Right, the user's only hope at this point would be that he has some clue as to how the address was generated.  If, say, he knew the mnemonic seed (the bitcoin wallet for android has been hd for a while now) or if he was one of the people who made an address way back when bitcoinj was using a flawed Java RNG.

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic of this thread.  It seems like you're wanting to comment on QS's escrow scam, which is being discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

EDIT:

To clarify: this thread is about QS' refusal to remove his negative trust on me, his trust-spam with sockpuppets, and Tomatocage's refusal to discuss the actions of those on his trust list.  At the moment, TC has removed QS so the latter point sems moot.  QS seems to have exploded and has been removed from default trust so the first two also seem moot.  That brings us to you, you have left negative feedback on my account.  You are on default trust.  I think on the face of it, it just seems like you're using your position on default trust to abuse me in some sort of retribution for a now-outed scammer.  What's up with that?

I don't know what the "threat" part is.  Presumably you have to have some power in order to carry out a threat.  I have no power, as you correctly point out.  I do tend to think that if you blithely adopt the word of a known liar/scammer (TF) and an escrow-scammer then that's not really going to do wonders for your credibility.


It seems like you just want to call me names or something.  How is my super low intellegence related to your accusation of me?

It's not intended as one.  I don't know exactly what you think I'm threatening anyone with.  I wrote the title to try to capture he latest in what seems like a lifetime saga on here; and I think it's historically accurate.  TF was once respected, but is now known as one of the biggest all-time scammers in the history of bitcoin.  QS used his position on default trust to abuse me, he ended up being an unrepentant escrow scammer who feels he's above the rules which apply to everyone else.  Wardrick has appeared out of nowhere, seemingly, in order to carry forward that twisted, abusive history.  I don't know why he wants to do this.  Maybe he's gotten caught up in the drama of this and hasn't really looked into what's fact here vs what's speculation and baseless accusation.  Maybe he's going to be looking into it soon.



I'm actually not into finding dirt at all on anyone.  You'll note (perhaps) my 3 year history on this forum with no trades and no issues.  Most of my posts are either asking or answering questions on technical details or chatting about gambling.

Sorry if the title seems like a provocation, but your sudden appearance and willingness to inherit this enviable intellectual tradition seems to border on the absurd, so maybe you'll have something more to say about it.  At the moment we have the fact that TF tried to blackmail me years ago and I stood up to him.  History sorta showed what kind of person he was.  Then QS, who can't take criticism, decided to smear me out of his way to the top using the discredited accusations.  To be honest, since I hadn't done business here, most established forum users simply didn't give a fuck about me and newbie accounts were clearly afraid to speak up.  However, once a few people with established profiles did look into this, QS' reptuation ended up suffering a lot for his use of the trust list to carry out personal vendettas.  So, I think the question to you is why you'd want to pick up that mantle and carry it?  You're the next guy to say that Tradefortress was right to blackmail me and QS was right to smear me?  Why would you want to jump on that sinking ship?  

Please PM me if you like and I'd be happy to talk to you off the record.  I like to argue but it's not my goal to fight.  I honestly have no idea who you are or why you think you know something you weren't involved in or why you'd want to be associated with a crew like Tradefortress-Quickseller/ACCTSeller/Panthers52/FunFunnyFan.

UPDATE 7 Sept. 2015:

QS has joined Tradefortress in the realm of the completely discredited thanks to an escrow scam he was pulling off.  Surprisingly, a fellow who goes by the handle of "Wardrick" has appeared to inherit the Tradefortress lineage of lies.  Why?  Who knows, maybe he'll speak for himself in this thread.

Two things to note here:

1) despite his over-the-top protests last night about how QS doesn't confirm or deny his alts, he flat out denied this one in a half-an-hour
2) QS straight-up embraces his trust-spam policy

Re Wardrick: haters-gon-hate.  Unlike TSP's thinly veiled smear attack for a personal grudge, I literally have no idea who this guy is or why he's so inspired all-of-a-suddent to take up QS' ridiculous campaign against me.  I have literally never traded on here and woulnd't have ever done any "scambusting" if it wasn't that I've had to defend myself against ol' Quicktemper.  Presumably, you're not supposed to use a position on default trust for personal grudges.  This one seems quite a bit more transparent than Quickseller's.  Let's just see how long it lasts.

@Wardrick: do you wanna pick up where QS left off over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.0 ?  You're inheriting quite a legacy!  I'll go ahead and change the topic title for you if you like.

I couldn't agree more.  Links to relevant threads for those who may want to follow up:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0

I didn't necessarily take it that way, I meant my comment quite directly: if someone lists them and they're clearly scammers, surely someone else on the standard trust list will mark them.  If it's not so clear, maybe they've been unfairly repped, as was QS' wont.

Could you say who they are?  If it's actually clear that they are scammers, surely one of the other default-trusters will be happy to mark them.

If it's not so clear that they are scammers, perhaps they ought to be offered the benefit of the doubt given QS' shoot first, rationalize later modus operandi.


Isn't it pretty clear why?  He says so himself just upthread:


^^^He believes that his "contribution" makes him above the rules that the rest of us mortals are supposed to abide by.  If we were all "scambusters" like quickseller, then we'd be free to interpret ethical principals to our own advantage too.

I'd beg to differ.  Although it does seem like karma is finally catching up with my persecutor, it has been a long 6 months and I think most people would have just given up.

I think I get your point.  But to be fair to me, I haven't really set any criteria which count as a "positive" to start with.  It's not like I set thresholds and said, people with these metrics are alts.  What I did was create a model of the language of quickseller, and tested that model as a predictor of other account's texts.  I then released these results.  The results are merely descriptive.  They put a direct number on how similar a particular set of texts is to the model of quickseller.  They don't say "if you're this similar, you must be an alt".  That last part is something I purposely left for other people to judge for themselves.

Maybe this will help clarify things: the model is a collection of all of the 1, 2 and 3 word phrases that quickseller has used along with their frequencies across his .5 million words.  It's a pretty big model.  The perplexity numbers I published are nothing but direct evaluations of the postings of other accounts as they relate to the model of quickseller.  To put this in more layman's terms: if I used the same 1 2 and 3 word phrases at the same relative frequencies as quickseller, then my posts would get a very low perplexity score when we use the model of quickseller to predict them.  It turns out that I don't do this, and neither does dooglus, and neither does hillariousandco.  So far, these are the only corpora I've checked.

I hope this explanation helps.  I fell like the way you're calling it my "script" makes it sound like I may have done something mysterious.  I'll I've done is publish some concrete descriptive statistics about the words of 6 particular bitcoin talk accounts.  What you take away from this is up to you.


Maybe, given the explanation above, and the fact that I've provided all the code you'll need to replicate my work, you could start calling it "the information that tsp presented" or "tsp's experimental results".  I feel like calling it my "script" or "algorithm" is a bit of a misuderstanding.

If Unicode adds BTC, I'll teach you how to print a sticker and to remap your keyboard's output so that you won't have to buy a new one for half that price

---

I'm quite supportive of this.  I've worked quite a bit with various minority alphabets and I understand the value of getting symbols into Unicode.

Big ups to the OP!  Thanks Ken!

Letting us know that something is happening is better than saying nothing.  I'm glad to hear you're still working on it.  Eventually I hope to rejoin seals, but I just can't be bothered to fuck with WINE.  Here's to hoping you get some sorta cross-platform solution before the end of 2015!

Looking forward to that "more info" when you have it!

Now there I think you're going a bit too far.  I agree that everyone should evaluate the evidence I presented for themself and I'm not going back on that.  But I think if you say that it "proves nothing" then you're missing the fact that .5 million words of text is not easily come by, and statistical analysis of a corpus that size isn't something that you can just write off as irrelevant.

I also think it's in no way fair to suggest that I'm doing to him what he's done to me.  I'm not on default trust and I don't want to be put there.  I do think that people on default trust should not be using it to attack people for personal grudges.  QS has attacked me with 4 different account now and has repeatedly attempted to smear me off of the forum.  I've done nothing but to try to stand up for myself against a bully.

When it turns out that this bully is providing himself escrow services and I come across hard, quantitative evidence of it and I present it to the public, that's in no way the same thing as using some power that I have (I'm not on default trust, I have no power in the current system) to defame someone.  I have presented my evidence and I ask others to decide what to think.  QS has done quite the opposite to me, he neg-repped me without presenting any evidence and when he finally presented his "case" literally everyone is telling him to drop it.  He left a default trust rating on me and refuses to change it despite the consensus of his peers that he should do so.  I have no default trust rating to leave and I merely present some facts I uncovered and I ask you all to judge.  There's a big difference there.

Actually, he's continuing to refuse to answer.  He keeps trying to play these word games to make it look like he's denying that's his alt without really denying it.  He seems to be trying to preserve some kind of way to deny that he has lied about this while making it look to the quick skim reader that his is denying it.   However, his phrasing here is so painfully awkward that it ends up drawing more suspicion than if he just spoke plainly about it.  In that quote, he purposely says that I am wrong, without making it clear what I am wrong about.  We already know that QS thinks I am wrong generally.  My favorite one of these so far was the signed message from his saying "this was the only newbie account he has used to post in this thread".  It's hilariously weird because no one was accusing him of using another newbie account.

I'm not going to engage with your distraction attempt.  You want to make this about some trumped up issue you see between Mitchell and me.  I don't have any issue with Mitchell because, guess what, some people are okay to disagree without making it into a personal issue.  If Mitchell has some problem with me, surely he can speak for himself on the matter.  In any case, I can't see any relevance between Mitchell and you using escrow for yourself.

The issue in this thread is your use of an alt to trade using yourself as an escrow.  Doing this, as far as I can tell, defeats the purpose of escrow being a neutral, third-party.  I'm pretty sure that using yourself as a hidden escrow is basically the definition of conflict-of-interest.

You keep on posting these distraction attempts, but alas, it's quite transparent and you're not doing yourself any favors.  Best to try to stick to the issue at hand.  Can you go ahead and explain to us how using yourself as an escrow isn't a conflict of interest?  Or, if you're not an alt of quickseller, maybe it's best to go on the record as such.

Here's another observation, you keep on posting these "non-denials" when asked if you're an alt of quickseller.

"Whaddya mean? I'm just me?"

"I'm panthers52"

"This is the only newbie account I've used to post in this thread"

etc

I can't figure out why you keep doing this.  If you want to deny that panthers52 is your alt, you should go ahead and deny it (I'm guessing you don't want to do this because you can already foresee the day when you're going to have to own up to it, like you eventually did with ACCTSeller).  But doing all these strangely worded non-denials is a very odd thing to do.  What's the point of it?

Quickseller, you admitted in the third post of this thread that you didn't really understand the experiment.  That's okay, it is a little complicated.  Thankfully for you, you can download all the code and run as many tests as you'd like.

This is the setup:

1) I saw that Quickseller had written many, many posts under his main account, the corpus I downloaded was approximately .5 million words after tokenization
2) I knew that Quickseller had written a substantial amount of posts under an alt account which he stopped denying was his a few months ago (ACCTSeller).
3) I had more than a strong intuition that Panthers52 was QS' account, and he's written a prety substantial amount of posts with that account too.
4) The objective, then, it to quantify the similarity of the language of the Panthers52 account with repect to the known alts.

So, the experimental hypothesis is a two parter:

A language model trained on the posts of Quickseller will:
  * predict the corpora of ACCTSeller and Panthers52 with equivalent accuracy
  * predict the copora of ACCTSeller and Panthers52 with much better accuracy than the corpora of people who aren't his alt

The results:

The experimental results support both hypotheses quite strongly.  Even the model trained on the ACCTSeller data (which is considerably less robust than the QS one because of the smaller size of training data) predicts the QS and Panthers corpora much better than it predicts the copora of the non-alts in the study.

Because the code for the experiment has been made public, anyone is free to replicate the results or to run their own experiments.  If QS really wants me to run his model against more and more accounts, it's my intuition that he'll just be putting more nails into his own alt's coffin.  Maybe I'l do it tomorrow, I don't really feel like doing it today.  What's more, the behavoir of Panthers52/Quickseller both in this thread and also here already shows that they're alts to anyone who takes time to look into it.  So, to me, the quantitative data is sorta just the icing on the cake, so to speak.

There are actually a few other metrics used in textual studies which I think would be fun to apply.  Stuff with respect to hapax legomena.  If I have time, I'l try to brush up on some of these modelling techniques and I can release some further quantitative measures.  But, alas, I actually have some others stuff to do this weekend so it may be a few days.

Anyone who wants to know more about the experiment and/or receive the language models generated should PM me or email me.

---

The question for those on default trust at this point is this:

Given how quick you guys are to mark red trust on anyone even suspected of scamming and how it's basically considered around here that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove themselves innocent, isn't it time to warn others about trading with Panthers52?  That, at the very least, someone trading with Panthers52 might be well advised to use an escrow other than Quickseller if he really wants a neutral third-party escrow?

This part seems true, and it is unfortunate.  I tried to get QS to resolve this with me quietly nearly two months ago via PM.  The idea was that perhaps if we talked in private we could figure out how to get along and he could remove his attacks without "losing face", as the expression goes.  Unfortunately, he merely restarted his false accusations in his usual inimitable style "you are a scammer, I know this".  And then wouldn't reply when I asked him to explain to me, in private, how it is that he thinks he knows so much about a situation he wasn't even present for.  After waiting a week and a half for a reply, I had to go back to the only other recourse, asking in public.

I really never expected him to keep doubling-down on the stakes like this.  It really seems like each time he's backed into a corner with people saying "QS, why don't you drop this", he brings in a new account to sockpuppet and distract.  He's sorta going crazy with it at the moment, you can see that he's posted nearly two pages quoted walls of nonsense, off-topic, randomness into this thread using at least three accounts ("QS_banned"?  what is that about?!) in just the last 24 hours.

I also would have never predicted that he would involve the alts that he's using for his escrow-scam-trading into this clearly personal grudge.  That is, it seems that no one would have ever known that panthers52 was his alt, and the was trading with it using himself as escrow if he hadn't pulled it into this wild-ass saga.  Alas, what do we do now?  I admit, I find it hard to believe that he's trusted by anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders after all these stunts.

As redsn0w says, it seems he's intent on "going down with the ship" like some sorta old sea captain.  QS, I know it would be hard, but it would demonstrate actual character at this point, you could go ahead and right your wrongs here rather than continuing to double-down.  You can remove the sockpuppet ratings from troll account FunFunnyFan, you can delete your negative feedback on me which is merely an echo of long-discredited scammer TradeFortress and then go about trying to repair your reputation with respect to your shady trading practices.  When the house is on fire, it's time to leave the house, don't keep throwing wood on it.

Is this the kind of "acting in a trustworthy way" that you're talking about: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

Isn't using an alt to provide escrow for your own deals pretty much the opposite of trustworthy behavior?

Isn't this exactly what escrows do?  Doesn't the buyer always pay the escrow fee?  Isn't the point of an escrow to have a neutral third party in a deal between two people?  Isn't the idea that the escrow is secretely one of the deal partners a direct perversion of this?

Arguing that there are more effective ways to scam doesn't make the less "effective" scam OK.


Is he actually a "very effective scam-buster" or is he a bully that has a reputation for a hot-temper?  Where are the cases where he's actually been the one to do some scam busting that wasn't already done by another party?  I've seen that he quickly echoes the negative feedback of one party or another in disputes, often with the effect that the neg-repped party starts claiming "unfair and why is this guy allowed to do this to me"?  But it's not very clear to me that his escalation of disputes between others his a help to the marketplace.  We've seen that he bullies like a school-yard king but I don't see what that's actualy doing to help people.  We've seen him neg-rep people for simply refusing to use his services (see the case of worhipper_-_), we've seen him neg-rep people falsely and then stick to his guns about it until absolute irrefutable proof is provided (despite the fact that logic was against his accusations all along (see the case of ndnhc), we've seen him use alts and his default trust status seemingly for fun to neg-rep people merely for personal dislike (my case), and to troll with alts (see the accounts FunFunnyFan, ACCTSeller, and look, just two posts upthread he's using Panthers52 to talk about "anal lube"---this is your guy, you support him right?).  But where are these mountains of good that he must be doing in order to make up for all the trails of scorched earth that he leaves in his wake?

Even more to the point, don't you think there are other forum members out there with more balanced, better tempered personalites  People who don't have penchants for mockery and personal grudges?  People without track records of shady behavior?  Aren't the the kind of people you should be putting in your trust list?


It's also ethical for him to use some other escrow while making deals with that alt.  That much seems quite clear to me.

Then why do you have me PM blocked?  The previous incarnation of you having QS on your trust list, you had him remove the negative and you sent me a paragraph which you had him read in which you told him that you expected all of his ratings to be above board and without personal animus and to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.  It seems like you've come a long way from that.

 I'm not sure your 10-to-1 ratio has any basis in fact.  But, what's more, I'm not sure that I'd describe honest people being bullied off the forums by a hothead as nothing more than "butthurt", it seems more serious than that to me.  I'd go further and say that if you allow the bully to run rampant and smear who he likes, you may find after a while that there aren't a lot left of these "little children" for him to protect.

I'm pretty shocked by this assesment.  I don't know what else to say about that.