What the hell is this jury thing all about? You're not El Chapo and you're not on trial. Stop being melodramatic. Getting x amount of people to say I don't think they're alts (or even vice versa) isn't going to prove anything nor would you accept the verdict if it wasn't the desired outcome. Most neutral people probably don't care about this enough but I think most outsiders who look over the op will probably feel something like the following:

Yes, there's a very good chance they're alts. No, there's currently not enough evidence to tag them so so I'll stay out of it. Several outsiders have already stated something similar, but I don't care if 99% of the forum thinks I'm wrong because I know what I see and I think you're almost certainly alts even if an equal or greater amount disagrees with me. If you want to go play judge and jury go create another thread for your silly jury selection, but the outcome will be irrelevant and no jury is completely neutral (especially made up of members here) and that's the problem with juries. What happens when the jury is made up mostly idiots (or your "friends")? People will judge you off all sorts of things. Some people will find you guilty as soon as they lay eyes on you because they don't like the way you look. Well, he looks like a criminal so he probably did it. Well, she's a pretty woman I don't think she could have ever done that crime. This guy is an immigrant and I don't like immigrants. Guilty.


I'm not sure the person who offers to escrow 100k deals is a good barometer for good judgement. You mean I've failed to be blinded by your bullshit and take your nonsense into account. It's only your opinion that I haven't seen the 'truth' and all we have is your word for it. I think you're lying through your teeth and will continue to do so.

These things all look familiar: 


Same line breaks as well:


Snippity snip:



I suppose this is just another protege?

This point was proven right not wrong. You're the only person who called me hilari. On three different accounts. Fact. It obviously became a habit for you and was a tell-tale screw up. 


Again, none of this is proof of anything at all.


So what are the odds that out of 164.7 million Bangladeshis I (and multiple others) can randomly spot two of them who know each other that just so happen to post on a bitcoin forum by mere observation. This whole he's inspired by me thing is utter bullshit. Yesterday these were two random and unconnected accounts. Now you suddenly know each other and you're his idol and inspiration and he just wants to be like you hence why he walks and talks like you.


Of course I believe it. Nothing was pre-made. I suspected you were the same from the get-go and that just became even more apparent over time. It's what I've observed for months. You're trying to tell me something that walks and quacks like a duck is a dog. A dog that is inspired by the duck and hence why it quacks and waddles, but it's definitely not a duck. The duck and dog know each other though. And are from Bangladesh. But they're not the same.


Study the responses of the same person desperately trying to convince everyone he's two different people here by claiming nonsense? It's not literally impossible at all. It's literally possible and you've been doing it on purpose just to try make up some nonsensical "facts" as to why you can't be the same. Type two messages out and post them at the same time or one after the other. Are you really this stupid and desperate now?

mdayonliner logic:

Look, these are clearly two different people:



BTW, that's literally what you look like to me right now.

Anyway, I see no point in discussing this because you're obviously just going to stick with the same old bullshit and I'm not going to change my mind unless some new evidence comes to light (and you two posting at the same time along with all the other irrelevant nonsense isn't going to cut it).

I'm posting what I think based on observations. It is my opinion that S_Therapist = mdayonliner and I'm obviously not the only one who saw this and I'm still fairly certain that you are alts despite your protestations. The whole it's my friend excuse is the same type of nonsense plagiarists come out with and I don't buy it for a second but I doubt you'll ever drop that stance unless some other evidence appears.


Please stop with the nonsense. This is completely irrelevant. You haven't proved anything except trying to cast doubt. You are more likely just trying to spread disinformation and lies. All I have is what I've stated in the op but all you have is claiming that they're just coincidences. When there's too many coincidences things just start to add up.


This doesn't have anything to do with enemies. They can't be that great an enemy if they're willing to suggest you be left alone and given a second chance.


Come on now. What would he gain from that. If he had a burning hatred for you he would have took the first opportunity to shit on you.
 

This is irrelevant to anything here. The topic isn't xtraelv. The topic is you. Stop trying to divert. Take xtraelv out of the conversation and things are exactly the same except the number of people who made the same conclusion has gone down by one.


I'm not lying. It's what I strongly believe, and I still think you're lying out of desperation. I'm not going to change the title just because you don't like it.


Stop claiming that I think I know everything because I don't and I've never claimed such a thing. People can still debate the topic if they like but I think the majority of people here would side with me in the belief that you two are very likely one and the same but it's probably going to be impossible to convince me otherwise because I know what I see and all we have to say otherwise from you is "it's not me" (but it is a friend, one that's been to your house, and talks exactly like you).


I don't care whether you respect me or not. I'm sure I'm already on your imaginary "enemy" list anyway.

I'm not sure almost falling for this deserves any merit   :. I have little sympathy for anyone who gets suckered into these sorts of things though as it's the absolutely classic scam that only the greedy fall for. It has all the hallmarks that should set alarm bells off for anyone: Double your money. Quick, offer only lasts for short amount of time. Just send money here first to verify. Why would any company offer to magically increase your money for nothing but require something first?

The old adage if it sounds too good to be true should immediately spring to mind. Did anyone send any money to the address?

We could solve a lot of these problems by just actually making people aware of the most commonly broken rules. The basic rules or etiquette should either be stated when you sign up or linked to or even better a warning displayed when you go to post along the lines of Please do not plagiarise/copy and paste other's content without proper attribution would help a lot. 


Exactly. Most have just found a loophole here and they're quick to exploit it. I'm sure there are a handful of people who might not understand the severity of what they're doing when they plagiarise content from elsewhere but for the most they're probably just greedy or lazy or even just not qualified for the job (not being able to speak English to an acceptable standard). There's absolutely no excuses for copying someone else's post from the same thread and they do that for the reasons I've just stated. Nobody in their right mind regardless of cultural differences would think that's acceptable and they know what they're doing when they do it.

No, but I'm pretty sure. I can't be 100% sure that unicorns don't exist, but they almost certainly don't.


My thoughts weren't manipulated by anyone so lets not go down that avenue. I came to the conclusion independently long before anyone else said anything to me. It's not like these seeds were planted by anybody with or without a vendetta. Yes, xtraelv also made the connection and alerted me about it but he wasn't the first or last. In fact, he suggested we leave you be and give you a second chance and I agreed because that's what I was going to do anyway. That doesn't really sound like someone out to get you to me.

Thanks for clarifying, but I still think the way they use them and boxes to highlight things are more than a coincidence, especially when you take into consideration everything else, though of course it's not unheard of and would mean little by itself. I also suspect he tried to throw in a few red herrings here and there by mixing some things up but it's hard to hide who you are fully and people can easily slip up (see hilari). The accusations in the op are probably a moot point now though seeing as he's been tagged for buying accounts.

I don't have a magic 8 ball so I can't say for certain what you would have done but if I was a betting man and someone stupidly sent you a lot of money I'd say the likelihood that you would have just disappeared with it is very high. Regardless, I also don't really trust that sort of naivety that you think you are qualified to hold onto such an amount. It looked to me that there was an opportunity for you to get your hands on what is probably a life-changing amount of money and you got excited by the prospect of that. You've also tried to promote ponzis in the past and that was a big factor in my feedback because there's usually a certain type of greedy get rich quick shyster that gets involved with them and they don't care who loses out as long as it's not them and they're often the sort of people who would throw their own friend under a bus if it meant they could get a payout from it. Maybe you are the most honest person in the world and would chase someone down to give them the wallet they just dropped... or maybe you're the type that would open it up first to see what you could take. I guess we'll never know.


He was playing too naive which also made it very obvious to me. He was trying too hard to sound ignorant about certain things when it's obvious he already knew the answers and wasn't a 'new' account here.


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, farts like a duck, then it's mdayonliner. Yes, all the 'evidence' I've presented could be coincidental, but when you add them together the odds that you're different people becomes astronomical. Within a couple of weeks I strongly suspected you were the same person just by how you typed and conducted yourself and that was before any of the 'evidence' or 'similarities' I spotted above. Three other people also made the same connection independent of me. Now, are we all mistaken or did we all just spot the same evidence/similarities? This whole, he was inspired by me shtick is ludicrous but I guess it's all you got to try explain away the similarities right now.


I think it's more weird that you didn't merit this account beforehand if it truly wasn't yours, but for whatever reason you decided to test the waters by meriting it but now you seem like you just want to go out in a blaze of glory as you have nothing to lose.


Theymos isn't going to get involved in little things like this, but using a proxy would be all you need to go undetected and I think you would have been smart enough to use one. Whether you did or not is another matter and one which we'll likely never know but you two not having same IPs is proof of nothing.


As I said back then this would prove absolutely nothing. What exactly are you going to do? Make a video with a random person going, yep, as you can see we are two different people.


I believe you are lying. It's not like you have anything to lose at this point but you know there's probably no blockchain proof so will keep the charade going as long as you can, but ironically you seem to be digging yourself deeper into a hole with all the excuses and now look where it's got you.

I'm sure cryptohunter will give him a run for his money this year.

Please drop this feigned naivety. Why the hell did you go and merit the account when I'd told you I knew which it was. It's like you were trying to call my bluff. Well, bluff called. All you had to do was not do anything stupid and you would have been fine and multiple people were willing to give you a second chance by not saying anything. I was even considering changing your original trust to neutral despite me not really trusting you as a person, and then this.

I've "known" about this for pretty much as soon as mdayonliner created the S_Therapist alt account to "start" again (which he publicly announced he'd done so somewhere but he left the account unnamed for obvious reasons) but I kept it to myself and was going to let it slide and hope that he could put his mistake behind him but there's multiple levels of abuse he's now doing. Not only is he 'talking' to himself on each account (both on sig campaigns), posting back to back, but he's also now meriting his own posts:

Post he merited: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49177831#msg49177831

A thread he just created to talk to himself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096229.0

How do I know they're the same person? Well, I first suspected just by the way they type and how they conduct themselves (which you start to pick up on these things), but what really gave it away was he then referred to me as 'hilari' which I've only ever seen mdayonliner do. I wasn't the only one to notice this and several other people have PMd me to tell me about the similarities they noticed  since (they can chime in if they wish). You might not think this is enough evidence that they're one and the same but if you look at the accounts and how they type and behave it's glaringly obvious.

Three accounts where he called me hilari:




Both Bangladeshi:



Frequently uses the same red paint arrows and boxes to highlight things:










There's multiple other smaller similarities in the way they post like using tildes (~) when they snip bits out of other's quotes but the biggest ones are above and the fact that three other people that I know about had already made the same connection independently leads me to believe that it is almost certainly him. As I said before, I was happy to overlook this and leave him be to build up a screw-up free reputation and leave his past behind but I think this is just being too cocky now and he's knowingly breaking the rules by posting back to back and now the merit abuse is just stepping over the line for me.

Edit: Part Two:

S_Therapist = mdayonliner = Retina: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096681.msg50271724#msg50271724

I doubt theymos would change it but I'd like the option to choose at least. Maybe it should be hidden by default but a toggle option to show trust in all sections could be given for those that want it.


I agree. I think we're needlessly complicating an already complicated system even more and I don't see how much different this system is. I think it will probably actually involve more collusion and backroom deals to exclude people to get them off DT. Older users with friends here will benefit more from it whilst newer users will still be flummoxed by it.




Theymoses and his holy default trust commandments.

No feedback system is perfect or free from abuse and I doubt there ever will be one, but the trust system works fine in the vast majority of cases but of course when people fall foul of it or there's a couple of abuses apparently the whole system is broken and needs to be removed. People shouldn't be leaving negative feedback over petty squabbles but I don't see the point in needlessly complicating it even more because you're never going to make everyone happy. Might as well just get rid of it (or at least the scoring/'green/red' feedback effect and let people make their own minds up based on the comments left or whatever (but don't effect the score (but of course that then puts very reputable/trustworthy people at a disadvantage)).

People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not?


Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable?


Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you.



Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'?   Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate.

Would you trust someone who is erratic, unstable and acts like a fool? Some people call that trolling and sometimes it's just their natural immature behaviour. Either way that's up to the individual as to whether they trust them or not. Sometimes people don't trust others if they spread what they believe to be lies or misinformation about them or others. The person or troll may or may not believe the info is untruthful and it may or may not be. That's why issues need to be taken on a case by case basis.

Liking lemons or not is subjective taste and irrelevant to whether you're trustworthy or not. Someone who acts like a buffoon is different matter, but it's down that individual person whether they don't trust them or not. I think some trolls likely do deserve negative trust and some don't, but that depends on the specific behaviour. If someone acts like a buffoon 99% of the time then I would be less likely to trust that person. As to whether you want to leave feedback for that is entirely down to the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


Asking what the definition of a trolling post is is like asking what is constructive. Purely subjective. Sometimes people come across as trolls when in fact they're just idiots, just like sometimes people think they're making substantial posts when they're really not. Does trolling automatically make you a scammer? No, but I would be less likely to trust a troll, especially if it's their full time job here. Would you trust someone in real life who just acts like an immature jackass all the time and never takes anything seriously? Probably not.

This would only work if campaign managers were going through everybody's posts and checking what threads they've posted in and discounting the ones with no signature displayed. For most spam campaigns they won't be doing any thorough checking and as long as they've made the posts then they'll get their share. 99% of campaigns don't care what you post or where, especially the problem ones, hence this would do largely nothing about spam other than at best move spam into other threads that aren't 'de-sigged', and there are plenty of those about.

This is a forum about money, specifically an irreversible money, so of course there's going to be scammers here. Bitcoin is a paradise for them. The forum is far from perfect but if people don't like it they can vote with their feet and leave.


But often Newbies are those who need to get answers and if they're about the forum then they belong here.

I've been dropping further down the table week by week and doubt I'll be getting many points from this round. Seem to have got 2 out of 2 correct scores so far on Cloudbet's Euro-wide predictor so far so hoping I'll win that one as it's the last round this week and I'm already up in second place.


Fucks sake  . City along with Chelsea were my bankers on the Sky Bet price boost this week and Chelski are 0-0 at half time. City will probably bounce back though, but at least if they don't there's a plus in that it gives Liverpool a further lead. Liverpool really can't afford to drop any points as it'll be rare that City do and I still think they're a stronger team so this would give them a huge boost. City and Liverpool are playing each other in January as well. Will be a right game and could end up being the title decider further down the line. If Liverpool can grab the win at the Etihad then that would be huge for the title race.

Banning someone for a post made years ago would probably be quite harsh, especially if they've since changed their ways. In these sorts of cases I would much prefer a sig ban.


Is this cryptohunter?

Seems the votes are pretty much evenly split between all options minus the fee one.

Theymos PMd me and said permabans for plagiarism don't have to be set in stone as there are no hard rules and we can use our own initiative on whether to ban certain users or not but I think there needs to be some consistency across staff so it doesn't look like we're giving certain favours to people as it will just lead to people whinging and bugging staff members that x was unbanned by y and therefore so should they.

Theymos has already implemented facilities to sig ban people and personally I think this is something we should be doing for those cases of users where they deserve a second chance, so hopefully he can roll out that feature to Globals so we can give them in appropriate cases. Maybe the sigs can be 'earned' back automatically after x amount of time/merit/contributions or after manual staff review, but at least those who are here to genuinely contribute something can still do so regardless.

Two cases that would probably be deserving of unbans/signature bans are ChiBitCTy & Roboabhishek.

Appeal threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg35819856#msg35819856
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5079217.msg48408455#msg48408455

I'm not sure I buy either of their excuses (though they are plausible) but I'd be willing to give them a second chance as they were both active and somewhat appreciated members and have vouches from other respected members, but I think some sort of sig ban would be appropriate here given they were both essentially doing it for payment. They both seem to care more about just getting their accounts back and even suggested they're fine with a sig ban so I think this is something we should consider for review: