I don't agree with this opinion.

Account sales won't be done publicly. Regardless of whether they receive a negative trust rating or not.

The reason to buy accounts is to cheat on bounties, promoting scam and creating a wrong illusion of 'trustworthiness'.

Those people can't allow to have a 'Sold account' tag to be seen on their profile.


So, while very few people would actually do it publicly, exactly those are the people who do not indent to cheat / scam.
And exactly only them get punished.

So.. either tag everyone, or no one.
Tagging no one is obviously not an option tho..




Exactly this is the problem.

Instead of getting trusted on this forum, you tried to deceive others into believing you are a trustworthy user..

If a trusted member 'is needed', then you - as a newbie - obviously were the wrong person. So why trying to cheat and buy an account to create the illusion to be trusted while you are obviously not ?


IMO the tag is absolutely justified.
The fact, that he admitted the reason for buying an account was to deceive others into believing he is trustworthy, makes it 100% justified.

120$ for some pentesting? Is this supposed to be a joke?

If you however wanted to type 1200$, thats closer to the reality. But even that is more of a small test, than a fully covering one. That'd be 2 days maximum.
Additionally - if you are serious at all - you should cover what should be tested at all. Desktop-/Mobile software, WebApp, Protocols, etc..

According to your screenshot, you have chosen 38 sat/B.

Do what has been told to you: Tick 'Edit fees manually' in the preferences.
Then enter a smaller fee (i.e. less than 10 sat/B or even just 1 sat/B).

Note that it could take quite some time until it gets confirmed. This probably is only an option if you are not in a hurry.

It is not about multi accounts, but about bounty abuse.




I bet you didn't even click the reference link, right ?

Since you are not capable of clicking a link yourself:


(Archive)

(Archive)


Same campaign joined with 2 accounts.
The proof that these accounts are connected can be found in the reference link.




If you feel like you want to do some work for me to receive some coins, feel free to do so.
But i don't want shitcoins please. So register in a bounty which actually earns me some money, thanks.

Yes, you can simply add a rule to allow outgoing connections from core.
'Suspicious' outgoing connections get blocked relatively often since AV's believe it is some malware which tries to communicate with a C&C server / download further code to execute.

If your machine is clean (i.e. no 'fake core' or malware which integrated itself into the core process), it is a false positive and you can ignore it.

That's probably a phrase he heard himself quite often

Supported.

Let's hope future people who consider participating in bounties from them and/or making business with them otherwise will be cautious when doing so. 

Generally it is advised to create an thread yourself when starting a flag, but since this one here is very well documented and 1miau is a trusted member, it probably would be the best if you simply link to this one.
A second one would either contain not all the information present here, or would be redundant.

I'd say, link to this one and report back once the flag is created. You got my support.

Since you didn't create a flag yet, i did: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=453

Next time, feel free to create a flag, so we can instantly support it


Topic archived

If you have participated in it, and have to pass KYC now (which everyone has to do), you are allowed to create a flag type 3 (violated written contract) against them.




The DT1 point of view was regarding using an alt account to create a flag.
While this should be allowed (imo) if proven member can confirm that the alt belongs to a user who wants to protect his privacy, we are not sure on that.

You - as an directly affected user - are definitely allowed to create a flag since it would be completely justified and i will happily support it if you do.

If your project proves to be trustworthy and i don't have the feeling anymore that it would be a risk to deal with you in any way, i will of course withdraw my support to this flag.
However, currently this is not the case and therefore my support will stay until proven otherwise.

I'd also suggest to buy a hardware wallet from either ledger or trezor.

However, buying from amazon is fine as long as you are buying it from an official reseller. You can find them on their website (at least that's the case for ledger, don't know about trezor).

Still, buying them directly from the official store is probably the best solution. However, the delivery charges might get expensive if you are not located in the area of the company (ledger is located in france, for example).
But you get the option to pay with BTC, which is a plus compared to amazon IMO.

@makemycoin

I won't privately answer to your PM (which is just a copy/paste from your post here). So regard this as your response:

Your whitepaper is heavily plagiarized. You copied from all over the internet and didn't link to any resource.
Just because you now did include the sources (after a scam accusation and being tagged and flagged), it doesn't make you trustworthy at all.


Your whitepaper is plagiarized. Adding sources after being called out doesn't make you more trustworthy in monetary terms.
Trying to deceive people into 'investing' is not being indemnified by simply adding the sources after being called out. You did not even try to put effort into your whitepaper.

Therefore i won't withdraw my support for this flag. I indeed believe anyone dealing with you is at high risk of losing money.

You are right. To be honestly.. i don't know either.
I try to always call upon common sense and logic.

But i guess some people either don't want to or can't follow some simple logic
I think someone with a good mental health wouldn't behave as he does, so it indeed should be better to simply ignore him.

You should read the OP again..



The list you have quoted was the response to the request from Pamoldar.
And he has merited you at least once:



In the future, please read the OP properly before trying to bash anyone you don't like..

I feel like there is a chance that this scammer might finally get banned 

I'll keep my fingers crossed   

Which should not be used at all, regardless of whether it works or not.
All types of cracked windows OS are infected with malware and backdoors. That's their business model.

I wouldn't touch such a system with a stick, let alone store sensitive information (passwords, private keys, etc..) on it.

From an information security based point of view, that's one of the most dangerous things you can do.

As far as i understand, this forum does not necessarily distinguish between different accounts.

For example:
1) If one account scams, all known alts will get tagged.
2) Being banned does not mean the account, but the person is banned.

Therefore i would say if an alt creates a flag and some reputable and trusted member does confirm that the alt does belong to an damaged user, it should be fine.

I, for example, trust you. So if you confirm that the alt is from someone who was damaged, i trust that statement and therefore can support that flag in all conscience.


However, i'd still like to hear the opinion from others regarding this topic.

Why are you even asking so hypocritical ?

You know exactly what information is wrong..

Maybe read the topic i have linked. There is enough evidence for deceptive information. No reason for me to argue with a stupid scammer here..

No one said you are a scammer.

But new people have the right to build their mind on their own.

And services offered by newbies often are scam. This is a fact.
Pointing out that they should use a trustless method and not send you the wallet file for their own safety is neither calling you out as a scammer nor trashing your thread.




So.. you registered in this forum and stared offering your service here 10 minutes later ?
No offense.. but that's something i don't believe.