Assuming what you wrote in your posts above is accurate, I think there is a good chance they are the same person, although I wouldn’t demand they explain themselves. I might decline to enroll them in a campaign I am running if they don’t have excellent post quality.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that enrolling multiple alts in a campaign is “abusing” bounty campaigns— the company who is paying for the advertising is receiving the same amount of advertising as if more than one person was behind the alts. If the accounts are making good posts, the advertiser is actually loosing out by declining alt accounts because good posts attract more attention, and if all the alts are posting garbage, they shouldn’t be accepted into the campaign in the first place.

It is difficult to say those who posted the same address are not the same person, however the same still applies.

Perhaps you should read this thread before posting


As an alternative, you should review the thread you are citing.

Except for those that are using the same address, I don’t see the connection between the accounts based on what you posted. The merit history might be worth looking into further. To my knowledge, Xapo controls the private keys to all the address used by their service so any Blockchain activity after funds are sent to the address is out of control of the users. The fact that they are on the first page of the walletexplorer website doesn’t mean anything.

I am also not sure I understand what you think these people did wrong that makes them scammers.

I would disagree. I wouldn’t do something whose purpose is to prevent them from being able to conduct business based on a guess.

It would probably be best to remove the advertisement. Sure, it *might* not be a Ponzi scam, however the overwhelming chance is that it is.

It looks like the issue of me possibly being the same as marco was cleared up here in a GitHub issue for keybase.

According to one of what I believe to be devs of keybase, marco was one of the "alpha" users of keybase, and never proved ownership of the PGP key in his keybase profile (mine). It looks like he input my public key as being his, and never verified it (because he doesn't have the private key) -- note at the time, I was one of the most trusted people here. According to the dev, this was a bug in the keybase software and a fix was made in Early 2017, when this was reported.

It looks like it stems from this, which looks like for some reason keybase was saying a PGP message that I signed was signed by marco. It appears that marco might have deleted his keybase account, however based on what I posted at the time, the "proof" keybase had for the PGP key associated with marco's key was not signed by my key.

It is possible his financial situation has changed from when he was managing the coinsbank(?) signature campaign, and may be willing to scam for $500 today when he was unwilling to scam for $20k years ago if he is now desperate for money. It is also possible, he is trying to engage in many trades so he can gain additional reputation, so he can have additional business opportunities, such as managing campaigns. It is also possible he had a series of unexpected expenses that came up, and has income he will be receiving in the near future.

I am not marco. I am not sure why timeloard thinks I am him, although I would not be surprised if he posted it somewhere and the logic is convoluted.

The multiple loans will not automatically make him a scammer, although the multiple loans taken over a short period is suspicious.

In the past, marco has had a lot of sockpuppets, including one of which allegedly took out a private loan from him. I am unsure if this account is still one of his sockpuppets, although my intuition says it is.

Prior to last month, I was not aware of him engaging in any kind of fake trades with his sockpuppets, although I do know he was engaged in trust farming, including asking people on DT for positive trust.

IIRC, in the past, he was entrusted with ~50BTC to run a signature campaign (worth ~$20k at the time), and to my knowledge he paid out appropriately, and returned excess funds when the campaign closed, although it is possible he accepted people who shouldn't have been accepted, and/or paid for posts that maybe shouldn't have been paid, and/or something similar in exchange for a portion of the improper payment. 

erwin45hacked isn't a scammer per se, however he is so bad at protecting his account, if you are dealing with him, there is a decent chance you are actually dealing with a hacker.

Based on the high percentage of people with negative ratings, it doesn’t appear this goal has been met:

Based on the fact that the majority of people have no ratings at all (within DT), it appears many people are in DT who don’t participate in the marketplace. This begs the question as to why they are able to influence the marketplace.

Can you sign a message from ETH 0xF6022EE57D43CDD93dE2dAf382C504AfE818B172

You posted that address here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2701640.msg27619773#msg27619773

If not you need to lock this thread because you would clearly not be the original owner of this account.

Out of curiosity, who are you?

I am correct to say that your intention is to make me look poorly, correct?

On one hand, plagiarism is very bad, should not be tolerated and substantial punishment should be handed down for even a small number of instances of actual plagiarism (this is a case of actual plagiarism). On the other hand, this happened several years ago, and redsn0w may have been banned for low quality posts that perhaps took the offending posts into consideration (I am not sure about this).

I don't think plagiarism has ever been within the mainstream, and is wrong regardless of when it happened. The question is more along the lines of if someone should be punished for something that happened so long ago.

Perhaps your statement is true. However I am not sure how someone would find an instance of plagiarism that is nearly five years old if they were not looking for trouble. Not that I approve of this, but suchmoon does often look the other way in regards to transgressions of those who are powerful. One of the threads redsn0w plagiarized in is currently locked and its last post was in 2014.

I am on the fence as to if punishment should be handed down for something that happened 4-5 years ago. I can't say I would be against someone reporting something this old -- the powers to be can decide if punishment is warranted. However I don't think it is reasonably accurate to say you have nothing against a person if you are reviewing multiple a 5 year old posts in multiple threads for plagiarism.

The alleged hiring of "hitmen" by Ulbricht makes it difficult to defend him.

It is very difficult to ascertain the credibility of these allegations because of the dirty agents involved. I don't think you can dispute that Ulbricht sent the money to what is alleged to be what he believed to be hitmen to kill the guy in Maryland, however the question is if Ulbricht was entrapped in doing so, and if so, how much pressure did law enforcement put on him to pay this money. Ulbricht's PGP key is still encrypted, so law enforcement cannot review all of his communications.

There is a second alleged hiring of hitmen in Canada, however it appears the "hitman" was actually a scammer who may have been the same person as who Ulbricht was trying to have killed. There does not appear to be any evidence of entrapment by law enforcement in this case, although the fact Ulbricht was apparently scammed would likely mean he couldn't be charged with as serious of a crime in this particular case, so charges were not filed in relation to this.

One other thing that is not often discussed is the fact that SR was apparently insolvent when Ulbricht was arrested, based upon the spreadsheet found on Ulbricht's laptop with the expenses and revenues from running SR. IIRC, the insolvency largely steamed from Ulbricht paying extortion payments to stop DDoS attacks on SR.

I don't think suchmoon is guilty of what is claimed in the OP, and would give zero weight to the accusation, and would give zero weight to this accusation if a similar claim was made in the future *with similar amounts of evidence*. I would give more credence to this accusation if there is a substantiated claim that suchmoon did something similar   

[...]
redsn0w has over 10k posts, and as such, I would dispute that it is easy to find plagiarism within that many posts even if you know there is plagiarism within his posts. 

someone clearly reported him for plagiarism, as this is how he was banned. Based on the fact suchmoon had three examples of his plagiarism, I would believe she was the one who reported redsn0w

I have some opinions on some things being discussed that are off topic in this thread.

---

Four negative ratings will be difficult to overcome based on the formula on how trust ratings are calculated (positive ratings after the first negative are weighed less than other positive ratings). This isn’t an important point.

In general, I would advise not giving a positive rating if you cannot articulate the benefit this person has by trading with you. If someone suddenly is specifically trading with someone in DT and not those not in DT for things they had no previous interest in, it is probably not appropriate to leave a rating. If someone is paying above market prices for something when lower priced similar items are available from others with a history of successful trades, it is probably best to not leave a positive rating.

It might be more appropriate to leave a positive rating for a repeat customer than for someone who buys the lowest priced item a single time.

I don’t think it is *proven* the PM is fake, although the evidence being presented is certainly insufficient. The OP is offering evidence that doesn’t back up the claim that such moon scammed anyone.

Frankly, if the PM in the OP is real, this person should go to the police. If suchmoon retaliates with a negative rating, she may get charged with witnesses intimidation.

---

I would also point out that I think this post is horribly dishonest. It appears suchmoon is trying to entice the OP into breaking forum rules that she would presumably complain about if he posted the alleged picture.

It somewhat reminds me of how she claimed to have nothing against redsn0w, yet had three 5 year old examples of plagiarism the day it was made public that he was banned.

I would refer you to the comments on my trust profile. None are claiming a scam nor scam attempt.

Most likely, you are going to be wasting time trying to trade with him.

I would not trust this person.

If you are considering doing business with him, you should use escrow.