i want to sell full member for 0.05 if you pay direct
if you pay through escrow 0.06
need immediate money..
Offering the account a bit cheaper for not using escrow is very suspicious. Seems like he just wants a quick 0.05 to me. 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)
|
|
|
|
So admins here just are ok with it because that is the easier way.
Easier for who? I've been banned and had my posts removed for extremely trivial things compared to impersonating another user, so, I don't buy that they don't have enough time to monitor the situation. All account trading should be banned. They should at least attempt to make it more difficult. 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.
|
|
|
|
As far as I know selling and buying accounts on this forum is totally legal and acceptable by mods. There are no rule against it.
And its also totally acceptable to keep track of people selling their accounts so we can warn others that they have been bought by stupid criminal fucks. 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. |
|
|
|
Okay, so, no need to ever pay attention to anything anybody in this thread has ever said or will ever say in the future.
Thanks for the tip, Quickseller.
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. And you think that 'crusade against purchased accounts' are justified? Maybe it would be better to legalize that in a way that all purchased accounts would be on a list. And people could check that if someone who is making shady movements is on that list... Then it would means he is not trustworthy and banned forever. I think it would discontinued scams attempts. 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. |
|
|
|
Okay, so, no need to ever pay attention to anything anybody in this thread has ever said or will ever say in the future.
Thanks for the tip, Quickseller.
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. |
|
|
|
You are not pretending to be a specific identity.
Of course you are. When somebody posts under your user name, they assume it is you writing the post, even if it is not. The poster is pretending to be you up until the point they admit they are writing under your username. Why would you assume that? It is commonly known that people buy and sell accounts. It is illogical to assume this. When you post on here you are posting from a username (under certain circumstances this can even be changed). When you make a post, you do not represent that you are any specific person.
People assume you are the same person that wrote all the posts under your username. By writing under somebody else's account name, you are lying to that person. 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. Also when you sell your account, you would also be selling any kind of "identity" associated with such account and this should be obvious to anyone selling such account.
Yes, I already made this point. That is the intrinsic value of the account -- the identity associated with the account. When somebody else assumes your identity for their own purposes this is known as impersonation. If you're simply trying to rationalize unethical behavior, you're going to have to try harder. 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. Wow, lotta paranoid conspiracy nutters in here.
The truth is, there's no good argument as to why this shouldn't be allowed. Just a bunch of stupid ones.
Fixed. I've still yet to see any proof of accounts being sold to be used for 'mass propganda'. 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. |
|
|
|
|
This would essentially make it a moot point to have the 360 second rule that was implemented to prevent/slow down scammers. (along with the 5 max PM per hour rule)
I would suggest making a special email address that you only give out on here
|
|
|
|
Whether traded accounts are used for good or bad is down to your own personal opinion of what 'good' and 'bad' is.
Also, I disagree entirely with this statement. Life isn't a gray blur of moral ambiguity. Good = truth = freedom = life Bad = lies = imprisonment = death So there you go. A lot of the time good and bad isn't a matter of personal opinion but is pretty clear cut. It seems to me that you ought to know lying is bad by now, and pretending to be somebody you are not is lying. You are not pretending to be a specific identity. When you post on here you are posting from a username (under certain circumstances this can even be changed). When you make a post, you do not represent that you are any specific person. Also when you sell your account, you would also be selling any kind of "identity" associated with such account and this should be obvious to anyone selling such account. Monitoring is underway.
I'm collecting two lists, one of account sellers and the other of account buyers. I will be sure to post this information, links and dates so everybody can see who to avoid from now on.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020 |
|
|
|
And lie number 3?
Canada is not where you claimed it was.
Where did vod say Canada is?
And if the bitcointalk admins dont do anything, then they are legally responsible, simply by knowing and doing nothing about it.. Who's up for taking them to court?
I'm sure there are plenty of bitcoin lawyers out there, lets start with defamation of character, proving bitcointalk.org is allowing said law(s) to be broken, and hence, just as guilty by doing nothing to prevent it, akin to a party to the crimes being commited.. this is not just a security risk to this site, but ALL its members..
Precedent disagrees. Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) Immunity was upheld against claims that AOL unreasonably delayed in removing defamatory messages posted by third party, failed to post retractions, and failed to screen for similar postings. Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The court upheld immunity for an Internet dating service provider from liability stemming from third party's submission of a false profile. The plaintiff, Carafano, claimed the false profile defamed her, but because the content was created by a third party, the website was immune, even though it had provided multiple choice selections to aid profile creation. |
|
|
|
Zolace did ask me to remove my negative trust for two weeks so he could pay off his debt.
What does a red profile have to do with the ability to pay off debt? I don't get the connection here. Normally you pay off debt to show good faith, THEN the negative trust gets removed. If he can earn money via a signature campaign then he can pay back with those earnings, but if he has red trust then he effectively cannot earn via signature campaigns. The problem is that the BTC was apparently sent to an alt of his so there is no reason why he cannot issue a refund now. I also counted 4 alts of his that should have received payment today from the DB signature campaign so there is even less reason as to why zolace should not be able to refund the OP |
|
|
|
Something very suspicious happened to me today: I was in negotiations with CripLib for me to buy a full member account from him for .04 BTC. For ~60% of the trades that I do, escrow is not used (the other party likely wants their privacy) and they end up going first (even though I always am willing to use escrow). After we agreed on the price of his account, he says that I can either go first or we can use escrow (this is a pretty unusual request for me to receive, although I have seen this request many times on various marketplaces threads); I tell him that we can use escrow if he does not want to go first, then some time later I receive a PM from him to myself and raganius asking raganius to provide escrow services for us. Having never heard of this person before I look at both his escrow thread and trust rating, seeing that he has zero (even untrusted) trust provided him I tell CripLib that if he wants to use escrow he will need to find someone that has more trust. In response he says that he will wait for his account to become a senior account (he is ~80 activity away from being a senior). I find this highly suspicious and as a result do not trust either of them. I would advise to proceed with extreme caution when dealing with raganius |
|
|
|
|
I have seen zolace and umar "discussing" the topics on many politics and society threads (both with paid sigs). I always thought he was just responding to himself to increase his post count. Maybe he scammed because of the lower income now that PD has closed its campaign and the DB campaign is finished.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be interested if your company was based in Nigeria. Would you consider moving?
|
|
|
|
SOLD.
Thanks.
You will sell it to me or you sold it to someone else? |
|
|
|
|
I know you have not seen my post as it was made only a minute ago......
One condition to my bid is that you are able to sign a message from an unedited post from the account that is at least 1 month old.
Also we use escrow or you go first
|
|
|
|
|
asking price?
EDIT: Does it work in the US with AT&T?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
