Putting a negative feedback and explicitly saying you're never going to remove it - regardless of any future events - is questionable to some though.
TSP has not made a single factual argument as to why the negative rating(s) he has are inappropriate, Here is a handful of arguments, I'm sure you'll just ignore them though and go on spouting the same old, discredited accusations. So maybe saying this yet again can be considered for the benefit of others: 1) I never scammed anyone. 2) I have a long history of not causing problems 3) All of my negative ratings are from you (and your sockpuppets) and tradefortress 4) Tradefortress is a known scammer and liar 5) Looks like you are too!
I'm not really seeing the point of this thread anymore. With QS having joined tradefortress as a discredited scammer, I have little worry about his ranting being taken seriously anymore. The "Wardrick" issue is weird enough that if it turns out that the attacker's ratings aren't removed once the investigation is over, it might be worth it to open a new thread at some point in the future on that topic. I'll leave it open for a little while in case someone suggests a good reason to keep it open. But, yah, I'm looking forward to less drama, not more. My goal in this thread was to draw attention to the way QS leaves ratings based on speculation and personal vendettas and that he should remove his many negative ratings or be removed from negative trust for his abusive ways. It seems that the latter has occurred definitively at this point, so why should I keep on feeding the troll? |
|
|
|
Of course the other solution is to encourage users of the german subforum to build their own trust networks. Perhaps you put a sticky that says, "take full advantage of what the trust system can offer: add some german guys to your trust list".
I remember your stance on encouraging private trust lists. As much as I would love to see people creating their own, I doubt that many people, especially newbs, actually do this. Is there some statistic on that somewhere? I don't know of any particular measurement, and I agree that most people do not create custom lists. However, I see this as problematic, as leading to a centralized system that can be gamed (see the recent Quickseller drama) due to a central point of failure (to fool everyone, you only need to fool one or two people on the default list). And it's doubly problematic because there's a feedback loop created where because very few people create custom lists, if you do create a custom list and you're not in default trust 1, then you are simply putting yourself out of the loop. You're tuning out the feedback from the trusted few. Of course this might be a good thing to do, but you end up not knowing what the majority of the people are seeing. For example, I have a custom trust list, but I keep having to go back to the trust page to put it back to "default/depth=2" in order to "read the news" about what the vast majority are seeing. I think this feedback loop is a shame because it essentially nullifies all of the nice features the trust system has for creating a robust, decentralized network. I guess I see your question about how to promote the feedback of some particulare users in your subforum as a great opportunity to try to break out of that feedback loop. If you put a sticky at the top of your subforum that says "ACHTUNG: Bitte prüfen Sie Ihre Vertrauenseinstellungen" ["ATTENTION: please consider your trust settings"<- from google translate, I don't know if it's a good translation  ] and within that thread you have people discussing the best German-language posters to add to your trust list in order to see the high-quality ratings they provide as "trusted", then this might lead to people starting to take full advantage of the capabilities of the trust-system software, and perhaps make the overall trust system more robust as a consequence. Who knows, if you do this for your subforum and it's helpful, perhaps other subfora will follow suit. If all of the local subfora have these kinds of stickies and have their users making their own trust lists, perhaps Theymos will consider again whether something like this should be done for the global forum. It's just an idea, anyway. BTW, I remember theymos suggesting something like a default "create your own trust" page where he suggested a list of 100(?) users to incorporate into your first one. Anyone know what's become of that?
Here are some links to those discussions (including the one where Theymos presented an alternative to default trust): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0I think what happened to that theymos idea is that it lost out in a poll that was at the end of that thread. To be honest, I think that particular idea did have a few flaws that might have been problematic, but I really like the idea of confronting newbies with information about the trust system (in my opinion, newbies should also be simply fine with "opting out"---leaving their trust settings blank and seeing no feedback as "trusted" until they take the time to make a trust list). |
|
|
|
Germans I know that are on DT:
- shorena
- phantastisch (german mod)
- qwk
We're all just depth 2. I thought of promoting someone to level 1. My reasoning is that right now, our trust doesn't propagate, so there's no way we can establish our own "local" trust network. Of course the other solution is to encourage users of the german subforum to build their own trust networks. Perhaps you put a sticky that says, "take full advantage of what the trust system can offer: add some german guys to your trust list". In general, I think people should be managing their own trust lists, so much drama would go away if there weren't some central list of blessed people to try to get loved by. I know I've expressed this kind of opinion before, but I think it might be relevant here too. |
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
main() {
int c, i;
// privkeys are preceeded by: 3081 d302 0101 0420 and are 32 bytes long:
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF)
if (c == 0x81 &&
getchar() == 0xd3 && getchar() == 0x02 && getchar() == 0x01 &&
getchar() == 0x01 && getchar() == 0x04 && getchar() == 0x20) {
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
printf("%02x", getchar());
printf("\n");
}
} Simple and useful program, dooglus, thanks for sharing it. One follow up question, I can see how you're just checing for each byte and then printing if you find them. But the code you pasted just checks for 7 bytes. There should be a check for 0x30 before the 0x81, right? Or what am I missing? Suppose the disk image contains: "2930 3081 d302 0101 0420 privkey". Checking for 0x30 would cause my simple program to miss that privkey completely, since it never backtracks. I figured it was better to maybe get some false positives than to miss some private keys. In tests, my code encountered bytes like these, and so missed the privkey: 0081 d302 0101 0420 3081 d302 0101 0420 privkey It output: 3081 d302 0101 0420 privke since the 7 bytes before the real 8 byte prefix triggered the matching code. I'm guessing that's quite an uncommon situation. Oh I see what you mean. I guess you could make it more robust if you, say, recurse when you find 0x30 so that you check all potential 8 byte windows. Anyway, thanks again. |
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
main() {
int c, i;
// privkeys are preceeded by: 3081 d302 0101 0420 and are 32 bytes long:
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF)
if (c == 0x81 &&
getchar() == 0xd3 && getchar() == 0x02 && getchar() == 0x01 &&
getchar() == 0x01 && getchar() == 0x04 && getchar() == 0x20) {
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
printf("%02x", getchar());
printf("\n");
}
} Simple and useful program, dooglus, thanks for sharing it. One follow up question, I can see how you're just checing for each byte and then printing if you find them. But the code you pasted just checks for 7 bytes. There should be a check for 0x30 before the 0x81, right? Or what am I missing? |
|
|
|
I also find it very interesting that the timestamp on your computer when you created your PGP key was ~24 hours prior to when dooglus first started posting in this thread, and blindly was supporting you despite clear and concise evidence that you are a scammer and that you resort to intimidation tactics to install fear into anyone who calls you out as a scammer. The fact that you were unable to get they keyserver link right on your signature for a good while is an indication that you really do not know what you are doing when it comes to PGP, so I think it would be unlikely that you changed the time/date on your computer prior to creating your PGP key.
I wonder what exactly you were needing to encrypt less then 24 hours prior to dooglus blindly supporting you. It seems very fishy to me. I would not be surprised if it was something malicious
I have to reply to this one more time. What you're doing here should be completely laughable, and it would be if it weren't the kind of thing that you were able to get away with for so long. Somehow you've taken the fact that I created a PGP key and spun out a paragraph of "what ifs" that concludes with "I must be doing something malicious". There's absolutely nothing else here. I used to just think you were a talented internet troll, adept at manipulating the mob-mentality of the webz. Now I'm starting to wonder if you actually believe these things your write, if your lack of self-awareness is really so complete. I don't know man, I really think you ought to take that long break you promised us. Clear your head and do some things outside. Maybe get a dog and take care of him. These things provide perspective that you just can't buy with BTC. |
|
|
|
I think wardrick made it fairly clear that he had zero intention of removing the negative trust against you prior to him getting hacked. So if he did have access to his account there would be a near zero chance he would remove your negative trust, so his account being hacked really does not change anything. It's not at all clear that the person who was controlling the account when those statements were made was the original owner of the Wardrick account. I am also confused as to why you are pushing for your negative trust to get removed so hard now that you are not participating in a signature campaign. I was under the understanding that the whole reason you were resorting to intimidation tactics to get your negative trust removed was because you wanted to be able to participate in signature deals. My intention has always been to protect my reputation from false accusations. I brought up signature campaigns when people asked how your attacks on me had cost me money. Given that you made a threat to get me kicked out of my signature campaign using your as-of-then unrevealed alt ACCTSeller as the "opening salvo" in your personal war on me, I think it's fair to mention how your personal attacks have cost me money. Congratulations! You succeeded! I also find it very interesting that the timestamp on your computer when you created your PGP key was ~24 hours prior to when dooglus first started posting in this thread, and blindly was supporting you despite clear and concise evidence that you are a scammer and that you resort to intimidation tactics to install fear into anyone who calls you out as a scammer. dooglus asked you questions that you weren't able to answer. Even before dooglus entered this thread, there was a long list of people quoted in the OP asking for you to remove your personal attacks, saying that there was no point to what you were doing. Alas, you were too prideful to listen to reason, even from mountains of your peers, and you kept upping the stakes, pulling in more and more alts, which, in the end, resulted in your now infamous escrow-scam being revealed and your explosive and volitile and bilous personality is now pretty much known to everyone. Even now, you show back up trying the same old confused prose, speculation without evidence, weasel-words, and accusations---the difference is that now everyone can see through it.
The fact that you were unable to get they keyserver link right on your signature for a good while is an indication that you really do not know what you are doing when it comes to PGP, so I think it would be unlikely that you changed the time/date on your computer prior to creating your PGP key. You're right, I'm totally dumb! I'm going to remember to ask you for technical advice on stuff when I get stuck. Would you mind? .... Oh, wait, I already tried that: I will take a look at your thread. - I looked at it....I am not sure why you want to create a transaction by hand. There are a large number of tools that will help you with this. It is however beyond my level of expertise to help you find your answer. I am not understanding what you mean by "pushing some protocol messages by hand". When you send a message, bitcoind will do this to all other nodes it is connected to via outbound connections. It being connected to several nodes is what ensures it will propagate properly.
... Oh well, if I run across a seriously technical issue, like getting the bbc right on a hyperlink in a signature, I'll definitely ask you. Thankfully I was able to resolve my own issue on it this time. Still, very cool that you noticed!
I wonder what exactly you were needing to encrypt less then 24 hours prior to dooglus blindly supporting you. It seems very fishy to me. I would not be surprised if it was something malicious
I love it! I mistyped a link and failed hard at some bbcode and QS is trying to spin it into evidence of something nefarious. Quickseller, your speculation is outlandish. Thankfully, no one is riding along on your detective-on-crack trip anymore. I would look up the 10 or so times that you've said you were taking a long break from the forum since last week when your escrow scam was revealed and ask if you changed your mind or something, but I think it's clear that apparantely your here to stay, the difference being that while you used to be a rampant bully, now you're just a scammer/troll with nothing to show for all your efforts. Even now, I ask myself just how psychotic you are. You made a meal and a half out of abusing people on this forum in one way or another and your reign of terror is clearly coming to an end. And yet you still can't resist stopping in here to try to throw your discredited shit at me one more time. You no longer hold any credibility here man, what's your point anymore? |
|
|
|
Wadrick has yet to be removed from DT? How so? He hasn't been active since September 13. Sadly BadBear hasn't been online since the same day while new revelations have been made.
That actually explains why he hasn't acted. Everyone needs a break sometimes. I didn't realize he had been away. |
|
|
|
^You're absolutely exceptional at turning [bored, basically neutral] bystanders [who drop by to rubberneck at this train wreck] into brand new enemies.
If there was only a way to monetize such a thing...
Now we're enemies? Jeez. |
|
|
|
@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include:
1) reading the title
Except you've changed the title literally 20 times :s Cute, but at no time did the title say "thread where people should offer rhetorical questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the current trust system and also kick around quickseller now that he's down"---and that seems to have been the topic that people landed on and that acakf decided to jump in on literlly 4 posts after I provided links to threads about the trust system and asked people to say on topic. Then again, I offered a few other strategies too, like (2) check the OP. Have you checked the OP? I've done my best to keep the OP and the title up-to-date in what is clearly a developing situation. Would you prefer that the original title from 3 months ago be left? Maybe I'm doing it wrong? I think that anyone spending just a little time to figure out what this thread is about would be able to discern that it's meant to ask QS to justify the negative feedback he gave me based on the discredited word of Tradefortress, and that barring his ability to justify that, that he would remove the feedback. I dunno, I really thought that this post only 7 posts back now was a reasonable way to recap.
But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section.
The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller. But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself. At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.
I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick. There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.
So, now it's been quoted twice in the space of 10 posts. @dogie, were you actually confused about the topic or am I missing the protocol here? |
|
|
|
@acakf: strategies for figuring out the topic of a thread include: 1) reading the title 2) reading the OP 3) reading the thread I realize this thread has gotten a little long, so perhaps only (1) and (2) are feasible, but go ahead and start there. After that, you might try reading backwards from the end, in which case you'll find this message from me only 6 posts back. I added some bold in this quote, I hope it helps.
But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section.
The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller. But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself. At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account.
I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick. There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera.
|
|
|
|
... I trust the 'person' behind the forum account not the account (itself). ...
Playing Devil's advocate: Let's say you had a good trade with Quickseller. You leave Quickseller a positive trust rating, but no ratings to any of his long list of alts (which, being controlled by the same person, would all deserve identical trust, according to your "'person' behind the forum account" stance). Tomatocage is on the default trust, though (most of) his alts, presumably, are not. Correct? flawless_victory.gif Very interesting point anon newbie. Interesting point indeed. Maybe and just maybe some of my alts are deserving positive trust, or maybe there are just a lot of scammers out to get blood. Given that quickseller is currently on a "long break" and given the current frequency of his posting, I wonder what it looks like when he's actually around. Wow. Okay, did anyone notice my post in this thread just about 5 posts back requesting that we stay on-topic here? |
|
|
|
<snip> If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.
You do this a lot: type in English but make no sense. He's saying that if the person who bought the account trusts the people the previous owner trusted, there's no reason to remove those ratings that are left by original owner. I got that, but since the account in question was on DT afaik, that only goes half way, because the new owner has the ability to leave ratings that are considered trusted, w/o "earning" that ability.So it's a no-go on this one. DT account's - by forum rules or not, should definitely not be traded and remain on DT. (imho none should, but DT is where the line must be drawn) cheers That's why the DT level 2 members should be removed and there should just be a level 1 with the mos trusted members (who shouldn't sell their accounts atleast). By having over 50 members in the list 2, any random guy can just buy a DT account and mark negative ratings while the person who has added him might not even know whether the account is sold. These DT members from list 2 then go about threatening others about their reputation. It is not against any rules to sell your account. If the person sponsoring the sold account still trusts the ratings of that account then there would be no reason to remove them.
The main reason is the original owner has sold the account. Such an obvious and valid REASON. In my opinion, the solution to all of this trust farming and related nonsense is to decentralize the trust system by removing "default trust" altogether. People that don't want to set up their trust settings shoildn't have to do so. And forcing the default trust list onto them has created a "standard trust" list, which means a central point of failure for those who want to game the system. But alas, this is geting a bit off topic for this thread. Here are some really interesting threads on the topic of improving the trust system via decentralization. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0^^^ Especially interesting is the arguments of quickseller in those threads given the recent relevations concerning his own behavior.
But the topic of this thread is the trust abuse I was suffering from QS, given the recent developments concerning his character, I'm happy to say that all of his his ratings can stand next to tradefortress' along with their reputations in the untrusted fedback section. The "Wardrick" scenario was potentially the next thing to discuss here, as he appeared out-of-the-blue, ready and willing to inherit the discredited claims of Tradefortress and Quickseller. But this also seems to be slowly resolving itself. At this point, it seems like it's becoming more and more clear that the Wardrick account was being controlled by Tradefortres/hashie, and I'm confident that Theymos/Badbear will figure out what to do about the actions that TF took while controlling that account. I'll leave this thread open for now, but I'd like to keep it on-topic: ie, regarding the discredited feedback on my account from TF/QS/Wardrick. There are several other threads where we can discuss the actions of quickseller, the difficulties of a centralized trust system, et cetera. |
|
|
|
I am a person an account who cares most about results, so...
FTFY.  |
|
|
|
@TSP - Any news on when/if the presumably fake Wardrick NT on your account will be removed?
None that I've heard. And I'm not really a big deal around here so I don't think it's anyone's priority---which is fine. I think that once Theymos confirms that the recent Wardrick activity was done by an imposter then he and Badbear have to work out how to proceed. For all I know, they're discussing this now. Presumably, BB wants all of the old Wardrick's feedback intact and on default trust so simply removing him from his trust list only partially solves the problem. Beyond negative on me (and maybe a few others?) I know that ndnhc had an old positive removed by the recent "Wardrick". I think someone mentioned upthread that in some special cases, Theymos has deleted/edited feedback. In my opinion, it would be nice to restore the state of the Wardrick account's feedback to what it was before the recent flurry of activity from the imposter. |
|
|
|
Ya Wardrick hasn't come on in a few days, hacked account seems very likely at this time
theymos said already that he locked his account, so maybe he can't login. What happened with his account is quite confusing I think, it's possible it has been hacked multiple times along with the accounts email address (allegedly) so maybe the real Wardrick has no idea his account was compromised. Anyone know how to contact the original owner? Indeed, it seems to me that all of the recent Wardick activity was probably due to the account being compromised and/or sold and that the little scheme about the account being attacked was in order to throw-off the scent. I'm glad that Theymos seems to have figured it out. If the original Wardrick were at all around, wouldn't he log in with a newbie account and prove his identity with a signed message? |
|
|
|
What's the point of bumping this thread? He can NEVER be a MOD now (atleast if the forum needs to be in a TRUSTWORTHY member's hands then he won't be appointed as one).
BCX bumped it. I think he was sorta trying to take blame for this suggestion, which is actually very big of him considering how often he acted like a blind cheerleader for anything that QS proclaimed. Love him or hate him
Anyone with more than two brain cells not fighting each other for survival of the fittest can clearly see Quickseller is a major positive for the forum.
I have seen numerous times that he has helped newbies and accurately answered hundreds of questions.
Undeniably the King of Scam Busing post Phinaeus Gage (RIP) and Vod.
He/She/It apparently has plenty of time to dedicate.
Therefore I nominate Quickseller for consideration of Moderator or Staff.
Thoughts
~BCX~
I removed Quickseller because he was acting to deceive people, and I can't, and won't, be a part of that (he wasn't banned) if I know about it.
Such an effen waste of potential. Shame. ~BCX~ Am I allowed to say "I told you so"? |
|
|
|
Wow! I can't help but be flattered for the number one spot, esp seeing as I was gone for three months. Thx tspacepilot for doing this!I'm concerned that Quickscammer has the number 2 position, but that's probably because the system can't filter out alternate accounts.  Vod, I'm sorry that I can't tell if my sarcasm detector may have broken here, but you and QS are number 1 and number 2 in the list of "most controversial", that means pairs of inclusion-exclusions. See above for the other lists. Dogie's list was postivies only, that put you at #15 (with +44). My list subracted exclusions from inclusions, that gave you a +13 (which is still pretty good), I pasted my list here: https://paste.debian.net/311720/The other lists I made were fun variations, lists of who distrusts the most. Lists of who's most mentioned (you got really high on that one too), and that final list was the "trust controversy" list. Anyway, I hope you still likee seeing the lists |
|
|
|
While we're here having so much fun with this, I happened to notice that on the bottom of that trusted list, where Quickseller is at -8 and s0br is at -9, that s0br is -8 with no inclusions, but QS has lots of exclusions and inclusions, it just happens that has 8 more exclusions than inclusions. This made me think about "most mentioned" where you get a point for being excluded or included. Think of this list like "most notable" where notable can be good or bad. Without further ado, the most trusted OR distrusted individuals (merely counting how many times they show up on the right hand side of either type of arrow): tsp@computer:~/trustgraph\$ cat trust.txt | ./trustmention.py | head -n 25
theymos 167
John (John K.) 107
dooglus 84
Tomatocage 84
OgNasty 76
Vod 75
BadBear 69
CanaryInTheMine 62
Quickseller 60
Blazedout419 56
gmaxwell 54
escrow.ms 50
DannyHamilton 50
Sampey 47
Gavin Andresen 47
SaltySpitoon 45
HostFat 43
Luke-Jr 42
SebastianJu 39
Stunna 38
Maged 38
TECSHARE 37
-ck 36
Mitchełł 35
xetsr 33
Of course, that makes me want to know which people are the most disputed. Theymos has a high score for lots of inclusions, but other people have a high score for lots inclusions and exclusions. So, who has the most pairs of trust/distrust? This might be seen as list of the most polemic people---those who divide the crowd and draw a lot of attention. I calculated this one by giving a point for each time a person has a pair of inclusion/exclusion. trust_controversy_score = min(inclusions,exclusions) Aaaaand the winners (here I show the whole list all 275 of those with non-zero scores, because most people just have a 0 for this metric): Vod 31
Quickseller 26
Luke-Jr 16
dogie 13
CanaryInTheMine 10
smoothie 9
marcotheminer 9
Tomatocage 8
nubbins 8
TECSHARE 8
Inaba 8
DiamondCardz 8
jonald_fyookball 7
Blazr 7
El Cabron 6
TradeFortress 6
xetsr 5
BadBear 5
BayAreaCoins 5
dooglus 5
Wardrick 5
EAL 5
dserrano5 5
Bicknellski 4
cyclops 4
devthedev 4
redsn0w 4
hashcoins 4
starsoccer9 4
theymos 4
LouReed 4
friedcat 4
shdvb 4
Maidak 4
Fakhoury 4
michaeladair 4
hilariousandco 3
CoinHoarder 3
Muhammed Zakir 3
shorena 3
elasticband 3
marto74 3
waldohoover 3
SebastianJu 3
DeaDTerra 3
EcuaMobi 3
cxboyminer 3
smooth 3
Stunna 3
Xian01 3
blackarrow 3
ghibly79 3
philipma1957 2
Armis 2
CIYAM 2
BenAnh 2
ndnhc 2
ibminer 2
SaltySpitoon 2
flying_pigs 2
GIANNAT 2
Anon39 2
Yankee (BitInstant) 2
TomUnderSea 2
kingscrown 2
grue 2
Blazedout419 2
Menig 2
EvilPanda 2
ThePhwner 2
hedgy73 2
instacash 2
favdesu 2
TheButterZone 2
Mitchełł 2
lophie 2
bassguitarman 2
KWH 2
KeyserSozeMC 2
WoodCollector 2
artw1982 2
bbxx 2
Carra23 2
Matthew N. Wright 2
pekatete 2
NotLambchop 2
MarkCara 2
OgNasty 2
gmaxwell 2
Pitchotto 2
Freedom24 2
monbux 2
Otoh 1
PistolPete 1
Boelens 1
ClamCoin 1
RoSeawolf 1
Xialla 1
S110RE 1
loshia 1
duckydonald 1
JorgeStolfi 1
Stuff4Bitcoin 1
Grand_Voyageur 1
cryptobtcx 1
idee2013 1
piuk 1
mavericklm 1
cypherdoc 1
btcstore 1
tarrant_01 1
jorgelugra 1
cornfeedhobo 1
cagrund 1
popshot 1
DebitMe 1
Darkmatter12 1
MRKLYE 1
Akka 1
fhh 1
bobsag3 1
DannyHamilton 1
binaryFate 1
JoelKatz 1
gate11 1
marnem 1
BitcoinEXpress 1
sebdude420 1
MaliceRed 1
AMT_miners 1
aantonop 1
cryptoforcause 1
Candystripes 1
the joint 1
pr0d1gy 1
CrackedLogic 1
crowetic 1
takagari 1
LYCAN 1
spartan82 1
Walking Glitch 1
BitcoinDistributor 1
candoo 1
BitcoinCharlie 1
Spoetnik 1
anonymous22 1
BitcoinNational 1
DOGEDAMAN 1
CEX 1
MemoryDealers 1
legendster 1
BadAss.Sx 1
Light 1
john-connor 1
SavellM 1
Codemeister 1
PatMan 1
cryptodevil 1
alch1mista 1
Tomatocage1 1
MMXIV 1
Pistachio 1
koshgel 1
edgar 1
alexrossi 1
ruggedman_dan 1
Marcchernandez 1
luka1987 1
IronMarvel 1
fsb4000 1
shipitbuddy 1
stingleword 1
Retarded Kid 1
nachius 1
Gleb Gamow 1
Cassey 1
Cavallo87 1
Just Magicmann 1
Rawted 1
Jaaawsh 1
shawshankinmate37927 1
KingOfSports 1
snarlpill 1
Sampey 1
thomas_s 1
whiskers75 1
MVNL 1
byt411 1
amazon4u 1
master-P 1
QuiveringGibbage 1
jackjack 1
ngzhang 1
FallingKnife 1
JudoMS 1
iCEBREAKER 1
iglasses 1
mitchellmint 1
EnJoyThis 1
Rub3n 1
TheGambler 1
sublime5447 1
deepceleron 1
Chefin 1
kingcolex 1
Joca97 1
TookDk 1
ashish12 1
skycoinlab 1
BitcoinFr34k 1
markj113 1
criminalben 1
Honeypot 1
uhnonamiss 1
roslinpl 1
Peter Todd 1
davvo 1
Pokokohua! 1
iGotSpots 1
haploid23 1
Carlton Banks 1
majamalu 1
ahmedjadoon 1
bithalo 1
ajw7989 1
ssateneth 1
Twipple 1
raskul 1
ACCTseller 1
maxmint 1
Landplop 1
MicroGuy 1
Finksy 1
danielca9 1
FlutterPie 1
clubminer 1
MadZ 1
androz 1
onewiseguy 1
Welsh 1
oscarftw 1
vurezo 1
goraset 1
LFC_Bitcoin 1
GlooBoy 1
Interized 1
zvs 1
williamj2543 1
Cripto 1
Philj 1
lazlopanaflex 1
redcomet 1
aicha3011 1
the_poet 1
Panthers52 1
katerniko1 1
Taras 1
kashish948 1
yussuf89 1
lightfoot 1
rarkenin 1
seriouscoin 1
hodlmybtc 1
escrow.ms 1
SoggyLettuce 1
jasonslow 1
printshop 1
wttbs 1
evoorhees 1
souspeed 1
HostFat 1
Truman 1
PsychoticBoy 1
Atruk 1
giorgiomassa 1
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
