Seems like EP has not logged in today.
If the emails are authentic then he probably won't log into the EvilPanda account again. It's too bad. I always though he was above board and did not have that close of a connection to GAW |
|
|
|
I am sorry to say, however the money is more likely then not gone. Whoever stole your funds is most likely going to use some kind of mixer/tumbler which will mean that you will think you are tracing the funds but in reality someone completely unrelated to the attacker/thief is using/moving the funds. In theory you could use some kind of blockchain analysis tool/software to try to figure out which mixer the funds were sent to and when, however with dealing with that small of an amount it will be difficult to determine "where" the mixer sent the funds to (e.g. what were the "exit" addresses of the mixer)
1) Not my money, just to be clear, I was brought in at the time. 2) I deal with other cases which use tumblers. They're a pain but not impossible to track money through. The real problem is even when on the other side, what can you actually do to find out who people are and even then get the money from them? It's very difficult. However, that shouldn't stop us trying (what you say is completely correct of course and my client has written the funds off, unhappily). When I refer to "your" funds, I am referring to your funds on behalf of your client (for simplistic sake). Assuming you can figure out what addresses the money was withdrawn to (and assuming they do not go through a 2nd tumbler) then you can trace the funds to hopefully what will be an exchange. You would then ask the exchange for the identity of the account owner(s) identity(es) (you would probably need to use some legal process to get them). If you do have experience in tracing money through tumblers, I believe that stunna was looking for someone that could tell him which exchange certain coins were deposited to that were stolen from his casino. |
|
|
|
Update: The money is moving as of right now.
New addresses are:
1KnbMbHiJGWMAh8f953b29AHt4F1RA4a1E
1PevTMzkXHni1njiY1sKsR7c69vRwdyqhw
1FbjNKrUnEtdSdHsw76CXTY6yJvTckxVKM
13sACCMNr7YPHs8qdXKrTkZWdZZWXu7Tkt
This hack may have been part of a much larger scam, hard for me to say.
I am sorry to say, however the money is more likely then not gone. Whoever stole your funds is most likely going to use some kind of mixer/tumbler which will mean that you will think you are tracing the funds but in reality someone completely unrelated to the attacker/thief is using/moving the funds. In theory you could use some kind of blockchain analysis tool/software to try to figure out which mixer the funds were sent to and when, however with dealing with that small of an amount it will be difficult to determine "where" the mixer sent the funds to (e.g. what were the "exit" addresses of the mixer) |
|
|
|
Wow! Another MS-68...
Is the gold hologram coin from the small batch that Smoothie auctioned off on here?
Yes the coins were all purchased from smoothie directly on the forum. The MS-68 is a true beauty I will upload some pics later today. Also, some very competitive prices OP. Do you think the prices listed are too low? |
|
|
|
|
In case anyone is wondering this person is almost certainly being run by moreia who is a serial HYIP scammer, he has scammed with too many HYIPs to count.
Even if this isn't the case then they are pretty clearly lying about how much "investors" have "invested" so far. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Need coin asap , Can go to the store and buy any card in person , or send western union or anything else like that... I have cash in hand and need coin now
I can do this for PayPal You obviously don't want to deal with this person.
There are few people that are willing to sell their coins at a discount (even if it is small), and if you need bitcoin now then it would be advisable to offer a small premium to encourage people to sell to you that might not otherwise be interested in selling. And obviously you should almost always use escrow unless you have a lot of experience trading as it will protect you from scammer |
|
|
|
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.
1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time
Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.
It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention. - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list. - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots. - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback. - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback. - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour. - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour. Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified. Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign  Again, it's just my opinion. Well you may think that the OP has been around since late 2013 with no issues, however as you can see, he refuses to admit to scamming TF even after evidence has been presented to the contrary. As you saw on the 2013 thread, he tried to weasel his way out of him being labeled a scammer despite the fact that he clearly did steal. Now he is even going as far as saying that he did not admit to using the bot to illegally receive bitcoin previously when it is clear that he did. If he did scam someone and they did not take very careful notes and document everything perfectly then the OP would simply deny the claims and it would look frivolous. When people act like this, there is a significantly higher reason to call them out (and warn people) about any past transgressions he has done in the past as he has likely learned his lesson as to how to not act if he doesn't want to get caught.
I see little reason to avoid withholding this proof that sed is an alt of the OP since the OP is refusing to deny the fact sed is not controlled/owned by him. tspacepilot posted the address 1PtuuKPwm9nmmFEyvnJBsqfjn51uHjTqda a number of places including here( archive). If you look at the blockchain then you will see that both the above address and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU both signed a number of transactions together, including 589c08b659c1f449f501a288ff0d3579722d6a490e34f14b117e934b73eb6c64 which only had inputs from the two addresses plus one more so it is unlikely that they are exchange addresses. The sed account posted the above address, among other placed here ( archive). For further confirmation that the above addresses are not an exchange (or similar) addresses, both his vanity address 1waLNutzCh3DuwCvHcHmFgGg6vsLiWfn4 and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU signed 04e54102a0b7f8c20bc17d7d87a71c8c66b2bf09822bab83aa8c03971f7b7e54. Also, incase you think it is something they would get banned over, he was replying to himself several times, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 several times over the last few months, while both accounts were enrolled in dadice. This was only from a review of sed's post history, there would likely be more revealed if you were to look at tspacepilot's history. here is another one. Also for reference, here is one example of when he was highly critical of the paid advertisement in the overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, of which I was a frequent bidder/advertiser. And here is where he was socking via tspacepilot to argue for the removal of the advertisement. p.s. - one other thing, sed's shill rating is >249 |
|
|
|
|
Where did you buy the dice script and who did you buy it from? (e.g. Skype handle, forum handle, which forum, ect.)
|
|
|
|
|
I am going with +5.01% to 5.25% this time around. The short term trend seems to be that the hash rate has spiked, although it may be due to good luck
Maybe the "good luck" we saw a few weeks ago at ant pool was actually bitmain testing the S4+ in mass
|
|
|
|
Well , how do you think to prove that account is yours? W/o proving account's ownership , I dont think it will go higher price.
my bid 0.03 (and its final if you cant provide the ownership)
he already said that he cannot prove ownership. The only reliable way to prove ownership is to get a signed message from a old address associated with the account. Any other way will involve looking at proof from something that is likely easier to hack then a bitcointalk account. |
|
|
|
Can't give a definition to the terms you're using eh?  Scammy behavior is something that is subjective and requires the use of judgment. However backing out of escrow is almost always going to be considered to be scammy behavior. Backing out of escrow while stomping your feet is always going to be scammy behavior. At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling. |
|
|
|
|
Well yes I have argued that not counting certain sections is just going to move the problem (and hilariousandco has pointed out that it will result in campaigns getting free advertising). However my additional point here is that pushing the problem to other sections will result in some sections would become overwhelmed with signature related useless posts that should not have any of such posts (and will stand out because they traditionally have a small volume of posts) and other sections will be overwhelmed by so many insubstantial posts that moderators cannot sufficiently moderate.
I don't think stricter moderation is the solution because people will eventually figure out how to evade their bans and will simply come back under different accounts and continue to spam. If campaign managers are more strict about which accounts they accept into campaigns and which accounts they allow to continue to participate as this will result in people being prevented from participating in sig deals in the first place and in some situations will not get paid for their shit posts.
My arguement is that if managers push insubstantial posts into other subs then the ultimate consequence will be that paid signature deals will be disallowed all together.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I would add to my first post in this thread is that if enough campaigns ban enough sections then it will likely lead to the ultimate banning of paid signatures. The reason being is that it is going to push shit posts/threads into sections like technical support and technical discussion which is intended go discuss advanced topics. Additionally sections like Bitcoin discussion will see even more of shit posts and threads asking ridiculously stupid questions beyond the point that it would be possible to keep clean which would defeat the point of having a Bitcoin discussion forum in the first place.
|
|
|
|
I'm also givinf the account for u to cash out your self
yea anyone that "gives" your bank account as payment for Bitcoin is going to be doing something illegal. If you do buy from the OP I would suggest buying a lot of cigarettes. |
|
|
|
I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread. Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.
Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.
Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar. It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"
Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once! Negative rating totally deserved!"
Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now. Everyone can see that. I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this. You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why? Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?
It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it. I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right).
I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban). |
|
|
|
-snip-
no
You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic.  I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous I never actually said or implied that. Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I say. ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required.
To clarify: To me it seems like you gave him a negative rating for having an unsuccessful transaction with him while he never scammed you. And you're telling me that he could end up being a scammer later? Is this a prophecy? Because he couldn't scam you or the seller in the transaction you were handling even if he wanted to. And this is not how trust ratings are supposed to work. No. You said What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this You said nothing about a failed transaction. However to address your concerns, it is not only appropriate to leave negative trust when someone scammed you, otherwise when new users get scammed, the scammer will never receive actual negative trust. The negative trust was the result of scammy behavior. Period |
|
|
|
Hey, can you also send EUR currency to my Paypal account? I need about 15€.
Please Pm me
It would probably not be a good idea to do business with the OP considering that he has a history of engaging in shady deals with vague terms that end up with his trading partners on the loosing end |
|
|
|
I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread. Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole. edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal" Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me. Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated. You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you? And are we supposed to feel bad for you? More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies? I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this. I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority. That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to. For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long. I don't think, I know that the two of you are the same person, I just want to see if you admit it (which I know you won't), or deny it, which you probably won't either because you are going to "exercise your right to remain silent" although I do have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the same person. I am not backing down from my original claim, I am just pointing out that there is more to this thread then the negative that I left you. |
|
|
|
-snip-
no
You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic. I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous |
|
|
|
And while backing off this deal seems a bit shady, it didn't cause any harm. Not it could have caused any. That's why I believe a neutral rating instead of a negative one would have been more justified since Quickseller has no evidence to support that this user attempted to scam someone. Yes, what worsiper did was unprofessional but not fraudulent. If quickseller doesn't want to deal with him again he's free to do whatever he wants. But ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required. And in the end of the day, quickseller wasn't all that professional in this transaction, he could have been the one to deny providing his service from the start instead of presenting new terms and avoid all this.
Scammer will often agree to use escrow and then disappear once escrow is set up with the hopes that escrow will take too long to respond so their trading partner will simply agree to send first (and end up getting scammed). All of the OP's terms demands were met yet he still backed out of the deal. What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this.
no |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
