I am not sure what the fact that you think I am alt of Quickseller has to do with anything, nor have I seen you present any proof of this being a fact. ... Do you deny it? The obvious shill account is obvious. I also find it ironic that you created a shill account for the explicit reason to claim that I am a shill  Why should I deny it. It is not my job to prove my innocence. If the OP wants to claim that I am an alt of someone then he can provide evidence. Once he gives that evidence he can explain how this matters to the dispute in hand and how it is against any rules Scumbag: Unlike yourself, I'll publicly state that I'm in no way associated with OP. All the circumstantial evidence points to Quickseller being your alt, from registration dates being 3 days apart to your writing stile to subs frequented to posting time. TL;DR: yeah, both accounts are yours. I am fairly certain you are the person who wrote the article that you posted. If I am correct then I know that you had previously been banned a number of times and even started a petition for theymos to unban you (that didn't work). If I am correct then you will likely get banned in the near future if you haven't been already and you would be evading your ban which shows that you have a disregard for the rules. I am thinking you are considering that you posted this article recently in scam accusations and your account was quickly nuked. You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP or how having an alt account is against any rule. The fact remains that the OP scammed and there is no reason why the community should not be warned when they are potentially dealing with scammers. |
|
|
|
I am not sure what the fact that you think I am alt of Quickseller has to do with anything, nor have I seen you present any proof of this being a fact.
I gave you a negative trust because I wanted to warn people that you are wanting to make it easier to scam others, even after they have been outed as scammers. This in itself is scammy behavior, but maybe doesn't make it necessary for you to have a "trade with extreme caution tag".
Regardless I do think you are a spammer/scammer and should be warned, especially when you are openly admit to behavior that violated the terms of of CoinChat, made an account that was intentionally confusing to make yourself look innocent and then withdrew funds that you never should have received in the first place.
Hello ACCTseller, thanks for joining the discussion. It's really sorta weird that you found it worth your while to troll through 3 years of posts in order to rehash lies of tradefortress. It's certainly not something I'd be very worried about, except that your more powerful alt swooped in to finish the job and get me kicked out of the campaign I was in (again, based on 2.5 year old unsubstantied lies from a known scammer). What's more, I don't do any trading on here (never have, probably never will). I mainly use the forum to explore technical questions related to the bitcoin protocol, wallet software, importing/exporting keys, etc. I occasionally take jobs writing code and fixing up people's websites but again, your trolling perogative wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it weren't for your more-powerful alter-ego. I like to take a little extra btc from signature ad campaigns and as you stated in my campaign thread, you wanted to see me kicked out (pretty sure this is because I offended you when I called out quickseller for being a hothead). Anywhoo, thanks for helping me to exemplify the issues with the power of people on default trust to take out personal vendettas against people they haven't even traded with. I'm doubtful that anything will be done about it, but I guess I can answer the guy on my other thread in meta with a more personal example now. Once you're ready to log in as your more powerful alt then we can talk more about how you seem to think that tradefortress' year-old lies are relevant or substantiated or whatever you may argue. Looking forward to it! All it took was a simple forum search, it took ~30 seconds, probably longer then it took to think about how to respond to your most recent reply on the ask TF thread to me. You admitted to scamming TF and coinchat. It does not matter that TF is a scammer. If you scam anyone then you are a scammer. IDK why you are saying TF lied when you admitted to the material facts. I am not sure what the fact that you think I am alt of Quickseller has to do with anything, nor have I seen you present any proof of this being a fact. ... Do you deny it? The obvious shill account is obvious. I also find it ironic that you created a shill account for the explicit reason to claim that I am a shill Why should I deny it. It is not my job to prove my innocence. If the OP wants to claim that I am an alt of someone then he can provide evidence. Once he gives that evidence he can explain how this matters to the dispute in hand and how it is against any rules |
|
|
|
|
I am not sure what the fact that you think I am alt of Quickseller has to do with anything, nor have I seen you present any proof of this being a fact.
I gave you a negative trust because I wanted to warn people that you are wanting to make it easier to scam others, even after they have been outed as scammers. This in itself is scammy behavior, but maybe doesn't make it necessary for you to have a "trade with extreme caution tag".
Regardless I do think you are a spammer/scammer and should be warned, especially when you are openly admit to behavior that violated the terms of of CoinChat, made an account that was intentionally confusing to make yourself look innocent and then withdrew funds that you never should have received in the first place.
|
|
|
|
I am asking a legit question. I see above that you had admitted to using a bot on CoinChat, didn't use the proper string of "bot" in your handle, and withdrew some amount of funds when doing so would have violated the terms of the CoinChat TOS (which you would have agreed to when you signed up). Your post history does resemble that of a spammer (I wonder if you have used any bots to post here ) I don't see any reason why the necro bump would not be allowed. There are several open threads about the trust system, and it appears that the trust system has failed in this case because when TF was removed from the default trust network, you lost your "warning: Trade with Extreme Caution" tag despite you still being a scammer. I wonder if your thread asking to dilute the trust system has anything to do with this thread. |
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You had posted negative trust on tspacepilot that he defrauded coinchat. Do you have any evidence of him doing so? If so can you post such evidence?
Fun that ACCTseller is doing everything he can to troll me on every possible thread. If you've really got sherlock skills, you'll find the long-ass thread on Meta where me, tradefortress, saltyspitoon and others hash it all out (approximately 2.5 years ago, I'd guess) Why don't you post a link to the thread if you really are confident that you did not do anything wrong? |
|
|
|
I think it is pretty clear this is a bad idea.
The trust system is designed to be a way to determine the appropriateness it is to trust someone else with your money/property. By limiting the default depth to 1, you put the burden of this determination focused into a very small group of people. Additionally, since the majority of trust ratings are in reference to a completed trade, very few people would be affirmatively show as being trustworthy enough to send funds first to.
As mentioned by blazedout419, the default trust system is most import to be enabled by default for new users. It allows new users to conduct due diligence on their potential trading partners.
Granted, maybe users should be "forced" to create their own trust list after a certain amount of time, however many people choose to not use a custom list because well, they agree for the most part that people in default trust should have their ratings counted. If people were forced to create a custom trust list, say once they become a full member, then I would say that most people would make one that mirrors that of default trust, however they would likely not keep it updated for when people scam, start to send crazy trust reports, ect. which would probably not be a good thing. Additionally the people who do currently use custom trust lists generally add people who are in the default trust network, which should say something about how well the default trust system is working.
If you have enough negative trust from people in your trust network so that they show up as having a "trade with caution" tag, then you should well trade with caution because enough people whose opinions you trust enough for you to view them by default thinks they are a scammer. By making the warning toned down as you request means that more people are going to get scammed after they have received warnings that a scam attempt is highly likely by the person in question.
I consider this request to be an attempt to make it easier for people to scam in the future and as a result I consider you to likely be someone who will try to scam in the future.
I was almost tempted to reply to your thoughts here, but given the fact that you're currently on a troll tspacepilot kick (see his last posts, everyone), I think I'm just gonna leave this as is. But hey, ACCTSeller, sounds like you ought to give me negative trust for this, right? What's holding you back? I did give you negative trust for this, right after I wrote that post. If you are unable/unwilling to counter my arguments then I think you should admit they are valid and admit the suggestions in the OP are nothing more then to make it easier for people to scam. P.S. I thought I was on your ignore list |
|
|
|
|
You had posted negative trust on tspacepilot that he defrauded coinchat. Do you have any evidence of him doing so? If so can you post such evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is pretty clear this is a bad idea.
The trust system is designed to be a way to determine the appropriateness it is to trust someone else with your money/property. By limiting the default depth to 1, you put the burden of this determination focused into a very small group of people. Additionally, since the majority of trust ratings are in reference to a completed trade, very few people would be affirmatively show as being trustworthy enough to send funds first to.
As mentioned by blazedout419, the default trust system is most import to be enabled by default for new users. It allows new users to conduct due diligence on their potential trading partners.
Granted, maybe users should be "forced" to create their own trust list after a certain amount of time, however many people choose to not use a custom list because well, they agree for the most part that people in default trust should have their ratings counted. If people were forced to create a custom trust list, say once they become a full member, then I would say that most people would make one that mirrors that of default trust, however they would likely not keep it updated for when people scam, start to send crazy trust reports, ect. which would probably not be a good thing. Additionally the people who do currently use custom trust lists generally add people who are in the default trust network, which should say something about how well the default trust system is working.
If you have enough negative trust from people in your trust network so that they show up as having a "trade with caution" tag, then you should well trade with caution because enough people whose opinions you trust enough for you to view them by default thinks they are a scammer. By making the warning toned down as you request means that more people are going to get scammed after they have received warnings that a scam attempt is highly likely by the person in question.
I consider this request to be an attempt to make it easier for people to scam in the future and as a result I consider you to likely be someone who will try to scam in the future.
|
|
|
|
How is your constructive post count grade counted?
I checked last weeks stats, and I made 34 constructive posts, and I got a C- rating, while someone else made 23 constructive posts, and got a B rating.
It turns out the ratings are kinda arbitrary. I last week I spent a lot of time posting in "techincal discussion" helping others who were having trouble with bitcoin software (seemingly quite constructive behavior) and I got my lowest rating yet. Another week my rating went from A, down to D with a note that I had posted too often on a given day. After I explained to the folks that actually this had been over 2 days, they changed my rating back to B. I still can't really figure out what it's supposed to mean. So I just decided not to worry about the ratings anymore. It sounds like you are doing a pretty bad job of hiding the fact that you are creating shit posts whose reason they were made was none other then that you are trying to make the max amount of posts. I am honestly not sure why you have not yet been kicked from this campaign Oh, yah, here I am doing "shit posts" (read, answering questinos) in technical support: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012809.msg11043009#msg11043009I don't think you really knew what you were talking about in this thread as you were just making shit up lol. Yes you were making more useless posts. No you are not a respected member. No no one else was trying to figure out the "maths" (formula?) of key formats. Besides you, two other people posted in that thread, one person pointed out a tool that you admitted you had previously stumbled across, and the other person pointed out that your question had been answered a number of times in the past. The thread is locked but this is the quote: This sort of question has been asked and answered quite a bit (not trying to be rude) -- there are a lot of bits of code in various wallets / products that will do this sort of thing if you know where to look.
-snip- Also you had posted a total of 4 times without anyone else posting in the thread to respond you......you were literally responding to yourself. In case you try to edit or delete any of your posts I have archived the thread. Mods, you guys know that this is an alt of quickseller, right? This has been claimed in the past. Do you happen to have any proof of this? Once you find proof do you have any rules that this fact is breaking? |
|
|
|
How is your constructive post count grade counted?
I checked last weeks stats, and I made 34 constructive posts, and I got a C- rating, while someone else made 23 constructive posts, and got a B rating.
It turns out the ratings are kinda arbitrary. I last week I spent a lot of time posting in "techincal discussion" helping others who were having trouble with bitcoin software (seemingly quite constructive behavior) and I got my lowest rating yet. Another week my rating went from A, down to D with a note that I had posted too often on a given day. After I explained to the folks that actually this had been over 2 days, they changed my rating back to B. I still can't really figure out what it's supposed to mean. So I just decided not to worry about the ratings anymore. It sounds like you are doing a pretty bad job of hiding the fact that you are creating shit posts whose reason they were made was none other then that you are trying to make the max amount of posts. I am honestly not sure why you have not yet been kicked from this campaign |
|
|
|
It makes literally 0 sense to force 2FA upon people. Big annoying warning that says "2FA is very recommended" it's ok, but not forcing it, there is a reason no exchange does that. I use public numbers to bypass SMS verifications all the time myself because there's no reason you would need to give personal data at that level to do that. Again, there's a reason you don't need phone verification in any exchange to log in and do basic alt to alt trading. Of course, when fiat is involved, it's normal to start wanting more credentials, but forcing people with phone verification alienates people to use your service.
If you live in a third world country, or lets say you don't have a smartphone (a LOT of people still don't), you can't use Google Auth which leads to being forced to check your phone every single time you log in. This is a big no-no.
Reconsider how you run this.
How does it 'literally make no sense'? It literally does make sense because people lose their coins all the time and as soon as they do they bog down support with complaints asking where their coins have gone. And who are these people in the third world that don't have a phone but yet have the internet, computer and are actively involved in the crypto community? Your phone is really more like your password then it is a 2fa device. If you forget your password then you can reset it using your phone only, so there is really no point in even requiring people to have a password at all in the first place. Requiring people to receive their payments via an exchange account also makes little sense when you have a escrow paying participants. There wouldn't be anything to stop the exchange from seizing funds that participants receive prior to them being able to withdraw which defeats the point of using escrow in the first place. It would make more sense to decrease rates by 0.5% and allow people to receive payment to any address that participants wish. Then people would not need to worry about accidentally eating the only way they can access their account You'd think that after nearly 7 months of flawless payouts that people would have some trust/faith in a service (mind you, most actually do). I believe there have been some hickups (flaws) along the way. I am not sure where you get your 7 months figure from, however this campaign has been open for roughly 4.5 months. My point is that if someone were to get ahold of your phone then they could easily steal all of your bitcoin as well as the point that regardless of how 'flawless' payments have been that escrow is not really protecting anyone. Yup, that's another thing. Receiving your payment directly in your BTC address is always a peace of mind. That, coupled with the forced 2FA thing is annoying. As far as I know, only this and Bitmixer offer automated payments. Too bad Bitmixer's payment's rate is shit and the rest are still stuck in the middle ages with the manual enrollment mess. Hopefully in the future someone hits the sweet spot with direct payments in your address, good rates and not compromising your privacy in the process.
If you were to check out this thread then you can see how much you could earn in various campaigns. There is really no advantage to "automatic" payouts as either way you still get your earnings in a timely manner. I think there might be one or two higher paying campaigns out there that allow you to receive payments to your own address |
|
|
|
It makes literally 0 sense to force 2FA upon people. Big annoying warning that says "2FA is very recommended" it's ok, but not forcing it, there is a reason no exchange does that. I use public numbers to bypass SMS verifications all the time myself because there's no reason you would need to give personal data at that level to do that. Again, there's a reason you don't need phone verification in any exchange to log in and do basic alt to alt trading. Of course, when fiat is involved, it's normal to start wanting more credentials, but forcing people with phone verification alienates people to use your service.
If you live in a third world country, or lets say you don't have a smartphone (a LOT of people still don't), you can't use Google Auth which leads to being forced to check your phone every single time you log in. This is a big no-no.
Reconsider how you run this.
How does it 'literally make no sense'? It literally does make sense because people lose their coins all the time and as soon as they do they bog down support with complaints asking where their coins have gone. And who are these people in the third world that don't have a phone but yet have the internet, computer and are actively involved in the crypto community? Your phone is really more like your password then it is a 2fa device. If you forget your password then you can reset it using your phone only, so there is really no point in even requiring people to have a password at all in the first place. Requiring people to receive their payments via an exchange account also makes little sense when you have a escrow paying participants. There wouldn't be anything to stop the exchange from seizing funds that participants receive prior to them being able to withdraw which defeats the point of using escrow in the first place. It would make more sense to decrease rates by 0.5% and allow people to receive payment to any address that participants wish. Then people would not need to worry about accidentally eating the only way they can access their account |
|
|
|
=snip=
He isn't even posting from his TF account anymore.
=snip=
AFAIK it is same account. He changed username/display name to $username. The account was last active in February. He is almost certainly posting from another account somewhere, most likely advertising some kind of coding services potentially in a paid signature campaign. I have a couple of suspects, but nothing solid as of yet I feel like I'm implied here? Am I wrong? I wasn't aware that you know how to code like that. Yes you are wrong. No I don't think you are TF. Sorry, I thought you meant he was doing a coding job for me when you said: advertising some kind of coding services potentially in a paid signature campaign. I read 'in' as 'for'. Nevermind! I was saying that he is both selling his coding services and is in a paid signature campaign. Although the person who you hired to code your bot has questionable ethics at best so I hope you were able to audit how it works personally. |
|
|
|
How old is TF  He doesn't come off as someone who is school/college aged. He is very likely 16-18 years old, which is why nobody should post his personal information here and those who lost money should contact the police and/or a lawyer. I don't understand how a 14 year old ended up being trusted with millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin (if he is 16 now then he was ~14 at the time of the hack). There was over 4k btc lost at the time of the hack and Bitcoin was valued a lot more then it is now. Several hundreds of dollars more. |
|
|
|
=snip=
He isn't even posting from his TF account anymore.
=snip=
AFAIK it is same account. He changed username/display name to $username. The account was last active in February. He is almost certainly posting from another account somewhere, most likely advertising some kind of coding services potentially in a paid signature campaign. I have a couple of suspects, but nothing solid as of yet I feel like I'm implied here? Am I wrong? I wasn't aware that you know how to code like that. Yes you are wrong. No I don't think you are TF. I think TradeFortress may be off Bitcointalk for now while he prepares for his end-of-year exams, I believe it's his final year exam or whatever they call it in Australia.
In regards to Inputs.io, Do you think he really did it? It was too easy for whoever hacked them to hack inputs. He was well versed in security practices and preached good practices. It was either him or told someone a specific way to hack the website intentionally. He most likely got some amount of money out of the "hack" I think TradeFortress may be off Bitcointalk for now while he prepares for his end-of-year exams, I believe it's his final year exam or whatever they call it in Australia.
How old is TF He doesn't come off as someone who is school/college aged. |
|
|
|
=snip=
He isn't even posting from his TF account anymore.
=snip=
AFAIK it is same account. He changed username/display name to $username. The account was last active in February. He is almost certainly posting from another account somewhere, most likely advertising some kind of coding services potentially in a paid signature campaign. I have a couple of suspects, but nothing solid as of yet |
|
|
|
|
I think he was removed from level 1 default trust well over a year ago. He may sometimes fight for what is ethically right, however I think it is pretty clear that he is a scammer and no one will take his sent feedback seriously.
He isn't even posting from his TF account anymore.
He is also copying your feedback as saying what you are claiming to have happened
|
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that anyone hasn't got any collateral that they can offer, meaning in no circumstance should there not be collateral. Although, sometimes when the user is reputable and is verified using a signed messages it does happen. However, that isn't the case with your account. You need to provide collateral. Anyone looking to fund this request, please require collateral. It will save you some headaches later on down the line if the user does default. Original poster, please read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0ive done alot of loans with no collateral and all was repaid. you can check or ask trusted members It looks like you have taken two similarly small loans from other lenders who only give out microloans. They were not exercising good judgment when giving those loans. At the very least you should provide your account as collateral so the lender has something to sell if/when you default i can give my loan as collateral. But it should be handled by escrow witch i won't pay if you find some trusted member who will do it for free then ok,or you just want to pay fees is ok too I wouldn't be interested in taking your account as collateral and I have generally exited the account selling business, however if you have some other digitally scare item (preferably some stable altcoin) then I would be interested in lending to you sorry i dont have altcoins. i guess ill wait for someone who have enough of trust to lend me but thanks  Why don't you explain why someone should put any kind of trust in you? I personally do not see any reason. Especially considering the fact that the size of your loans make it pretty clear that you are using the money you borrow to gamble. |
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that anyone hasn't got any collateral that they can offer, meaning in no circumstance should there not be collateral. Although, sometimes when the user is reputable and is verified using a signed messages it does happen. However, that isn't the case with your account. You need to provide collateral. Anyone looking to fund this request, please require collateral. It will save you some headaches later on down the line if the user does default. Original poster, please read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0ive done alot of loans with no collateral and all was repaid. you can check or ask trusted members It looks like you have taken two similarly small loans from other lenders who only give out microloans. They were not exercising good judgment when giving those loans. At the very least you should provide your account as collateral so the lender has something to sell if/when you default i can give my loan as collateral. But it should be handled by escrow witch i won't pay if you find some trusted member who will do it for free then ok,or you just want to pay fees is ok too I wouldn't be interested in taking your account as collateral and I have generally exited the account selling business, however if you have some other digitally scare item (preferably some stable altcoin) then I would be interested in lending to you |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
