What's wrong @QuickSeller
No reply?? LOL
There is no point to reply. Even if I was "wrong" about the 15+ BTC claimed to have been invested in this site, it doesn't change the fact that you are being it....and even if I am wrong about you being behind this site (I am not) then this site is still nothing more then a scam Where's the facts, where is the evidence ? That's right, it came from your ass I recognize your MO. I have other evidence that I shouldn't disclose in order to prevent you from being able to better cover up your tracks in the future. |
|
|
|
- Using multiple shills to push up th eprice of his sold accounts Just to add, I don't know if this allegation is true or not, and while I dislike this practice, it was determined that bidding on your own auctions with alts in order to inflate the price is allowed on the forums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238474.msg2544470#msg2544470So thats kind of a mute point. You can do this if you want to. According to theymos we should always assume people on this forum are doing this, which is partly why the practice isn't banned. The problem is he didn't use it for an auction, hes using to to dictate the whole account selling market If you don't buy from QuickSeller you buy from ACCTSeller If you don't buy from ACCTSeller you buy from QuickSeller He dictates the market, he determines the prices. Maybe that was because both accounts were reputable and were able to deliver without issue. Even if one of them was not selling accounts then I still would have been able to command high prices because what I sold was not the result of a bunch of spam posts or posts in the giveaway section. Prior to my arrival into the market, account sellers would often have problems with what they sold or would pull an exit scam, anyone that was new to the market would have the label for that possibility to happen to them, however I was able to earn the removal of that possibility |
|
|
|
[...]Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. [...] And here we have case in point why both should be. Having alt accounts enables people to freely express what they think without fear of any potential negative retribution to their "main" account. I express myself freely and I have nothing but positive feedback from trusted members.  I have no alts. You don't generally express unpopular views. I am fairly certain this is not your viewpoint, however if you were to say that escrow is a waste of time for small transactions, then you would probably be labeled as someone who enables scammers, or a scammer yourself. If you were to say this through a shill account (and make an argument for such) then the shill account would receive such label but you would also get to make your statement. Another example is people who live in countries whose governments do not like their people being critical of them. If you happened to live in one of those countries then you would not be able to freely criticize your government because your identity is generally know, however if you created an alt account to speak negatively about your government then you would not fear any kind of retribution from your government. |
|
|
|
[...]Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. [...] And here we have case in point why both should be. Having alt accounts enables people to freely express what they think without fear of any potential negative retribution to their "main" account. |
|
|
|
1- No. Your ponzi scammed within 24 hours of the signature campaign starting and I promptly had participants take down their signatures once I learned it scammed. If anything then your site got a lot less advertising then it otherwise would have and protected participants from getting scammed in the process. 2- That account was not hacked 3- That is not non-transparent (yes I know it is a double negative). I think I am starting to get a feeling as to where you got this information from.  4- I don't follow your logic but I am going to say no. It is a free market, and I have never cited any of my other accounts' prices when negotiating on a sale price. 1- asking you to start a ponzi was to build trust to find your default trust account that you claimed to have
2- the reason/purpose that people have alts is that they are not known to be the same person. Most alts (I assume) are not public.
3- it is not my fault that people wanted to buy what I was selling from multiple accounts. It is a free market.
4- untrue and BS
5- backing out of escrow is scammy behavior. It would be incorrect to not have neg'ed him
5- the only people who claim trust abuse are scammers. I don't abuse the trust system.
You are/were targeting the Russians on here lol. This is a huge market as a lot of people on here have Bitcoin (who would have guessed) and are greedy morons who are more then willing to throw away their money into Ponzis.
Edit: by your own admission, the reason you opened this thread is because you couldn't real me into joining the side of scammers so don't you think trying to get me removed from default trust kind of is a moot point? You think I should be removed because I wouldn't turn scammer?
Wrong wrong wrong wrong... Again. I made this thread because I got all the information I could suck out of you... Wasnt getting any further so I posted what I got I opened this thread because of the proof I have against you I target Russian forums, mmgp.ru etc, bought verified accounts there. There's no market here, not even in the Russian board. You should be removed because you're a liar, and use the trust system to get your own way If you say so. Although you did not get any information out of me, and you did not get any information/evidence against me. You also target bitcointalk investor based games section as well. I'm sorry where did I say that ACCTSeller is not my alt?
You never admitted to it and asked people to prove. You should have openly said that yes, I am an alt and it's not against the rules. You chose to hide it. Having an alt is nothing wrong. It feels weird when you try to hide such a small fact. In this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0 it appeared as if two people were talking. I have no issues with you as the OP also had used a bot and in this case as well the OP isn't trustworthy but since you are, it dint look good for you to not admit this fact. I have nothing against you but what I felt, I wrote. Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. The reason why people have alts in the first place is so each account is not associated with the other, and there is no problem with that as long as one of them does not scam which neither of them did. I don't think it is unfair to ask that someone who is trying to cause trouble for me frivolously to be asked to prove any claim they make against me. So first you state it was a known fact now you admit it was a secret??? Make up your mind Since none of my accounts are scammer accounts, it is no one's business what my other accounts are. A good number of people do know about my other account(s) however that does not mean that I am going to tell someone who is trying to cause trouble for me |
|
|
|
What's wrong @QuickSeller
No reply?? LOL
There is no point to reply. Even if I was "wrong" about the 15+ BTC claimed to have been invested in this site, it doesn't change the fact that you are being it....and even if I am wrong about you being behind this site (I am not) then this site is still nothing more then a scam |
|
|
|
|
I received a similar PM. I told him that his entire post history consisted of scammy behavior and that I did not need his $3 worth of Bitcoin.
I am really not sure why people with negative trust are able to use self moderated threads like that. I believe that in the days of scammer tags anyone with a scammer tag was unable to edit or delete posts (I assume use self moderated threads or lock threads as well). I think anyone that has a trade with caution tag when only looked at by up to level two of default trust that people should have these same restrictions.
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry where did I say that ACCTSeller is not my alt?
You never admitted to it and asked people to prove. You should have openly said that yes, I am an alt and it's not against the rules. You chose to hide it. Having an alt is nothing wrong. It feels weird when you try to hide such a small fact. In this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0 it appeared as if two people were talking. I have no issues with you as the OP also had used a bot and in this case as well the OP isn't trustworthy but since you are, it dint look good for you to not admit this fact. I have nothing against you but what I felt, I wrote. Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. The reason why people have alts in the first place is so each account is not associated with the other, and there is no problem with that as long as one of them does not scam which neither of them did. I don't think it is unfair to ask that someone who is trying to cause trouble for me frivolously to be asked to prove any claim they make against me. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry where did I say that ACCTSeller is not my alt?
|
|
|
|
This worked out better than I thought it would.
On the payment page it asked me to pay 0.047BTC(less than what OP stated).
The product got delivered in my email within 15mins, it was in the format username:password .
Then when I tried to log in using that credentials, everything went fine and i was able to access the account.
Sorry for doubting you, thought this was a scam. Thanks for the great deal.
Although I got the account but still everyone should take precautions and buy accounts at their own will.
Also the account looks fine with fine posts but still I will want to hold it for a few days to see nothing is wrong, if things go right(till now they are fine) then ill also purchase your other accounts too.
I am assuming that no kind of signed message was provided to prove ownership. Without a signed message from an address posted a long time ago then it would be easy for someone to later come back and claim the account was hacked. Plus you don't know how many accounts the OP actually has verses how many he is selling so its possible that the last one (or the last two) accounts don't actually exist and he will just collect payment for it. M Tl;dr - it is a much better idea to use a forum escrow verses sending first to a newbie. |
|
|
|
|
It isn't difficult to calculate how much activity each account can reach, it really only takes a few minutes once you have the dates the activity periods ended.
There are a lot of older accounts that posted less then every two weeks and missed several activity periods.
|
|
|
|
You ran a bot on coinchat, probably with TF's help. You admitted this before, so you can't really deny it now: I *did* use coinchat a few months ago and I was banned by "admin". We exchanged some emails in which I asked him what I had done to be banned and I didn't ever get a detailed response. He said I owed him 0.2BTC if I wanted to be reinstated on coinchat. I asked him several times where he came up with that number and what I had done wrong. Each time, however, he just replied tersely about some sort of fraud and paying him back.
The best guess I have at what he was angry about is that I was experimenting with robots on his site using the api the he published (and I as I understood it) he encouraged us to use. I enjoyed coinchat and I learned a lot about node.js while I was experimenting there.
Coinchat paid people to chat, not bots. Bot owners on coinchat we're supposed to tag their bots with "bot" so that the system would mark them as inelligible for payments for the chatting they did. So what exactly are you saying TF is lying about? are you saying your bots never received any payment for chatting? Or perhaps that TF said to you your bots were elligible to receive payments? This is what I don't understand at all. You claim the allegations are untrue, but don't say what is untrue, just that TF is a scammer, which is somewhat relevant of course but I have not took anything TF said into account here, only things you said and my knowledge of how coinchat worked. You never said either of these things in the initial complaint or gave any other excuse so I suspect you did defraud coinchat, however this was a long time ago and the Bitcoin price was much lower too, approximately $128.50/BTC. So if you did defraud coinchat the amount you took was only ~$64. Not exactly the scam of the century, and as long as you don't have a history of doing this kind of thing then I don't think this on its own makes you very untrustworthy, nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, there are no heros or villains in this world - only heroic and villainous acts. Perhaps what you could do is offer to refund the $64 to someone who was scammed by TF. Maybe you could do this to "atone". However, the way you have acted when confronted about this by Quickseller doesn't exactly scream trustworthy at all. Here's the deal man, first off, I feel very angry that I'm having to try to go through all this again, given the large time distance and the fact that while I have caused 0 problems around here, TF has well... But nevertheless, QS is determined to drag us all back through this mud so here we go. I don't deny that I was working on a bot but I do deny any fraud or anything else. I was in good-faith chatting on coinchat (using my fingers to type the messages and my eyes to read the replies and my own brain parse and understand them) and I was learning node.js and seeing what's what. My best guess as to what happened is that my code didn't have a timer correctly set or I had some loop in there (I was a total noob) and that I sent a bunch of messages in a row or something and that's why "admin"/TF banned my account. As I said upthread, it was only after getting banned that I got any kind of info about the rules for bots, how they were to be named, where they were to be chatting and whatnot. This is despite asking TF about those rules on coinchat and him never getting back to me about it (I swear this info is somewhere upthread here and I still haven't read it all again). Some time later (weeks, I'm not sure, but I recall it being later) I find the negative feedback on my account and I started this thread because I wasn't really sure what to do about it. so you admit to receiving some amount of funds that were not actually due to you then. If the bot was still running when it was not "intended" to then you would have earned some amount. When you say that reading through this doesn't make you think that I should be seen as untrustworthy you should ask youself this. Does it mean that I should be kicked out of a signature ad campaign? I don't do trades so negative feedback from QS only has one real impact, it got me booted from my signature ad campaign and this was exactly his goal. He even stated it on the main thread of my campaign. Then he spent about a day looking for something to use against me and this is what he came up with. After you've answered that, ask yourself this: is this the kind of behavior you'd expect from someone on default trust? Bullying small, unimportant people because they've disagreed with you in the past? Is that what default trust is supposed to be used for? Doesnt matter. You are a spammer so not having an incentive to post on here is probably good for the forum overall, however regardless, you scammed, end of story. Just because you claim that someone was motivated to find dirt on you does not give you an excuise to have scammed in the past. Here's the problem with you quoting those numbers: they are completely arbitrary. TF had accused me in this thread of taking some wild amount of BTC that I didn't even own at the time, then he "ballparked" it somewhere else then I think he settled on "all money I had ever withdrawn". But as I said, I spent many hours on that site chatting and having fun and I had withdrawn my rewards legitimately. TF was throwing numbers out with no backing and demanding that I pay him those amounts in order to remove his negative rating. I walked away from that ransom attempt. History has shown what kind of guy he was and what kind of stock should be placed into his accusations.
it doesn't matter if you scammed for .01 or 1.5, the fact of the matter is that you scammed. When you were called out about it you refused to pay and refused to even try to make it right. Like I said in the thread that he opened on me, I don't think he is ever going to get caught scamming in the future because he has learned his lesson on how to avoid getting caught and displays a tendency to dispute any claim of him scamming even though the evidence again him is clear.
Quickseller is some kind of zealous madman on a rampage against me at this point. I honestly do not enjoy these drama festival flame-wars and I started a thread in Meta only a few days before this nonsense against me began in an attempt to make things more drama free around here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0 For that reason, I locked the main thread in which I call out QS for his unmotivated mudslinging smear campaign because the thread had degenerated into a flame war. I'm not interested in continuing that flame war here. QS, the best thing you can do at the moment is remove your negative trust on me and hope that I forget about this by the time that BadBear gets back from holiday. why would I remove my negative? You scammed. When I called you out about the scam you threatened me and started a flame war. When people started to say that you were wrong you locked the thread you opened against me. All of these things make you untrustworthy in my (and probably in most anyone else's who is reasonable) eyes. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think there is a minimum if you create a voucher. You can simply sell a voucher for some amount of Bitcoin. You will probably get less then the full amount though.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a reason why you asked for some other person's bank information and then disappeared a few months ago?
It seems like you are just fishing for people's bank account numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
1- asking you to start a ponzi was to build trust to find your default trust account that you claimed to have
2- the reason/purpose that people have alts is that they are not known to be the same person. Most alts (I assume) are not public.
3- it is not my fault that people wanted to buy what I was selling from multiple accounts. It is a free market.
4- untrue and BS
5- backing out of escrow is scammy behavior. It would be incorrect to not have neg'ed him
5- the only people who claim trust abuse are scammers. I don't abuse the trust system.
You are/were targeting the Russians on here lol. This is a huge market as a lot of people on here have Bitcoin (who would have guessed) and are greedy morons who are more then willing to throw away their money into Ponzis.
Edit: by your own admission, the reason you opened this thread is because you couldn't real me into joining the side of scammers so don't you think trying to get me removed from default trust kind of is a moot point? You think I should be removed because I wouldn't turn scammer?
|
|
|
|
Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.
I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though.
ALSO, Why don't you admit that you are ACCTSeller's alt, before I have to go dig for proof of that to?Okay I know I told you that I am ACCTSeller so there is no point in denying that lol. It is a pretty well known fact anyway. You gave tspacepilot negative trust using both Quickseller and ACCTSeller for saying that ACCTSeller was your account. Does that qualify as trust abuse? Are you planning to apologize? Yes, that is trust abuse. He probably wants that account so he negs it, offers a price from one of his alts, and then sells it. I wouldn't be surprised if thats the actual case. I recently saw Quickseller negative rep another account pagalwana,, who also defaulted on a loan , and after a scam accusation negative repped the account. But after the person who loaned him the amount contacted QUickseller to sell it, probably for the escrow fees, Quickseller agreed to remove the negative trust and escrowed the sale for the seller. I haven't offered the same deal or to pay him some money for it, probably why he wouldn't remove it, despite providing all the proof, and the negative trust given by him a month later after I bought the account. Right. I sold trust for the $1 minimum amount I get from acting as escrow. /s I hope you realize just how moronic that sounds buddy. Australian? Interesting Yes literally the iPad screenshot you just posted shows an iPad with the timezone set to Australia. All of the BTC you got from scamming wouldn't even cover a retainer for a good lawyer if you were ever arrested. You're young and ignorant of how the world works. he does make a lot of mistakes and anytime he tries to start a new scam it is pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Alright buddy whatever you say. Good luck with your next scam.
|
|
|
|
Yea because you would just send funds to the site then mix the coins and re deposit the same coins. Or considering how much you have stolen in the past you could have just deposited your own funds into the site from various addresses. I never said that you sent me malware but you have sent several gambling sites malware in the past, there was proof posted in your scam accusation against fair proof (who you also sent malware to). Isn't this the Australian ponzi runner guy? I forget his name. Like most of what he says, his claims to have a DefaultTrusted account are hot air.
It's sad how all these kids from HackForums are coming over to BTCTalk. RIP.
yes it is the Australian HYIP scammer. He is moreia aka spoodermen aka many other accounts (I am aware of ~10 accounts, but he claims to have ~15). He has scammed for 10+ btc multiple times. He has said that he got the default trust account "accidentally" so newly added accounts are being looked into. At this point I am starting to think the claim of a default trust account is a red herring however it was told to me in a way that was not confrontational. |
|
|
|
I also don't see the point of publishing the chat logs considering I have denied nothing lol. But whatever floats your boat. Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.
I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though.
ALSO, Why don't you admit that you are ACCTSeller's alt, before I have to go dig for proof of that to?Okay I know I told you that I am ACCTSeller so there is no point in denying that lol. It is a pretty well known fact anyway. You gave tspacepilot negative trust using both Quickseller and ACCTSeller for saying that ACCTSeller was your account. Does that qualify as trust abuse? Are you planning to apologize? no it does not. One negative was given from ACCTSeller because the infraction was not something that qualified for a trade with caution tag, however once I found additional information that showed he scammed I decided that his scam qualified to be severe enough that he should have a trade with caution tag. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
