There have been numerous theories as to who I am, what alts I am alleged to have, etc., etc.  I think a thread is needed which will facilitate an investigation of those theories.

First hereby, I present various theories by Quickseller and Alia.  I will reserve two more posts at the top of this thread to fill in quotes of theories presented by other users.

This thread is self-moderated, but I intend to exercise that power with a light touch here.  Sling at me what you wish.  (This provision applies to me only; I may limit things slung at other users.  Also, I may delete anything which I think violates forum rules.)

First, the latest theory:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180308082505/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.msg31832627#msg31832627

---

Now for other theories, and/or discussion of real or imaginary evidence:

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20180307003614/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30951105#msg30951105

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20180307004116/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3009430.msg30943291#msg30943291

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20180307003722/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3009430.msg31078761#msg31078761

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20180308082404/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.msg31830746#msg31830746

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20180307004229/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.msg31742889#msg31742889

This is actual malice.  (Unless o_e_l_e_o beats me to the punch, I may write up a post explaining what that means...)

This person is evil.

For reference, the post is quoted below in full.  Both above and below, I have elided the surname Alia stated.  (I have no idea whether or not it be the correct name.)

---

Now I despise Alia even more, because I had to give Wendigo merit for this.

I’ve thought it odd that he has left you standing alone amidst a scandal which, if you tell the truth, was largely of his creation.  Thus, I sent him a PM to request his comment:

Subject: You got Alia in trouble!

---

It’s amusing how you think you get to set all the rules, and dictate what would have evidentiary value.  This ain’t a camshow for horny customers, honey.  An interview with your face cut off would be dead worthless for “verification”, for many reasons—not least of which is that a skilled interviewer can infer much about the honesty of your answers from facial expressions and eye motions.

An interview for this type of purpose must not only include faces, but also have those faces adequately lit (as in police interview rooms) and clearly focused.  For you to suggest a faceless interview is so patently absurd as to insult the intelligence of everybody here, as well as showing your own lack thereof.

Moreover, to review for those who have the memories of fruit flies, the original idea here was a (non-faceless) dual interview of you and your brother together:

---

Remind me to never hire you to perform any type of investigation.


Skype is not easy for anybody who roams freely outside the control of computer platforms and network configurations approved by large American corporations.  More to the point:  “I.”  Why do you think the issue of primary importance is what you use, you self-entitled snowflake?  Anybody who did such an interview would be doing you a favour, at the expense of his or her own time and effort plus risk to reputation.  As transpired in PMs:




Read that again, folks:  “I don't want anything from you. If you want to verify me, do it on Skype. Plain and simple.”  The prince(ess?) who deigns to grace us with his/her presence is so magnanimous as to permit a lowly commoner who lacks -(2⁶³-1) trust to verify that certain issues of identity—“plain and simple”.  Thank you for having granted me the opportunity to dance to your tune!

I take it back:  Not “snowflake”.  Just “flake”.

---

ok


(Plus, the “plain and simple” conversation.)

---

With my psychic powers, I foretell that you shall have much future experience with police.  For your own good, I suggest that you avoid trying to dictate to them what you think “should be sufficient” for investigative purposes.


Oh, the irony of this statement from one of the most distrusted users in Bitcoin Forum history!

Next, master-P will return and present his peremptory demands for how others should bend over backwards to help him prove his total innocence.

---

Exactly.  (I began to assemble the foregoing before your most recent posts, which explained the matter rather well.  It took me awhile to actually get this posted...)

From the “style guide” department, a tip for Newbies who wish to improve their post quality:  Please learn to trim quotes down to the part pertinent to your reply (without unfairly removing context or cherry-picking, of course).  There is an art and a science to properly arranging quotes to show the flow of conversation in a way which is informative, yet concise.

It is a common newbie mistake to quote a long post in its entirety, then tack on a short reply which addresses one paragraph thereof.  This applies not only to forums, but also to mailing lists and Usenet.

@BTCforJoe, I suggest adding an explicit written rule disqualifying people who make a patent demonstration of having failed to read the rules.  The length of disqualification should be proportional to how outrageously the rules were ignored.  In any case where it’s obvious that a bounty-grubber is blindly groping for a place to drop a username and Bitcoin address, disqualification may as well be permanent.

The delightful irony is that those who fail to read the rules will miss this rule, too.

---

That gets from me a rare emoticon:  :-(


;-)

I’m not sure if you’re trolling, or just stupid; so I’ll treat you like you’re just being stupid.  Or maybe I’m stupid, because I just don’t get this.  To better assist in working through all this stupidity, let me spell this out:

Arguendo, I will here trust your word that “favours” is your little brother, and thus not a girl.  But you see, people doubted that your little brother was a girl.  Skyping him and interviewing him would prove that he is, indeed a girl!  —Right?



Sooooo...  If your little brother could prove that he’s a girl on Skype, why should I trust your same proof?

Remember that for the purposes of this question, I am trusting your word that you have a little brother, and “favours” is his account.  Please don’t contradict that.  You would not wish to lose my trust!

Alia, please explain.  ELI5!  I admit, I must be almost as stupid as suchmoon.  I’m so confused.

P.S.,

Please do not try to cook up such an ad hoc scheme for gathering randomness.  The scheme you describe is on its face both inadequate for gathering entropy, and easily influenced by local (physical) or perhaps even network attackers.  (A network attacker who can persuade you to visit his website can use Javascript to trivially influence your CPU usage, and thus CPU temperature.)

Worst of all, the scheme you describe requires trust not only in a central party (“he then choose the right number and announce”), but in all parties (how do you remotely verify CPU usage and soundcard input?).  I see no means whatsoever that “people will see and verify” the result here.  What is this thread about?  Why not just have your site pick bits off your server’s /dev/random, which nobody else can verify to be fairly obtained?  The scheme you describe would provide strictly less practical security than that, insofar as it is not even a good local entropy gathering scheme.

If you want a secure network randomness protocol for use on what I presume to be a provably fair gambling site, then implement a commit-and-reveal protocol as I described upthread, with enhancement of the ideas outlined by gmaxwell for preventing holdup by dishonest participants.  This protocol will be cryptographically secure.

Off-topic:  If you be interested in gathering entropy from physical sources, I suggest that you read the paper for Turbid, a high-entropy symbol generator which uses thermodynamic (not acoustic) noise from the analogue circuits in an ordinary computer soundcard.  Proper design of such a thing requires extensive knowledge of both maths and physics.  The Turbid author (Dr. John Denker) has both.

You well know that I’m not one to defend you, Mr. Nasty.  But when an alt with such a name as “actisstupidname” (who has been trolling me ridiculously) posts vague accusations, my own inclination is to mutter, put up or shut up, and shrug the matter off.  I think any intelligent person would do likewise.

Now, if “actisstupidname” were to identify this scammer of whom he speaks, then that might be interesting.  But if he were so inclined, wouldn’t he have done that in the first instance?

I’m not sure why you would use an archive link, whereas I have shown no propensity to throw my mistakes down the memory hole—rather, to the contrary.  I have been intending to edit in a clearly delineated corrective/informative note on this, and some of my other Alia-related posts.  Your archive link will not reflect that.

The fact that you only give an archive link, in a context where other readers likely would need to search for the original, does suggest that you want to stop people from accessing the live thread, and possibly commenting or (gasp!) awarding merit there.  Curiously, my OP in that thread got another +2 since you posted this.

The live thread is and will remain here:  Ciphersex 101 [NSFW]

---

I observe that the forum’s posting interface is peculiarly unsuited for genuine cybersex—especially with Tor lag.  Certainly, I could not make a quasi-realtime stream of posts with hands which were—divided in their attentions.  But with onion-layered motives, I could take pleasure in putting on a live sex show to amuse people like you, whilst benefitting of a cause dear to my heart:


I am appalled at how few users of cypherpunk money show even the slightest interest in actual “crypto”.  I’m afraid that >95% of alleged “Bitcoin users” are seeking only get-rich-quick and/or a new form of Paypal.  I want to change that—that, and more.

Overall, I am ideologically motivated to educate people about strong cryptography—and most importantly, to make more people actually use it.

Point blank, sex sells.  If I could seduce (what I believed to be) a 19-year-old woman into learning how to secure her data and her communications, then that’s a “win-win” scenario on multiple levels.  So much the better if I could take that public with an exhibitionist camgirl, and thus titillate a wider audience into enjoying an otherwise dry discussion of practical cryptography:


Of course, I do not expect serious pedagogy to proceed by such means.  But as someone who has spent two decades futilely urging people to use PGP (see my signature!), I well know that the main problems are laziness and lack of interest.  By eroticizing a casual, beginner’s-level chat about “the distinctions between integrity, confidentiality, and authentication”, I think that could do much for raising user interest.  Perhaps I may even excite someone into reading a book on the subject!  Most importantly, my intent as the thread developed was to add sex appeal to actual usage of PGP, OTR, Tor, full disk encryption, and of course, Bitcoin.  Thus could I be making the world a better place, whilst enjoying some innocent fun.

---

0. I’ve never stated my age.  The only evidence I have given thereof is that I was doing cypherpunk stuff in the 90s—thus, I must be indeed significantly older than 19 years.  But I have not said what age I was in the 90s.  I suppose that brackets my plausible age to a range of “over 30” and “under 100”.

1. Many people got fooled here.  My own default presumption is that anybody on the Internet claiming “[19F]” must be a 200 kg. swindler with external plumbing; in this case, that presumption was rebutted for reasons stated below.  And by the way, I fail to understand why so many people presume that the posts are being made by a 15-year-old boy—based on self-descriptions by the same serial scammer(s) under a different nym (revcback on Reddit).  I don’t make the same mistake twice:  I know that at this point, I really have no idea who is controlling the “alia” account.  “favours” was running a similar scam on this forum in April 2017, as documented by ibminer; although possible, how likely is it that a 14-year-old boy was already running a sophisticated scam with access to or complicity of an older female?  (I’ve been intending to address this point in the Alia scam thread.)

2. I don’t share your system of moral valuation.  Are you perchance American?  I don’t ask that to be flip:  It is notorious around the world, this peculiar American attitude toward sex (historically Calvinist-derived) combined with the presumption that everybody else must be of the same mindset.  Anyway—  I have my own principles, in which I am quite strict (e.g.); and they do not preclude me from pursuing a younger woman, nor do they make me in any way ashamed of doing so.

Certainly, you shall have no pretense of holding some moral high ground over me here.

For my part, perhaps Lord Byron hoped for a Claire Clairmont with a happier ending.  For yours, you should feel a liberty to ignore threads which are clearly marked “[NSFW]”—an absurd term [NSFW link], in my opinion, but an efficient Internet colloquialism which is clearly understood by everybody.  Whereas should you wish to preach to me, or insult me as “creepy”, then pedicabo ego te et irrumabo, cinaede.


Key term, “IMHO”—your opinion is humble, indeed.

Mine is not.

---

I do appreciate your desire to upraise a new Bitcoin generation.  I hope that you can inculcate your kids with a sound appreciation not only for some new money-spending technology, but for a radically different kind of money.  For in my experience, most adults are manifestly incapable of questioning their own implicit assumptions to the degree which would let them understand Bitcoin.  For most, “money” will always mean what they learnt of it when young.

My suggestion for you as a parent is that you first teach your kids the principle that Bitcoin is the first-ever form of money intrinsically based on personal responsibility.  Bitcoin provides to you ultimate power over yourself:  No king, no priest, and no government can peremptorily countermand the authority of your private keys.  Likewise, Bitcoin places you in a position of ultimate responsiblity for yourself:  If you send the wrong tx or lose your private keys, nobody can help you!  Whereas it is a first principle of life in this world that power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

I think that is a lesson which should be taught to the young—not only to help them understand Bitcoin, but to use Bitcoin itself as a vehicle for imparting an important moral lesson.  Society decayed to its core long ago; and a significant factor in its decline has been that most ostensible adults never understand the unified identity of power and responsibility.  The result of such a failure is societies peopled by superannuated children who behave as self-entitled snowflakes, ruled by corrupt liar-politicians and plutocrats who are anything but “elites” in the proper sense of that word.  Understanding that power equals responsibility and vice versa is fundamental to a proper adult morality.

Now having given some brief version of my most important “Bitcoin parenting” speech, I will address your criticisms of me:

Understand that I don’t intend this as a flame, but as a frank and serious question:  On the same grounds as you state in the foregoing (“I don't want [my kids] to find posts like these”), would you suggest that the whole Internet be turned into an AOL or Apple Store type of “walled garden”, restricted to content you find appropriate per your own parenting decisions?

If so, then I doubt that this forum will ever be what you seek, insofar as the main admin here also runs an 18+ subreddit called /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin.  —Which fact is actually relevant to this case.  alia_armelle started there, then leveraged GGB verification to fool me and others here with a tag which has since been removed and replaced with a red tag:


If you expect me to constrict my posts on this forum to meet your criteria for what “detracts”, please be advised:  Won’t happen.

I am not insensitive to your concerns.  On a broader level, I think you (as all parents) face a tough challenge nowadays.  If they have access to the Internet, to put the matter plainly, your teenagers will see porn—some of it genuinely obscene, in the sense of revelling in human defilement.

Many people would not agree with your apparent implication that teenagers should be somehow prevented from any and all contact with sexually explicit material.  I do think all reasonable people would agree that parents need a sound strategy for protecting the youthful psyche against the sort of stuff which makes me want to remove my eyeballs and bathe them in bleach.  Moreover, teenagers and young adults need to be protected against exploitation which can come from unexpected directions—sometimes in the sense of a computer software exploit.  (I am here thinking of the notorious erstwhile darkweb site which collected private nude selfies for the express purpose of deliberately humiliating young women; much of their material was obtained by hacks.)

Most of my specific suggestions are shields which operate internally, rather than externally:

• A healthy and independent moral compass—such a rare thing in this world.
• A sound and solemn sense of personal responsibility.
• The savvy, difficult for youths, of knowing that there exist bad people who can sometimes fool even smart people.  (Oops.)
• Computer security knowledge; and use of strong cryptography, especially for sensitive information.  (Continuing my above parenthetical, I once had a married woman with a conservative social image entrust to me the custody of her private sex pics, on grounds that she wisely trusted my encrypted disk more than any of her own devices—let alone “the cloud”.)

As for the rest:  I will thank you to make no assumptions about my family and personal life.  For reasons of strict pseudonymity, I will decline to confirm or deny such assumptions—save to observe the obvious:  You know nothing about me, but for what I choose to reveal.  In my experience, the “you must not have children” argument is more than occasionally valid, but oftentimes just blowing smoke.  Here, it is the latter.  Clue:  Those who downtalk parenting, demonstrate patent personal irresponsibility, or show myopic short-term thinking about generational issues probably do not have children.  Whereas people who post about sex on Internet forums thereby reveal little but that they enjoy deriving pleasure from natural reproductive functions.

Just like your “little brother” #974658 “favours” could verify by Skype as a “hot girl”?

Care to explain?

By the way, I have been intending to ask:  Is this you?  Or is this a photo of your little brother?  Or—?


That is not a private or confidential image.  It is the self-image provided by the “favours” (“little brother”) account in the above-quoted post.  It was posted publicly to gyazo.com, a little-known (and very annoying) site which you use, “favours” used, and “Light” on mpgh.net also used.

Also:  Please explain why you are fixated only on Skype, and Skype only.  I asked this upthread.  I’ve offered you an alternative which would require minimal effort from you; whereas Skype would require a large effort from me, an undertaking to which you should not feel yourself entitled.  Why Skype?

As documented by ibminer many pages after you stopped reading, the same person(s) as “favours” (now allegedly “little brother”) have previously tried and failed with the “Skype me!” sexy girl scam on this forum:

https://archive.is/gfWso

The “alia” account started out on 27 January 2018, created a short-lived fad around 30 January, then slipped back into obscurity whilst usually posting once or twice per day (mostly in loan threads).  On 16 February 2018, I made my overture; within 3 days thereafter, the account was forum-famous and had an unprecedented signature deal for a Jr. Member.  Then fame flipped to infamy with the same suddenness, and fortune frowned accordingly.

It is a principle of human nature that ’tis harder to have and lose, than to never have at all.  “alia” took a hard fall after an undeserved meteoric rise.  Evidently, someone just can’t let go.

---

Disclosure of ulterior motives:  vlom, I post the foregoing largely to cadge a long-desired opportunity that I may compliment your avatar.


Cheers from somewhere within the onion-layered cipherspace of the.nym.zone.

Though I have been involved in some of this back-and-forth myself, I do strongly urge that this thread should stay on the topic of examining the accusations against aTriz, and discussion about (or with) Alia should stay on the thread about Alia.  Thank you.

Sniping with/about Alia is clouding the issues, and making it difficult to follow the discussions with/about aTriz.

When time permits, I wish to address some of the things said here.  (Some of my replies will be transplanted to the Alia thread, as appropriate.)

@Astargath, I transplanted my reply to you to the “alia” scam thread.  @o_e_l_e_o, I will edit in a reply to you there.

With apologies for the double-post, I am transplanting this discussion from the aTriz thread, where it is off-topic:


Ban evasion is a permaban offense.  I don’t know how likely it is that the username “alia” got banned; but if so, then these “alia_alt” posts are just begging for a permanent, personal ban from this forum.  And in a case which has already received the direct attention of theymos, it is not as if admins would not notice at some point!

Just saying...  And either way, suchmoon’s suggestion of taking a break from the forum was sound advice.

---

I was leaning toward “scammer”.  Then toward “sincerely obsessed gambling addict”.  Now, back toward “scammer”.

---

Alia, the time I have spent on you and later, on this case—my wasted time is worth >50 BTC.  (Why?  Substantially the same basis as you say your worthless script is worth 50 BTC:  “Because I said so,” although in my case it’s much more reasonable.)  Pay me 50 BTC right now, or else I will [insert threat here].  Gee, how does that feel?

But I’m in a mood to be nice, so I’ll tell you what:  I will buy your 50 BTC script, by forgiving your outstanding unpaid debt of 50 BTC.  Now, I own the script.  —Now, I grant aTriz permission to release it.

Sounds fair to me.

---

Edit:


Muted for begging.  Ought be muted for question-begging via a moniker, too.

I always had a problem with the “Make X Great Again” motto:  The word “again” implies a previous greatness.

This implication is so oft unwarranted.  Make great again?  When were you ever great, and not just riding off someone else’s coattails?

Well, what would you call it when the victim of a crime (thus technically involved) gets put through the wringer in an ensuing investigation?


If you think that aTriz did something wrong, please go question him in the aTriz accusation thread.


One of several huge differences:  When informed by maths-savvy folks that the script is impossible, aTriz backed away from the script as if from a poisoned goblet—whereas “alia” got into a days-long flamewar/temper tantrum wherein she shrieked that “stupid equations” and “mathematical jumbo jumbo” don’t apply to her precious script.  Then finally admitted that it doesn’t work.  Now, is back to claiming that it works—and it’s worth 50 BTC!

I would strongly suggest that such a thing should not be asked or answered out of mere curiosity, insofar as the answer itself may potentially leak personal information, or information which could somehow lead to personal information.

(I am trying not to interfere with anybody else’s questions; but I do feel that I must point out the danger there.  Curiosity is not probative to the investigation, anyway.)

---

Too bad that Alia’s posts are not RFC 3514 conformant.  I suggest she should upgrade to a system which deploys standards for Internet security which also seem to represent industry best practices.

@theymos, please add RFC 3514 support to this forum.  Then you can remove the trust system, all anti-spam controls, all DDoS protection, and the Reputation forum; and the mods can step down from their jobs.  Thanks.

I recommend against using the linked tool.  If text is pasted into a textarea widget, even one change in line breaks, etc. would change the output hash and make it irreproduceable.  The only other option on that form appears to be a URL for a file hosted somewhere online.  It appears that this form (?) sends the data to the server to be hashed (not sure).

I posted command-line invocations for both Linux and Windows.

(Nit:  SHA-256 is not an encryption algorithm.  It is a cryptographic hash.  The objective is not to “encrypt” the script, but to put it through a one-way compression.  There is no way to “decrypt” SHA-256.  The process is only one-way.)

Then how, exactly, do you send it?  (And how would aTriz run it?)

(I here leave aside other questions, such as how sending a file causes you to get a virus.)

So, to be clear:  She solicited your involvement—you did not just happen to see the thread, and jump in.  Is that correct?


The SHA-256 hash (same as used in Bitcoin) will positively identify the file, without revealing its contents.  If the script then were to be later revealed by any means, either publicly or to a private auditor, it could be affirmatively verified whether or not it is the same script as you now have in your possession.  Changing even one byte—even one bit of the file would change the hash value.

An example of what a SHA-256 hash may look like (here represented in hex):


By posting a hash, you would be making a cryptographic commitment.  As long as you can produce a file exactly matching whatever hash you post, nobody could later accuse you of changing the script, or substituting a different script.  —  And yet, you would not be revealing the script.

Thus, my suggestion that you post a hash.  scam_detector has called on you to reveal the script itself.  I have suggested that it would be wiser to have your commitment to the identity of the script, and then discuss what should be done about the actual script.

Assuming that the file is named “alia_script” (substitute the appropriate name), on Linux:


On Windows (not sure which versions):


On Mac:  Don’t know.  On FreeBSD, it would be “sha256 alia_script”; but I seriously doubt you be on FreeBSD.

---

To be clear, I was suggesting that the hash should be posted here in this thread.  Do you suggest otherwise?  Depending on what it be and why, I may not mind taking custody of evidence in this matter (hash or otherwise).

A sudden realization:  Addicts and “degens” tend to have a nose for sniffing out those who have or previously had any similar habit.  Moreover and more importantly, successful scammers have a canny aptitude for finding human weaknesses, just as hackers search for an unchecked buffer.

I think it is very likely that “alia” already knew of aTriz’s gambling history as shown by the quotes which marlboroza dug up.  Indeed, those quotes are from the time period during which “favours” was already actively running what would become the “alia” scam.

Compare such dates on posts showing a gambling weakness (quotes range from April–May 2017 in marlboroza’s post):


...with the date of this post reconstructed from evidence found by ibminer, which shows “favours” already pulling the “alia” scam:

https://archive.is/gfWso

At this point, I would be astonished if “alia” had not already had full awareness of aTriz’s past gambling posts—and thus directly aimed to cozen him with gambler’s excitement.  That is now my working hypothesis.

aTriz, would you please briefly describe what happened from your perspective?

(I am still also asking the SHA-256 hash of the script.)