I'm just trying to understand what happened. I'm saying here that I understand why you assumed OgNasty was accusing you. Therefore I don't understand at all OgNasty's: "seemingly admitted to being the scammer impersonating me on Telegram".

It does seem that initial trolling started this. And a lot of things between you have crossed the line.

I agree. Both of them have taken things too far several times. In this particular case I see OgNasty is in the wrong, unless I just don't understand something

---

No, there's a simpler explanation:

• You advised Telegram to file a police report against their user who had scammed
• Michael said you pointed in ow's direction, i.e. you accused him of being the scammer

Therefore you think owlcatz is the scammer and reported him to the police.
I'm not saying that necessarily happened, Michael could have lied, he could have misunderstood you, there were several assumptions and some of them could have been wrong.
But that is a much simpler explanation why owlcatz assumed you reported him to the police.

Concluding this means owlcatz admitted to being the scammer doesn't make too much sense.

So you're saying he's wrong at assuming that's what you said?
And you assumed he confessed to being the scammer? Have you thought maybe you're wrong at assuming that too?

Edit:
I see you left negative trust to minifrij for making a wrong assumption. Does making wrong assumptions deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree.
I think correcting him is enough, especially when the assumption does make at least a little sense, even if not completely right.

Is that so OgNasty?
I would think owlcatz assumed OgNasty would be contacting the police on him because of Michael's "And yes, OGNasty pointed me in your direction".

It really seems both OgNasty and owlcatz are just looking for ways to accuse each other for anything at all, regardless of how little sense it makes

Where exactly did he admit to being the scammer impersonating you on Telegram? I didn't get that

I don't know who made that thread sticky. I don't have any information. I just hope it helps reducing the scams, especially against newbies and non-registered users.

---

I just saw this, sorry for the late reply:


I know you included locked threads in OP. My point was that I'd forbid threads being unlocked rather than being locked.
Allowing newbies to lock threads can be useful some times.

You keep lying about the income being guaranteed. You were warned

Bump

LiteMarketplace.com and LitePricing.com are still available

I've verified OP controls the email addresses shine20078@hotmail.com and shdvb@hotmail.com.

I sent random codes to those addresses and OP successfully PM'd them to me:


Because these addresses were posted several times long ago (for example here and here among others) as well as irfan_pak10's confirmation, I'm quite sure the account shdvb hasn't been hacked

mari88 is a known alias of djeezer12, for example the fake self-testimonials shown here: https://bitcoinfasttx.com/testimonials
This page links B!tco!n$'s Telegram @cryptonatorz to that same alias mari88: https://paxful.com/offer/v6W1MW58kor

So yes, it's quite obvious those accounts are the same person. Tagged.

Post or PM me the domain

Let me know what old scammer that is, with what scam reports

I've edited OP to ask guests to register before browsing the marketplace or dealing here so that they can see other users' trust.
I still think trust should be shown to everyone, registered and non-registered users, but I hope this small warning helps a few people in the meantime.

No, it's not legal:
You may get non-spam negative trust if you do the same as those scammers/spammers.

That trust spam should be eventually removed, but it seems it's not high priority at all.

LiteStore.net has been sold.

LiteMarketplace.com and LitePricing.com are still available. Starting bid is BTC0.005 for any of them

Yes. This was recently discussed:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3062190.msg31539728#msg31539728

Yes, it seems some of them changed their modus operandi :/
I've updated the title and OP and flagged a few more

Any reason why no other staff member can do that? I guess you asked that already. At least global moderator should be able to delete obvious spam. Logs can be enabled if theymos can make sure there was no abuse at some point, and I guess he fully trusts you

Same here. Someone left about 50 trust entries from several accounts (of one single person) and they got removed immediately. I didn't even complain. I guess I was just lucky that time

I agree, absolutely. You didn't get any reply on that?

---

Yes I saw he sent thousands of lines of trust spam to several users including you and me. It seems there's no official way to report that at the moment. It's just about being lucky that theymos sees it and has time to remove it

---

It does make sense. I would support that

Flagged

Flagged. Besides, this user is almost certainly laundering money. Even if he does send the cards they will probably fail later and the buyer can get legal problems for using a code bought with a stolen credit card

Indeed! It's getting absurd

Only about 7h remaining for this auction

Every registered user can see the trust according to their trust list, which is DefaultTrust initially.
My point is non-registered users can't see any trust at all, not even as "untrusted". I've asked that to change

Bump and update:

Te trust spammer Moseas79 has added 11 more trust entries with 81 lines each.
The total is now 30 entries of 81 lines each, totaling 2,430 lines of trust spam on my profile.
Plus, Buzzlieve1992 has left 6,411 lines of trust spam, 426 of those on my profile.

I'm still waiting for:

• Trust left by Moseas79 and Buzzlieve1992 to be removed and, hopefully, their accounts to be banned
• An admin to tell me what's the best way to report this. I don't think creating a new thread should be required
• Some comments regarding my suggestion about setting some limits when leaving too many or too long trust, especially for newbies