Everyone's account should begin with negative trust of several million and be forced to slowly dig their way out of it.
21 million risked BTC, to be precise, then as they build trust based on the amount of BTC they were trusted with and didn't screw anyone out of it, that is subtracted as a negative number from the -21 million (ex. (-21000000)-(-5)=-20999995). Any risked and lost BTC negative rated as such will be added back as a negative number (ex. (-20999995)+(-5)=-21000000) . Unfortunately, there's no evidence required of BTC transfers, and no way to prove all the private keys involved in the transfers weren't exclusively controlled by the same person using different usernames. |
|
|
|
I am not TF, (at least) one of the admins looked into this a long time ago and they have informed me they do not believe I am TF.
Which admin, liar?There is a possibility you are TF. No there isn't. If admins looked into things and stated a belief that was 100% reality a "long" time ago, that means that nothing could possibly happen between then and now that would require re-looking into things and/or changing investigation techniques to restate a belief that is/isn't still 100% reality.  |
|
|
|
I think Wardrick was a respected member of the community.
*Fixed spelling of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=85316WTF? It's never acceptable/excusable to "joke" about someone being a murderer unless you have probable cause to suspect them of being a murderer or everyone can see public records they have been convicted of same. Wardrick indefensibly "joked" that I was a murderer, twice. <ZERO respect. |
|
|
|
Quickseller is too young to do anything but get robbed by a lawyer over in the US
explains a lot. I also imagine the fake 20 BTC legal fund falls under the QS philosophy of justified dishonesty. It's not fake if Quickseller moves 20 BTC from one exclusively controlled private key to another. That requires me being Quickseller, which obviously is not the case. It would be fun if you could sign a message from the bitcoin addresses used. If one person controls the private keys to all the BTC addresses used, that person can sign messages from each of them as well and post those signed messages from as many BCT usernames as they control. "obviously"? When it comes to ANY user that provably has alts (as opposed to me, having a hard enough time just keeping up with TheButterZone topics and business)...  |
|
|
|
Quickseller is too young to do anything but get robbed by a lawyer over in the US
explains a lot. I also imagine the fake 20 BTC legal fund falls under the QS philosophy of justified dishonesty. It's not fake if Quickseller moves 20 BTC from one exclusively controlled private key to another. |
|
|
|
|
[reserved]
I don't wager my own money, only OPM.
BTC tipping address in my profile.
|
|
|
|
Go to http://en.lichess.org/setup/friend and post your game links here. First to click it will get the player seat, everyone after that will be able to watch. local rule: When your game is over, delete your game link so people don't waste their time clicking it. |
|
|
|
IANAL but  |
|
|
|
This is ironic coming from someone who launders money via StarBucks gift cards aka Bitcards11 Is this what it looks like when you "go on a long break"? Quickseller chronicles his life activities by the millisecond, so 100ms IS a "long break", AND YOU FUCKING AGREED TO HIS CARTE BLANCHE ALLOWING FOR ABSOLUTE REJECTION OF COMMONSENSE. |
|
|
|
|
You could move this topic to Marketplace and leave a redirection topic behind.
|
|
|
|
When everyone thinks that it was over and almost back to normal, a new revelation appears and no one knows what will happen next.
This forum is better than Game of Thrones last days
(grabbing popcorn)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjzC2DRgEo4 |
|
|
|
In Canada I have the right to know my accuser, so yes, I would probably get his identity.
But it's a moot point. He has nothing to stand on, and he won't be suing anybody.
If he doesn't sue, then what is going to happen to the 20 BTC that TF gave him? Since the BTC was specifically for the use in a lawsuit against you, then if no suit happens and the BTC isn't returned, QS would then be scamming, right? QS can staart an internet court (IRC chan or a self-mod thread on bitcointalk), and pay himself to be the judge. and 12 members of the jury, because there's no reason why the judge and the jury can't all be the same person. and hire a dream team of attorneys (also all him/herself). TL;DR: I see no problem. Yep, the defender of the indefensible should see no problem with a kangaroo court, just as a kangaroo excrow. |
|
|
|
I wonder if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing is the term most apropos. lol... are we to go back and forward all night? You admitted to pulling the escrow scam many times. When a person pleads guilty in court, there is no need for further evidence.
B-but... in the United States federal system, before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea So another escape route is set. LOL you should first put the 10btc to a trusted escrow (Quickseller) since you are dealing with QS ROFLMAO
BAHAHAHAHA |
|
|
|
Please show where exactly, I explicitly said that I was banned. If you are referring to the handle, then I would ask if you believe that every other handle is a description of that person. Do you truly believe that BadBear is actually a bear that is bad? No more than we believe anything from you that may be a pathological lie, obfuscation, or equivocation, at this point. P.S. tl;dr... did any staff tie https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 to Quickseller and confirm that Quickseller wasn't actively banned at the time https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 was created? |
|
|
|
Quoting my posts from the now-locked poll topic... 1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts.
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used. [1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is: [MASS NOUN] The state of being kept in custody or trust until a specified condition has been fulfilled: Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer. "or as some like to say "escrow"" You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text: "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q" But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman. A person who arranges business or political deals between other people. You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person. The protective care or guardianship of someone or something: the property was placed in the custody of a trustee Law An individual person or member of a board given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer it solely for the purposes specified: pension fund trustees You are not simultaneously yourself and individual person other than yourself. [2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).
The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you. STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. |
|
|
|
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used. [1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is: [MASS NOUN] The state of being kept in custody or trust until a specified condition has been fulfilled: Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer. "or as some like to say "escrow"" You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text: "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q" But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman. A person who arranges business or political deals between other people. You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person. The protective care or guardianship of someone or something: the property was placed in the custody of a trustee Law An individual person or member of a board given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer it solely for the purposes specified: pension fund trustees You are not simultaneously yourself and an individual person other than yourself. [2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).
The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you. STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
