I am still waiting on the TXIDs and the signed messages. I guess you didn't think to get evidence to support your "story" prior to making claims about your "investment"

I could care less about my account having neg trust, I am more then willing to use escrow and have no need for a loan.

My account temporarily has negative trust but it is not for sale.

The original owner of the account could have possibly provided the private key when the account was sold. It would not prove anything.

EDIT: Although I would find it somewhat unlikely that the buyer received the private key as there are unspent inputs in the subject address, it would still be possible the private key was purchased as well

Why don't you post the TXID of when you "invested" your bitcoin in the scam site.

My point is that you had previously shown no interest in gambling then all of a sudden you are investing over AU$100,000 in a gambling site. You didn't start with a small amount first to see how things go?

You gave those two neg trust because they were exposing your scam, just as I am. I could care less about receiving neg trust as I am open to using escrow, however you are just proving my point that the account was purchased because it was on default trust with the intention of furthering your scams.

If you really invested in DB then why don't you sign a message form an address that is somehow connected to DB's cold storage address, as any funds you sent/received would be connected to it? I know that you wont because you can't because you are lying.

Also why don't you explain why you started posting almost exclusively in the off topic section after posting exclusively in the mining sub forum? Trust me that I know what a sold account looks like and your account matches it exactly

If he stole that NXTscamcoin then the police should arrest him and prosecute him. Until it is proven in open court that he is guilty then I will presume him to be innocent. He is posting information that is found on youtube. The information is public

I am saying that he did not want to attract attention to the account by posting with it. If the account was hacked several months ago the new owner could have made a new account when he was unable to access his old account. If the old owner saw his old account making posts they he might claim that it was hacked.

I did not purchase nor sell this account because there was a question over ownership. If you want to scam then confidentiality will not be kept. If you want to use your account for non obvious scamming purposes then there is no reason for me to disclose that an account was sold.

It is forum policy to not moderate scams, and to not investigate as to if claims are true. It is not up to the forum to decide if a claim is true or not, regardless of if it is far fetched.

Suspected account: chalidore

Over the past few months I was contacted on two occasions looking for both an account on default trust and an account with positive/green trust (with trust being several months old) by the same person. I suspect the person was wanting to use the default trust account to give credibility to other sockpuppet accounts.

Yesterday Stunna opened up a scam accusation against RandyFolds because he thinks he is using a purchased account with positive trust to create a casino that is a likely scam. Prior to a few weeks ago the RandyFolds account was not used in roughly a year. The RandyFolds account was likely purchased on or about 28/9/14 as this is when it first posted after not posting for a year.

Today the chalidore account gives both Stunna and Eisenhower34 who had both given RandyFolds negative trust because of the accusation because of "trust abuse" and "trash talking" about a site that he is invested in. He also gave positive trust to the RandyFolds account. I suspect the negative trust is to pressure Stunna and Eisehower34 to remove the negative trust and the positive trust for the chalidore was to give it undue credibility.

The positive trust given to RandyFolds by chalidore claims to have invested 340 BTC in the site. On 1/10/14 RandyFolds opened a self moderated thread asking for beta testers. chalidore responded on 1/10/14 saying that he is interested.
At current prices 340 BTC is equal to ~AU$132,000.00. I personally find it hard to believe that someone would invest this much in a site after "knowing" the operator of the site for only three days. I have never personally invested this much money before but I would assume that a person would do more due diligence then what can be done in three days when investing that much money. I have reviewed the recent posts of chalidore and have not found any that were in the gambling subforum.

I believe that the chalidore account was purchased because of it's position on default trust because on 9/10/14 it posted ~160 posts, mostly in the off topic section in the span of only a few weeks. It had previously only posted 83 posts, mainly in the mining subforum (except for his first few posts in the beginners subforum).

chalidore is on default trust because CanaryInTheMinetrusts him (I do not believe CanaryInTheMine is involved in this scam) likely from a group by from a long time ago.

It is my firm belief that account trading should be allowed however I do not agree with this kind of activity and believe this kind of activity will lead to the banning of account trading.

He tried to get me to buy his account also, and I asked him to make at least one post (as it had not posted in ~1 year) to get the attention of the true owner if it in fact was hacked, and he refused to do so (he actually ignored my request, which I would consider a refusal). I also asked him if he can sign a message from an old unedited post with a BTC address and his response was

He is claiming that the person being doxxed has committed a tort against him and is involved in illegal/unethical activity (I don't follow the scam coin community so I am not 100% sure what the backstory is) and is going to make these people aware of the alleged tort/crimes that were committed, this is not illegal nor is it illegal to announce that he will do so.

Her employer has a vested interest in wanting to know if their employees are breaking the law as they post a liability if they are doing so, if the employer is involved in illegal activity then it is of public interest of such illegal activity.

Probably not, but it is not illegal to post a person's personal information. It is being advocated that the OP of the topic referenced in the OP of this topic be censored. The pictures are screenshots from youtube which can be accessed by anyone.

Off topic - there appears to be a huge amount of drama in the alt/scam coin subforum. Maybe we should start charging people for posting there (or we could charge people for access to it - like the donator subforum but with a smaller price tag)

From the article:
I have not seen any evidence of this. Why should I believe this not to be speculation?
This appears to not be the case as there is no evidence to the statement made in the same paragraph this statement was written in.
This statement is misleading as the petition was created by the same person who wrote the article. It has also only gotten 3 "signatures", an amount that would hardly warrant a reputable news agency to report.
This is not the case in this article.
The news is suppose to not have any bias, however both your article on how accounts are traded and this article is strongly biased. The reporter writing the article should also not be a "source" to the article, but instead should have someone else write an article who can use you as a source.
Can you give an example of this?
The forum is not owned by the public, it is a privately owned forum therefore this makes zero sense. It would also be very easy to manipulate via sock puppets, and would essentially be a form of self censorship of unpopular information.

You are also a moron for thinking that the blockchain "can save the world" (there are several variations of this suggestion and they are all equally as stupid) as this is not what the block chain is useful for.
No, I think I would not use such a site and many others would likely do the same.
No this would enable people with money to censor the thoughts and ideas they do not like.
No, this would be nothing more then a scam coin (very much like this is a scam article).
If this was true: I would be outraged, however it is not, so I have lost respect for you and your news agency.

From the comments section:
LOL (or as BadBear would say:   )

TL;DR - cryptocoinsnews.com is a joke new agency with no editorial integrity

EDIT: From https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/write-ccn/ (the link where you "apply" to become a writer)
This is apparently not the case

It is customary to offer .01 for escrow even if they offer their services for free (otherwise they might not want to continue offering their services) and the seller may not want to pay for this for such a small trade.

However as I posted above I am pretty sure the OP is trying to scam as he does not appear to want to use escrow at all.

He asked me to send first after I had accepted using escrow. It was already established that using escrow would cost an extra .01 (for the escrow fee). I would highly recommend trading with extreme caution).

I will update if we are able to complete a successful trade (and if I remember)

How long were you banned for? Was there an expiration on the ban or did it just say you were banned?

Devthedev was very efficient and professional when handling a .18 BTC TX today.

If you say that someone is a criminal because they bought an account then you are saying it is illegal to do so (it is not).

You are trying to scare people out of buying and selling accounts in public.

It is not possible to maintain an accurate list like this. Someone could simply buy accounts via PM or off the forum if they wanted to keep their new account off the list.

If you want to avoid getting scammed then you should approach any potential transaction with skepticism and always use escrow.

The sale of accounts also prevents people from wanting to scam in the first place. If someone wants to scam there is no guarantee it will be successful and if it is not then the account looses essentially all of it's value. On the other hand someone can simply sell their account and receive more of a 'guaranteed' payout.

Most people that have posted in here are just answering questions asked by newbies. The vast majority of deals happen via PM and will never post on this thread. The reason for this is because people like you try to crusade against purchased accounts.

Why would you assume that? It is commonly known that people buy and sell accounts. It is illogical to assume this. 
Incorrect. See my above response. Regardless of if this is true or not, it is very immature to give something more weight just because a certain person said it; you should listen to specific arguments and facts not who is making the statement.
In order to impersonate an identity, you would need to not own that identity in the first place. When you use the term impersonate you are implying that the identity does not belong to the poster, but in fact it does.

I have seen a lot of people advocating for PoS to replace PoW (I suspect to attempt to pump PoS scamcoins - all altcoins are scamcoins IMO). It is possible that these are purchased accounts, however it would not be any different if people were posting from newbie accounts as either way their argument is flawed.