  What's with the drug references??? and yes, I have added more info into the OP. P.S. stop using your alts to vote in the poll, or i'll bring mine out. and I can guarantee you that I have A LOT more than you. I am just saying that you thinking that something a prolific scammer says is going to get anyone removed from default trust is just delusional, and I want to know what is causing those delusions. Fine, lets have at it. Lets see who has stronger alts. You bring all of your alts out and vote on the poll and I will bring all my alts and vote |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
