Bitcoin Forum
June 21, 2024, 04:45:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 ... 221 »
2041  Other / Meta / Re: colors in [code] in outbox vs. inbox on: April 22, 2015, 06:24:38 PM
Put it in either another code block or [nobbc][/nobbc] tags. Eg. [code]unparsed code[/code].
Thanks theymos_away!  That's my education for the day. Smiley
2042  Other / Meta / Re: Someone lowered my trust, I don't know why. What recourse? on: April 22, 2015, 06:23:19 PM

Here's the deal man, first off, I feel very angry that I'm having to try to go through all this again, given the large time distance and the fact that while I have caused 0 problems around here, TF has well... But nevertheless, QS is determined to drag us all back through this mud so here we go.  I don't deny that I was working on a bot but I do deny any fraud or anything else.  I was in good-faith chatting on coinchat (using my fingers to type the messages and my eyes to read the replies and my own brain parse and understand them) and I was learning node.js and seeing what's what.  My best guess as to what happened is that my code didn't have a timer correctly set or I had some loop in there (I was a total noob) and that I sent a bunch of messages in a row or something and that's why "admin"/TF banned my account.  As I said upthread, it was only after getting banned that I got any kind of info about the rules for bots, how they were to be named, where they were to be chatting and whatnot.  This is despite asking TF about those rules on coinchat and him never getting back to me about it (I swear this info is somewhere upthread here and I still haven't read it all again).  Some time later (weeks, I'm not sure, but I recall it being later) I find the negative feedback on my account and I started this thread because I wasn't really sure what to do about it.
so you admit to receiving some amount of funds that were not actually due to you then. If the bot was still running when it was not "intended" to then you would have earned some amount.

Nope, that's not right at all.  You're purposefully trying to twist what I say into some sort of confession to a crime that I didn't commit.  Even if you manage to twist my words enough that everyone's confused that still won't change the facts of what happened.  It will just mean that you succeeded in confusing everyone at my expense.

What I admitted to up there was that I wasn't very good with asynchronous code and I had some bugs that probably caused TF to flag my account as spamming.  This is me speculating about what TF's perspective may have been, why it was that he banned me. That doesn't in any way add up to an admission of spamming or scamming or whatever.

Quote
Quote
When you say that reading through this doesn't make you think that I should be seen as untrustworthy you should ask youself this.  Does it mean that I should be kicked out of a signature ad campaign?  I don't do trades so negative feedback from QS only has one real impact, it got me booted from my signature ad campaign and this was exactly his goal.  He even stated it on the main thread of my campaign.  Then he spent about a day looking for something to use against me and this is what he came up with.  After you've answered that, ask yourself this: is this the kind of behavior you'd expect from someone on default trust?  Bullying small, unimportant people because they've disagreed with you in the past?  Is that what default trust is supposed to be used for?
Doesnt matter. You are a spammer so not having an incentive to post on here is probably good for the forum overall, however regardless, you scammed, end of story. Just because you claim that someone was motivated to find dirt on you does not give you an excuise to have scammed in the past.
Quote
Here's the problem with you quoting those numbers: they are completely arbitrary.  TF had accused me in this thread of taking some wild amount of BTC that I didn't even own at the time, then he "ballparked" it somewhere else then I think he settled on "all money I had ever withdrawn".  But as I said, I spent many hours on that site chatting and having fun and I had withdrawn my rewards legitimately.  TF was throwing numbers out with no backing and demanding that I pay him those amounts in order to remove his negative rating.  I walked away from that ransom attempt.  History has shown what kind of guy he was and what kind of stock should be placed into his accusations.
it doesn't matter if you scammed for .01 or 1.5, the fact of the matter is that you scammed. When you were called out about it you refused to pay and refused to even try to make it right.
Well it does of course matter that I did not scam or spam, as TF puts it.  And the fact that TF is making up numbers left and right shows what this was, a blackmail attempt.
Quote

Quote
Like I said in the thread that he opened on me, I don't think he is ever going to get caught scamming in the future because he has learned his lesson on how to avoid getting caught and displays a tendency to dispute any claim of him scamming even though the evidence again him is clear.

Quickseller is some kind of zealous madman on a rampage against me at this point.  I honestly do not enjoy these drama festival flame-wars and I started a thread in Meta only a few days before this nonsense against me began in an attempt to make things more drama free around here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0   For that reason, I locked the main thread in which I call out QS for his unmotivated mudslinging smear campaign because the thread had degenerated into a flame war.  I'm not interested in continuing that flame war here.  QS, the best thing you can do at the moment is remove your negative trust on me and hope that I forget about this by the time that BadBear gets back from holiday.
why would I remove my negative? You scammed. When I called you out about the scam you threatened me and started a flame war. When people started to say that you were wrong you locked the thread you opened against me. All of these things make you untrustworthy in my (and probably in most anyone else's who is reasonable) eyes.
Nope, I did not scam and i haven't and won't.  It's not my style.  My style is gambling and writing code and enjoying study.  Your style is the dramas and the flamewars and the mudslinging.  I closed the thread because I don't want to go back and forth with you for another week while we wait for this to be settled.  Everyone can read through that thread (and this one, geez) and see what's going on here, you went on a mission against me and you have (temporarily) succeeded.  The reason you should remove the negative trust is so that badbear doesn't have to remove you from his trust list for this kind of behavior, but maybe he will anyway, I dunno.  I'm locking this thread too because I see no reason for this to continue.  You are intransigent, you are angry, you are full of yourself and your own power.  We'll see how long you last.
2043  Other / Meta / escape bbcode tags in messages on: April 22, 2015, 06:04:54 PM
Actually I figured out what was up with this.  The colors appeared in the one message because there was a <?php somewhere in it whereas the other example had just some javascript.  So apparantly the syntax highlighting in \[code\] tags has some heuristics for identifying a language or whatever.

However, my second question stands, how can we write bbcode tags in the body of a message, how can we escape them like when you want to write write < in html you need to write &lt; so that the html parser ignores it?
2044  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 22, 2015, 06:00:31 PM
Dropping this in the record here because it's relevent to removing any doubt about the connection between QS/ACCTSeller.  Since he has now gone ahead and admitted they are both his accounts then you can see very easily how he uses his low-importance account to troll me and dig up dirt so that his main account can "find it" via the low-importance account's necrobump and then use it against me.

Also, isn't using multiple accounts to re-neg the same person yet another form of trust abuse just in and of itself?

Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.

I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though. 

ALSO, Why don't you admit that you are ACCTSeller's alt, before I have to go dig for proof of that to?
Okay I know I told you that I am ACCTSeller so there is no point in denying that lol. It is a pretty well known fact anyway.

Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.

I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though. 

Nice excuse... But looks pretty legitimate to me. you think I'm just going to get down on my knees because you mentioned "partnership" and "ponzi" in the same sentence?
And accuse me with "investcryptos" all you want...even I am not dumb enough to "pump" a site so quickly let alone use a blatant copy of CryptoDouble. Any of my previous sites had different designs and structures, that's just plain stupidity lol
You used a copy of your last site haha.

Either way, sorry for calling out your scam so soon after you started it. Better luck next time
2045  Other / Meta / Re: Someone lowered my trust, I don't know why. What recourse? on: April 22, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Sorry to necro bump this thread, however it seems pretty clear to me that tspacepilot scammed TF in this case. I understand that scammer tags were in effect at this time, yet for some reason "OldScammerTag" did not leave tspacepilot a negative trust. Also several members of default trust seem to have agreed that tspacepilot scammed TF, however did not leave any negative trust of their own. Has the practice of multiple members leaving negative trust when someone scams a somewhat new practice?

Assuming the mods are going to allow this insane necro bump, surely you realize that anyone looking at your post history would take into account that you are on some kind of anti-tspacepilot bender.   The real qustion is why?

I honestly dont care why the dirt was dug up, but I wonder how you manager to keep this hidden from your rating. Several highly trusted people have left their opinion on this matter, but no ratings which reflect them. Your account currently seems legit, mainly because ratings by TF no longer carry much weight. Well, rather it would seem like this if it was not for Quicksellers rating.

You say you "wonder how I managed to keep this hidden", I think it's pretty clear that the global mods in this thread saw this as an unsubstatiated he-said-she-said and left it at that.  TF was amongst the elite at the time, but history has spoken here.  My accounts "seems" legit because I am legit.  I'm a long-time bitcointalk forum member who doesn't do trades, but who does like to talk about the technical details of the protocol/software and I like to gamble and talk about gambling and I occassionally take small coding jobs.


You ran a bot on coinchat, probably with TF's help. You admitted this before, so you can't really deny it now:

I *did* use coinchat a few months ago and I was banned by "admin".  We exchanged some emails in which I asked him what I had done to be banned and I didn't ever get a detailed response.  He said I owed him 0.2BTC if I wanted to be reinstated on coinchat.  I asked him several times where he came up with that number and what I had done wrong.  Each time, however, he just replied tersely about some sort of fraud and paying him back.

The best guess I have at what he was angry about is that I was experimenting with robots on his site using the api the he published (and I as I understood it) he encouraged us to use.  I enjoyed coinchat and I learned a lot about node.js while I was experimenting there.  

Coinchat paid people to chat, not bots. Bot owners on coinchat we're supposed to tag their bots with "bot" so that the system would mark them as inelligible for payments for the chatting they did.

So what exactly are you saying TF is lying about? are you saying your bots never received any payment for chatting? Or perhaps that TF said to you your bots were elligible to receive payments? This is what I don't understand at all. You claim the allegations are untrue, but don't say what is untrue, just that TF is a scammer, which is somewhat relevant of course but I have not took anything TF said into account here, only things you said and my knowledge of how coinchat worked.

You never said either of these things in the initial complaint or gave any other excuse so I suspect you did defraud coinchat, however this was a long time ago and the Bitcoin price was much lower too, approximately $128.50/BTC. So if you did defraud coinchat the amount you took was only ~$64. Not exactly the scam of the century, and as long as you don't have a history of doing this kind of thing then I don't think this on its own makes you very untrustworthy, nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, there are no heros or villains in this world - only heroic and villainous acts.

Perhaps what you could do is offer to refund the $64 to someone who was scammed by TF. Maybe you could do this to "atone". However, the way you have acted when confronted about this by Quickseller doesn't exactly scream trustworthy at all.

Here's the deal man, first off, I feel very angry that I'm having to try to go through all this again, given the large time distance and the fact that while I have caused 0 problems around here, TF has well... But nevertheless, QS is determined to drag us all back through this mud so here we go.  I don't deny that I was working on a bot but I do deny any fraud or anything else.  I was in good-faith chatting on coinchat (using my fingers to type the messages and my eyes to read the replies and my own brain parse and understand them) and I was learning node.js and seeing what's what.  My best guess as to what happened is that my code didn't have a timer correctly set or I had some loop in there (I was a total noob) and that I sent a bunch of messages in a row or something and that's why "admin"/TF banned my account.  As I said upthread, it was only after getting banned that I got any kind of info about the rules for bots, how they were to be named, where they were to be chatting and whatnot.  This is despite asking TF about those rules on coinchat and him never getting back to me about it (I swear this info is somewhere upthread here and I still haven't read it all again).  Some time later (weeks, I'm not sure, but I recall it being later) I find the negative feedback on my account and I started this thread because I wasn't really sure what to do about it.

When you say that reading through this doesn't make you think that I should be seen as untrustworthy you should ask youself this.  Does it mean that I should be kicked out of a signature ad campaign?  I don't do trades so negative feedback from QS only has one real impact, it got me booted from my signature ad campaign and this was exactly his goal.  He even stated it on the main thread of my campaign.  Then he spent about a day looking for something to use against me and this is what he came up with.  After you've answered that, ask yourself this: is this the kind of behavior you'd expect from someone on default trust?  Bullying small, unimportant people because they've disagreed with you in the past?  Is that what default trust is supposed to be used for?

Here's the problem with you quoting those numbers: they are completely arbitrary.  TF had accused me in this thread of taking some wild amount of BTC that I didn't even own at the time, then he "ballparked" it somewhere else then I think he settled on "all money I had ever withdrawn".  But as I said, I spent many hours on that site chatting and having fun and I had withdrawn my rewards legitimately.  TF was throwing numbers out with no backing and demanding that I pay him those amounts in order to remove his negative rating.  I walked away from that ransom attempt.  History has shown what kind of guy he was and what kind of stock should be placed into his accusations.


Like I said in the thread that he opened on me, I don't think he is ever going to get caught scamming in the future because he has learned his lesson on how to avoid getting caught and displays a tendency to dispute any claim of him scamming even though the evidence again him is clear.

Quickseller is some kind of zealous madman on a rampage against me at this point.  I honestly do not enjoy these drama festival flame-wars and I started a thread in Meta only a few days before this nonsense against me began in an attempt to make things more drama free around here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0   For that reason, I locked the main thread in which I call out QS for his unmotivated mudslinging smear campaign because the thread had degenerated into a flame war.  I'm not interested in continuing that flame war here.  QS, the best thing you can do at the moment is remove your negative trust on me and hope that I forget about this by the time that BadBear gets back from holiday.
2046  Other / Meta / Re: FREE GIVEAWAY!!! on: April 21, 2015, 09:44:20 PM
@forum mods, I was gonna report this thread as being in the wrong sectiong (games and rounds) based on the subject.  But since the body isn't actually a a giveway, is it actually in the wrong section?  FWIW, I can't tell what the OP is actually talking about so maybe it's just spam or whatever.
2047  Other / Meta / how to escape bbcode in posts [solved] on: April 21, 2015, 09:40:40 PM
I noticed that [code\] blocks in my PMs in my inbox have no syntax highilighting, while the same messages in my outbox have syntax highlighting.  Has anyone else noticed this?  I guess I can generate screenshots but if it's already known the I don't want to waste the time.[/code\]

And btw, what's the more elegant way to escape [code\]?
2048  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 09:22:18 PM
I do not use this account anymore not even for sig campaign. That's why I posted with this account and not with the account I use now so nobody would think he just posted so he would get sig camp credit. No its not like that at all. He has a neutral one the account that I use and am perfectly fine with it. If anybody wants to research as to why its there, more than happy to help with related threads. I felt like you before to, madder than fuk, cussing Quickseller with every last breath. But that got nowhere. Conversation and openness is the key to getting this resolved. Thats how I feel you should approach it. If Quickseller feels that you could be withholding info to cover yourself, you should be as open as possible about it to get his resolved. The truth will set you free.

Come to JesusQuickseller speech, eh?  Cute.  Or maybe not so cute but whatever.

Here's the sum of what I can see so far:

1)  QS has dug up a he-said-she-said from years ago between a known scammer and me.
2)  QS is taking the unsubstantiated allegations of this scammer against me as "proof".
3)  Realizing how lame this makes him look, he's now searching around for alt accounts in order to (...not sure exactly?)


We of course have to ask the motivation for (1).  The best I can come up with is the fact that I called him a hothead and told him he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him.  He may have other motivations, but thy aren't apparent.  It's clear that whatever he is up to isn't for the "good of the community".  The best current explanation is a vindictive grudge coupled with a power complex.

On (2), QS should try to answer the logic of this: if the other people in the forum who questioned me in that old-ass thread thought I was a "proven" scammer, why didn't they leave negative feedback of their own?  SaltySpitoon is a global moderator, and was at the time (iirc), if, for the good of the community, I was to be marked for life, why didn't SS go ahead an take care of it right there.  Anyone who actually takes the time to troll through that thread from before time will realize that it is a he-said-she-said between two people and in retrospect, only one of them is known to have caused issues.

On (3), the best I can come up with is that he's running scared that his original attack is going to fall through.  This like some kind of cold-war with a power-hungry tyrant.  He moved too quick(seller)ly, he thought he found a legitimate problem that he could use to defame an anonymous guy on the internet who he didn't like but what he actually found was a debunked scammer pitching a fit.  Now, having sided himself with the scammer he's trying to pull out some other attack which is not really adding up to anything (as far as I can tell, he's accusing me of having an alt---is this at all ironic from a guy who sells accounts?  or is it me?).

If quickseller weren't so blinded by his own arrogance he would see the adjectives people in this thread have been applying to his behavior:  "petty", "unwarranted", "suspicious", "intentional", "vindictive", "doesn't add up".

QS is clearly the kind of person who sees the world in three classes: those above him, himself, and those below him.  I've seen this kind of person many times in real life.  The people above them, they suck up to them and act on their best behavior.  This is the only way to understand how someone like him got onto default-trust.  The people below them, they treat like shit and stomp on them.  These people usually only get so far in life, but there's nothing really to do other than to let time+theworld sort it out (alot like what I had to do when TF falsely accused me about 2 or so years ago).

That's the summary of what's transpired.  Here's the future:  QS has dug himself into this hole and he's not backing down or backing out.  More or less, the only recourse here for me is for the person who has provided trust to QS (BadBear, the bigger god) to take a look at this and decide whether this is the kind of behavior he was looking for when he put QS into his trust list (Imma wager it's not, but we'll see).  It's unfortunate that the mods who *are* here aren't able to fix this while BB is away, but the situation is what it is.

For the good of everyone, I'm closing this thread.  I don't see any reason to keep this flame war going.  I'll still be around the boards, posting in my usual sections, chatting bout gambling and learning how to take apart and put back together various pieces of cryptography and protocols and cetera.  Thanks to everyone who chimed in.  BB will be back in a little over a week and then I've got a pretty good feeling you guys won't have to look at any sad warning text when you see my walnuts.  For more about how these sorts of issues might be avoided in the first place, see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0 (wow, didin't I have some kinda precience when I started that thread about a day or two before the QS trollfest on me began?!).
2049  Economy / Gambling / Re: BitcoinPoker.gg - High Stakes. High Rewards - Secure Bitcoin Poker on: April 21, 2015, 02:49:25 PM
I actually got into my first ring game on this site about 10 minutes before a freeroll.  It was fun, we had three people at one point.  Better than 0.  This site is on the way up!
2050  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 02:45:49 PM
... and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust.

This is not going to happen. BadBear trusts him and has defended him in the past (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11081945#msg11081945). This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company which was caught by BadBear (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1021240.msg11055166#msg11055166).

While I agree that QS has acted questionably and hotheadedly in the past (I called him out for it in that very thread you reference) in this situation he's gone even farther.  Apparantly he did have some contact with worshipper_-_ and yes it seems the neg rep on worshipper_-_ was basically because he didn't like the loss of income when the deal fell apart, in my case we've never had any dealings.  Instead, he's gone on a 2 day trollfest of me and eventually all he could come up with were unsubstantiated accusations from TF (known liar).

The knee-jerk reaction here is to side with OP, simply because the actions of Quickseller/ACCTSeller are shady.
But Quickseller's questionable ethics and being (likely) driven by vindictiveness do nothing to invalidate his claims re. OP scamming TF, those are factual, and could easily be verified here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.0

TradeFortress himself (most likely) being a scammer is neither here nor there - thieves get robbed too. And 2+2 still equals 4, even when said by a liar.

Right, we know that Quickseller has necrobumped this old thread of lies in order to find a reasons to smear me.  And he also goes and cutnspastes everythign from the thread which disagrees with me into this thread in order to make it look "proven".  You folks seem to be forgetting that if TF got the benefit of the doubt at that time it was because he was on default trust holding 1000s of people's bitcoins and I was a noobie saying "hay, what happened?"  The fact: I didn't not scam anyone and I did not admit to scamming anyone and to say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Futheremore, history has done the real proving here:  TF has a trust rating ove like -500 now and I have exactly 3 neg reps, one from TF, one from Quickseller (echoing TF) and one from his alt ACCTSeller during his trollfest.

I have read and reread all this and I found it necessary to post here. See this account with the -trust. I'm fairy sure that if I asked Quickseller to remove it he would, because he does know that I am not the person that he thought I was.  I do have another account Tidus1097 that I use because its a full member account hence is why I don't use this one. I made a open thread of it in meta as well. My account was stolen in February due to my incompetence to secure my account. I do not deny that. But over these last 2 months, I have engaged with Quicksellers services mainly because I want him to know that I am indeed the person I say I am and am NOT Morenia/Thegambler or Candystripes. I chose his service because I know he will go through the history on bct and find out any inconsistancies (sorry I'm not using spell check for 1 word) with whoever I'm trading with. When someone uses Quicksellers service 1, they can be sure he will not scam them. 2, Just out of his own accord, he will check out both the accounts history and if he finds anything he will make sure the world knows. Glad he does this, because you never know who your actually dealing with, especially if your new and don't spend alot of time on the forum.


Ok, I have to admit I don't understand the point of your story. You say he would remove the negative feedback if you asked him because he does now know that you are the person that he didn't know that you were?  The only think I got from this paragraph is that you appreciate his thoroughness.

BTW, are there actually any examples of quickseller removing negative feedback under any circumstances?  I've seen Vod do it often, I don't think I've ever seen QS do it.

Quote
Quickseller is a easy person to get along with. Sure I've cussed him, fought with him, felt like doing the same thing blasting him away in Meta, but what's that gonna solve? Nothing. I felt I had to prove myself to him and will continue to do so because the community hold him to a higher standard (default trust) Now, 3/4 are saying well your just sucking his dick to get on his good side, well that's about 1/4 right. 1. He helps the community with the whore's that want to scam you. 2. You can guarentee that he will not cheat you or will not let you be cheated. 3. He may be a prick, but I'm a prick to. That just people for ya. Live
with it.

Again, your writing seems conflicted you say he's easy to get along with and that you've cussed him and that he's a prick and that you're a prick too?  And you seem to be admitting that the main way to get along with him is to "suck his dick", which certainly seems to be the case---as far as I can tell, he doesn't tolerate disagreement or any suggestion that he might be wrong on anything anywhere.  (See the above thread I linked to above where I asked him if he had intended to sign a bitcoin message from an escrow address rather than using his PGP key; he flipped out and called me an idiot, said i know nothing, that i'm inexperienced and cetera; it was over the top as I simply thought that he had made an oversight and was trying to help).

Quote
You want Quickseller to remove the negative feedback, talk to him. Be reasonable. Don't belittle him. Do the same thing you would do to a bank officer when applying for a loan. He is a reasonable person in my opinion. All I had to do was reasonably talk with him. Since then, I've had nothing but good things to say about him.

This is nuts.  Dude has gone on a 2 day trollfest on me using two different accounts and you suggest that if I say nice things then he'll apologize and go away?  I seriously doubt that.  He wants me to grovel and plead with him and say "quickseller you are the deserved god of this forum because you find everything soooo fast" but clearly that is not going to help end his power-craze or this abuse.  Why on earth would I defend myself to this guy regarding trumped up charged from ancient history which have absolutely nothing to do with quickseller or anyone else of the modern era?  How is it not incredibly clear that 3 years of no issues with anyone speaks waaaay louder than the cries of a debunked scammer? 

Quote
Now for the ones that don't agree with Quickseller. That's your opinion. Just like a asshole, everyone has one. This is just mine. Hate me, blast me with neg's, don't matter. I'll still stand up for Quickseller because I know what he does here and will do for me if I need it in a escrow. Will I use other escrows? Sure why not? I like getting to know the community and want them to get to know me as well. But when you try to "take down" someone that does this for the community, your doing the community a negative in my thoughts because he has done more for this Bitcointalk community than 3/4 of the people in this thread has combined. Once you do as much as he has, you will probably have some of the same thoughts as well. I think that's why he has the attitude he has. When u deal with liars and thieves all day, its hard to justify one from the other at times. I'm in no way saying he did that here, I have not studied the evidence that's been presented nor asked the questions that would resolve it for me. On that note, I end this quote, so blast away crybabies. I did that and it got me nowhere.


Right, blasting away at the powerful is indeed like pissing in the wind, or so they say.  But surely anyone reading through this can see the vindinctive trolling that's going on here and once the mods get a chance to weigh in, I'm pretty sure the reign of quickterror will be ending.
2051  Other / Meta / Re: How to get non-contributing users from cluttering a thread on: April 21, 2015, 08:24:02 AM
I know that from time-to-time I've posted in a thread merely because I wanted to follow the discussion (ie, I wanted to see the bump in the "new replies" list).

The watchlist is what is designed for that, you can click "watch" and a thread will show up in your watchlist, additionally you can set it to auto-watch every thread you post in. The advantage is if you want to remove the thread from your watchlist, you can do so without having to delete any posts.

There are many tricks in this software that I am shamefully ignorant of. Thanks Blazr.
2052  Other / Meta / Re: How to get non-contributing users from cluttering a thread on: April 21, 2015, 08:15:27 AM
If I understand the OPs suggestion, it wouldn't be an actual post but some kind of list of names at the top of the thread who are registering as listeners or witnesses etc.  The idea is that they could register their presence without actually posting and cluttering things up.  Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

I know that from time-to-time I've posted in a thread merely because I wanted to follow the discussion (ie, I wanted to see the bump in the "new replies" list).
2053  Other / Meta / Re: Any problem with "My MESSAGES"? on: April 21, 2015, 08:10:17 AM
FWIW, mine seem to be loading just fine.

Does the problem persist if you refresh the page?

Edit: debian on iceweasel (firefox)
2054  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 07:54:08 AM
It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful Wink

I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it.

I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right).  

If you understood it then you'd be realizing that I have not admitted to any of TF's false accusations and you'd also realize that history has vindicated me on that point (uh, have you looked at TF's trust rating recently?  Were you around back when inputs.io was around?  I'm not so sure that you were.)

If you understood it truly then you'd realize how bad you look by siding with unsubstatiated allegations by a known liar.

Quote

I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban).

Lol, I'm going to ask you expclitly if you are an alt of ACCTSeller.  Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidince that suggests that you are the same person as him.  It would also likely be considered to be scamming this forum if you are using your alt to dig up dirt on people and then necrobumping those threads so that you can attack them on default trust with your other account (it is also frowned up on by the forum administration and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust).

Amazing the way you switch into this, god-like, I am the judge of the people tone of voice.  Guess what dude, I'm not on trial by you and I'm not going to answer to any of your ridiculous trolling bullshit.  You are clearly some kind of insane power-hungry madman on a vengance mission from hell.  And god knows what for (because I called you a hothead? boy was I right!).

If you had any sense of sanity you'd realize that:

a) you and I have never had any trading or any interactions together which would give you any sort of reason to negatively or positivily or neutrally trust me.
b) your insane vendetta makes you look crazy

I suppose tomorrow we'll hearing about how I am actually a child of satan, out to destory bitcoin and therefore the forums must be warned.  That is, we can ask ourselves, where will you go next?  Siding with a known scammer has failed an made you look untrustworthy.  Random accusations of alt/shill don't seem to be holding any water.  What's next?


Really this whole thing would be totally hillarious if it wasn't that the trolls have one here (I still hold out hope that this is only temporary).  A guy with a power complex and too much time on his hands makes it his mission to get a guy banned from a signature ad campaign because I called him a hothead and sided againse him on a number of debates, and it turns out because he's in a power position, he's basically won.  He can sit back here and carp up unsubstantiated complaint after unsubstantiated complaint, he can invent them, he can take them from known liars, it doesn't matter.  He sits back and says in a deified voice "doest thou deny the charges that quickseller brings against thee?"  And when I sat "WTF are you talking about?!"  he says "Thou hast not answered the charges, my judgement STANDS!"

The main hope here is basically that you won't be getting away with this for long.  You've shown your true colors and folks like you who spend their time swinging their dicks around trying to hurt people who have never done any wrong and never even had any complaints against them (yes, except for one complaint from tradefortress, but uh, we know how that story ended) aren't going to be in power for long.
2055  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 07:09:10 AM
I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
2056  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 06:58:53 AM
I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.
2057  Other / Meta / Re: Trim or eliminate "default trust" on: April 21, 2015, 05:26:17 AM
I'd support a decision to remove default trust from the forum. It's sad to see a forum related to bitcoin have a hierarchy for its trust system in effect. People in power often use it to bash others over personal reasons effectively destroying an account's credibility to the eyes of everyone.

I, for example hate default trust, but won't stop using it (modified) because I'm afraid that I could get out of touch with the rest of the forum since everyone seems to rely on it (probably for the same reason). Theymos keeps telling us that we shouldn't rely on it and that it was initially a solution for newbies but no one will stop using it unless there's a better solution.

My suggestion would be to keep the part of the trust system where successful trades count for a positive rating and force users to form their trust network instead of forcing a default one on them.


Indeed.  This is basically the spirit of my OP.  Here's what's (actually not so) fun: now that you've agreed with me you can expect negative feedback from ACCTSeller (he says that thinking this way is scammy behavior), and if you dare to get snippy with him, you can expect him to go trolling through everything you've ever posted on the board to see if he can manage to potentially find something that he's ballsy enough to neg-rep you for with his main account, Quickseller who's on default trust.  After that you'll get booted from your signature-ad campaign, so I hope you aren't too used to getting a little btc from that advert.

Basically, yes, it would be wonderful if the trust system were taken with the grain of salt it's supposed to be taken with, but as things stand, having a negative feedback (substantiated or not) from someone on default trust actually causes financial repurcussions (even if you don't participate in trading).
2058  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 04:45:24 AM
@tspacepilot: If you were experimenting with bots, why did you withdraw coins you got from the experiment? Using bot is against rules, so you shouldn't withdraw coins you got from bot-chat.

MZ, just saw this so I'm replying.   This just underscores how little you know about the situation.  Coinchat was a site in which making bots was encouraged.  As I said in the thread, TF even helped me to make a bot.  There were all kinds of bots there which ran gambling games or other useful services.  I was new to coding and was learning as I went.  As far as I know, I did not withdraw coins made from "bot-chat" as you call it.  Why would you presume to know the rules of a site you obviously never visited (it closed nearly 2 years ago, as far as I know it went down with TF when he stole everyones bitcoins in the inputs.io scandal)?
2059  Other / Meta / Re: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) on: April 21, 2015, 04:26:50 AM
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

I honestly don't see how you guys can know anything about what happend on coinchat so many years ago.  I can barely remember myself other than that I had a good time and enjoyed the fun until admin/tradefortress banned me for "abuse" which I didn't do.  It's even weirder that you guys would put stock in some weird likes that tradefortress made up at the time.   Especially given that he's a known liar and theif and I've basically got a 3 year reputation with 0 issues except this one.  Now, as to why quickseller is going after me, it's clear (read upthread).

As to whether this kind of personal vendetta is allowed for people on default trust (he clearly had a mission to get me removed from the signature ad campaign i was in) that's a question for the mods.

MZ, I only ask you to put yourself into my shoes, actually maybe that's impossible because you seem to be very careful not to cross anyone powerful here. But imagine that one day you disagreed with quickseller, nex thing you know he will find some reason to say that you are now a scammer---spending all night looking through 1000s of posts to find some kind of thing to possibly misinterpret.  Now, how do you want others to react, to take the side of the powerful abusive person, or to realize that you've spent years on here doing nothing but chatting and talking and helping and learning about bitcoin and which of these should hold more weight.  Think about it.

Try to find one issue that anyone on here has with me beyond tradefortress (known scammer), quickseller and his clones (soon to be removed from power, certainly).  There are many people who I have disagreed with (ask Vod, for example), but for all except quickseller, they know the difference between disagreement and using your power to bully.   Even quickseller stayed up all night looking through 2000 posts from me over 3 years and the only thing he could find was lies by a known liar and theif.
2060  Other / Archival / Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns on: April 21, 2015, 02:22:54 AM
Any good sig campaigns for a HERO member

The dadice one pays well and is well run by kind folks.  No phone verifications or other bullshit either.  I recommend it.
Pages: « 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 ... 221 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!