reserved

This is self-moderated in order to stay on-topic and to keep clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers

Account sellers are not accepted within the community, their accounts are tagged with negative trust as soon as they are noticed by several members and I welcome that course of action as we try to minimise the impact they have on the wider forum with spamming and nefarious activity.

Going further, as a community we should not be selective about which accounts we tag for being previously sold on the basis of some traded accounts might be deemed as positively contributing to the forum. As a community we should be able to achieve some form of consensus about effectively what is the correct course of action in these types of circumstances.

If we as a collective pick and choose which sold/bought/traded accounts we tag and the ones we opt to not tag, then in my opinion we are setting a dangerous precedent because if we allow traded accounts to operate freely with impunity on the basis 'x' amount of time has passed (therefore they should not be tagged) it will send a signal to other would-be account buyers and account farmers. They too can use that as an argument and it should never be allowed.

If accounts are continuously traded on the understanding that if they are exposed at a later date they can try to defend their position by saying they purchased the account a long time ago and deserve to be given a chance just as other traded accounts were given a reprieve, it is unacceptable. This should not cloud any judgement and this practice should stop.

Once again to be clear, in my opinion if account traders make what are deemed to be any positive/good contributions towards the benefit of the forum, that cannot be superseded by the fact the account was traded. On that basis I will ~exclude accounts from my trust list and tag them.

If you know or suspect any members operating traded accounts feel free to post their name in this thread and state why you think they are using a traded/sold/bought account in order for it to be discussed as a prelude to it being possibly tagged by myself and/or others.

Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag. After all, if you feel strongly enough about it to mention the account here maybe you should consider placing your own tag beforehand.

The OP obviously concocted the story in the hope to be on the receiving end of frantic merits from the community as a thank you gesture for his (alleged) integrity but his plan backfired. He received trust exclusion and he also received negative trust therefore had he not created this nonsense thread he would have avoided it.

What made me laugh was the manner in which the original ambiguous lie put forward using as much incomprehension as possible yet as soon as I tagged his account he edited the OP and added very comprehensive English to elaborate on what allegedly happened with the $2500 he will never be able to prove he received.

As you correctly pointed out, there is no proof of anything the OP claims except that he has created this type of thread in the past.

You are absolutely right, there were instances of account farming related to easily exceeding 10+ 20+ fake accounts all being used for either merit abuse, signature campaigns and various nefarious purposes.

You are an experienced individual therefore you should know when the person you are communicating with starts using excessive amounts of smileys within their replies they do not have much more to add (not that they may have had anything of substance to add in the first place).

This post is not off-topic because it is yet another example of an account that was created or purchased for the sole purpose of earning through signature campaigns yet took unnecessary steps that got them noticed. That is why this thread was created because the John Abraham account took unnecessary steps that got that his account noticed.

Well if that is the case he has failed because it looks as like the three forum members that left negative feedback (Poker Player, The Sceptical Chymist and myself) have all taken individual decisions to not revise nor modify the respective feedbacks.

I think it is clear to him he has lost the account as far as earning an income from it is concerned therefore he tried his best at trying a different approach to attempt manipulation via the PM route.

No there is no beef  

The OP is a fantasist who makes up stories in order to try to receive merits whilst claiming he is doing nothing like that. As far as I am concerned he claims he writes for a living but he has avoided answering the question while posting about other things. I thought he would at least provide an answer but I probably gave him undue credit.

I merely asked the OP what the connection was between the Newchanka account and the member operating the Cyberczar account. He has posted a lot in this thread but has unsurprisingly remained unwilling to answer.

Why are you implying the OP has more than one account?

The OP is calling you a dumb fellow who is living in the past. I guess that is his way of insulting  

You should ask the OP about the exact relationship between his Newchanka account and the member operating the Cyberczar account maybe that will drag him from the past and back in to the present.

Since he likes to write a lot maybe he will provide an explanation that would make sense  

Well, when you realise you no longer suffer from amnesia and you are willing to post evidence of the imaginary payment, we might possibly engage in conversation further including your alleged redemption from past errors  

We already knew it because you were obviously fabricating the whole drama in the hope of receiving merits.

Yes I did tag your Newchanka account, it should have been tagged years ago. Even though you messed up on this Newchanka account you might do better with the others you are farming. Better late than never, at least this one is tagged.

Ok, let us not digress (not my) friend.

Since you can write a lot and that is apparently what you portray your trade to be, can you explain in detail exactly what the relationship is between your Newchanka account and the member operating the Cyberczar account.

If you cannot post back with an explanation based on your very own "Just Think it, I'll Write it" signature text, then do run along.

No, I do not think anything of the sort. My life does not revolve around Bitcointalk but as you were the one trying to build up this "Newchanka" account I would say you (courtesy of your other accounts including any you intend on trying to sell) prove that your life revolves around this forum.

You anticipated you would receive bundles of merits for your fabricated story but in the end you received a negative tag for account selling. Now, had you not bothered with making this thread to attract attention on to yourself you would not have received the negative tag and would not have been excluded from my trust list.

I hope others also tag and exclude your "Newchanka" account as that would send out a message to other accounts traders from some of us old and new members.

The OP has a history of account trading therefore dismiss the nonsense he is posting. Do not believe anything the OP is claiming because he is attention-seeking.

He probably thinks that by making up false stories and narratives he would receive merits but his irresponsible conduct can be traced back to his first post in the forum under this "Newchanka" account:

This might be an old thread but the evidence is clear in that you are an account seller. That is enough to tag your "Newchanka" account with negative trust because this type of behaviour is not accepted within the forum, it is heavily frowned upon.

People usually are interested in buying accounts in order to spam threads after they are selected on a campaign or they buy them for other nefarious reasons.

I gave up on reading about Cryptopia a long time ago because it was 99% about what Grant Thornton were putting out for public consumption. I was not interested after their first few reports therefore cannot be sure if they did ask Binance to freeze funds but this is what the Hacked Assets part of the report stated:

We continue to work with the New Zealand Police and international authorities as they work to determine the source of the January 2019 hack. Our obligation is to seek recoveries for stakeholders’ benefit. As previously reported, we have filed recovery actions in the United States of America, Malaysia and Singapore related to the January 2019 hack

As you correctly mentioned, their (never-ending) investigation has still not ended yet and they have refused to be specific as to where those requested frozen funds in those countries are being held.

If for a moment just for argument sake, we remove the issue of the local boards and sections of the forum (as to not limit the approach to just one language or locality and instead look at local boards generically), the issue of many members having and operating multiple accounts is a huge problem. It happens in the global boards too.

I doubt the OP is sitting around idle just waiting in the hope his account will be unblocked, he has probably been actively cultivating his other accounts but if he wishes to drag this out posting here appealing the ban then let him waste his time. Eventually the OP or a moderator will lock the thread.

The question arises, why would the OP start this thread and draw attention on to himself? If marlboroza had given the negative tag and he is no longer using the forum it means there is nothing he can do about it. As a result of him bringing attention to himself he has received two more negative tags.

I have added another four names to that list and then tagged the OP with negative trust. As soon as I have ample time I will tag all of the accounts:

Dank14, grim007, grim07, Omegasun, Mintcondition, Casabrandy, IKZIR31, pratamaPR31, Gastotade, Armstand, Lumada, Blamsud, vasrasus, Wandika, Palodar, Kolder, PhilPrime, Bitcoin Market, xWill, Dahhi, Gaugh, Goms, Daisy14, BlockEye, Gahs, Dinki, Goms, Daisy14

Well, I also received a PM from the John Abraham account. It seems those that left negative trust on his account received the PM.

I also think working behind the scenes via PM to provide information or present arguments is not best practice if the objective is to try to have feedback/trust either removed or revised. When presenting a case if everything is out in the open for all to see there can be no doubt about what is going on when questions and answers are put forward. In these types of matters the community should (as you said) be able to weight in.

I will not reply to the PM but also will state that if the John Abraham account has anything to add then he should post it here for all to read.

This is the part I found (almost) laughable, they have claimed $460,000 as their fees for this period whatever that might mean. Overall, for the work they have been doing they must have already taken millions of USD$ from the funds that were recovered.

Remuneration Report:
The Liquidators’ remuneration received for the Period, charged at the hourly rates, totalled $459,727 exclusive of GST. This includes time spent carrying out investigations, attempting to secure hacked assets, development and management of the claim’s portal, designing and overseeing an appropriate identity verification process, supervision of the Cryptopia customer support team, development and engagement with specialist Crypto-asset experts and liaising with legal authorities.

In the report they mentioned they have asked authorities in various countries to seize and/or return funds based on them being taken in the alleged 2019 Cryptopia hack therefore the funds recovered could go a long way to helping victims.

I would tend to agree with this statement because in the early days many miners would have simply lost their Bitcoin as they would not have had access to the facilities for spending them as we do now but do we have statistical evidence pointing towards the number of lost Bitcoins?

What you said is correct. To change the basic fundamentals Bitcoin was based on will be detrimental to the core principles it was founded upon.

What I would like to ask is if the OP really is a newbie or if he is a newly created account by an established member. If I had to choose I would go with the notion this is not his only account and the OP was looking for merits (but received none as of yet).

I think it is clear he/she is fighting a losing battle when it comes to trying to reprieve their NoorulHuda account. Nothing they say (and no matter which explanations they provide or which stories they concoct) will probably have ban lifted otherwise it would have been done by now.

I do not believe anything the OP says. There is no genuine remorse at plagiarism, it is related to being unable to use the account to earn an income via signature campaigns. They should give up on this banned account be careful not to make the same mistakes with their other farmed accounts otherwise they will be banned too.

I suppose if you wanted to, you would have done mentioned it in your post but nevertheless would you be in a position to elaborate further as to what you define as "I do something stupid". Members reading this thread might be able to advise you (while you wait for a reply from Whirlwind, that is if you have not already received it).