From what is coming out of this is smith coins is the alt of the signature campaign's admin Gotupaju. Luptin has confronted him with accusation here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1267751it is still in the process but if his findings are solid then smith coins should release those funds in escrow and pay the participants including the ending days bonus that is yet to be paid to them. No. He was initially linked to the scammer here. But he proved he sold the scammer's account before he committed the scam. So AFAIK smith coins is not an alt of the scammer. thriftshopping is an alt of the scammer GotaPauj. |
|
|
|
Please post the PMs as text too. And reporting them to an admin would probably help. How did you get those PMs? Are you SmartIphone? If so, any chance you can allow me temporary access to that account to confirm the PMs? Yes Yes. I sent the credentials to EcuaMobi so he can confirm. I have confirmed the authenticity of all the posted PMs. thriftshopping bought the account GotaPauj from SmartIphone on November 02, 2015 and therefore while smith coins, prodigy8, lorylore, jt byte and Prasmatic were alt accounts of GotaPauj they're no longer alts when the scam happened (or at least there's no proofs of that). |
|
|
|
Please post the PMs as text too. And reporting them to an admin would probably help. How did you get those PMs? Are you SmartIphone? If so, any chance you can allow me temporary access to that account to confirm the PMs? |
|
|
|
Update:thriftshopping bought the account GotaPauj on November 02, 2015 and therefore while smith coins, prodigy8, lorylore, jt byte and Prasmatic were alt accounts of GotaPauj they're no longer alts when the scam happened (or at least there's no proofs of that).
Can't believe i missed this; their rates and everything (xcept maybe for that bonus) was not really overpriced so i didn't even bother looking further into it. 1H8Pm29JPzX3KjjapjmgpYSCUySVnHKfWT likely controls 47 addresses as per https://bitiodine.net/cluster/1H8Pm29JPzX3KjjapjmgpYSCUySVnHKfWTThose associated with bitcointalk accounts are: (cant guarantee it's all 100% correct, or even at all)Great work! Confirmed. smith coins is an alt account of GotaPaujThis TX was signed by both 1H8Pm and 1DfJHn and only 2 others so it's definitely not a mix service. Was suggested by a friend
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am prodigy8 and this is my address
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1NiwPJyar97hVpyFYZjjPf6ce7gyvXNRZ8
H4hWYOJh1nkbUaLAqjlO0LsKyqhtwqk9k+VpONoKqtX0mBc24ByxJVjVY4xKVJjnyH96K7BV+h/otHvTzJ0gVng=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Please quote somebody
Couldn't verify. Still checking.Confirmed. prodigy8 is an alt account of GotaPaujThis TX was signed by both 1H8Pm and 18SvVi AND this TX was signed by both 18SvVi and 1NiwP. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is lorylore and The current date and time is 6:06 PM Thursday, July 9, 2015 (GMT+2)
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
18SvViXzBoKURr9FPecVjYGvFjZZeZiPAg
IAc90pGMHyBijSwHpvjeCAJrNwDIa1NHuRilUJlK9f/cbkDEjpATnNf1kGN9XmOur7RsQW9F0DffyPs1JGObn9Q=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- is signed by both 1H8Pm and 18SvV. Also signed by only 2 other addresses. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am jt byte and this is my address
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1GrmYxRrkqSrQYyUXb47RL7o2bkvW9kHmT
IA6LgwkhJKwDqha7R6YV15xX1PR+Q1D6On3zpj+W3l/Vm5Fv1OM097cO5FaudOBf1TbtXsv/QvxAf7xdOolvGX0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Could not verify. Still checking...Confirmed. This TX was signed by both 18SvVi and 1GrmY, therefore jt byte is an alt of lorylore and GotaPauj. Signature code added
130 posts
112 Activity (Member)
Bitcoin address: 1BJGYUVdSvu7Lm9j2jKCAnKYHoXixZ3zgJ
Please quote somebody
Could not verify. Still checking...Confirmed. This TX was signed by both 18SvVi and 1BJGYUVd, therefore Prasmatic is an alt of lorylore and GotaPauj.
|
|
|
|
Beware all, this site is a scam! They take you to webpages that are not the real thing. The first offer is for the SP50 from Spondoolies, but it takes you to sqondoolies.
BIG SCAM, DO NOT SEND ANYTHING HERE.
EDIT: Please stop advertising for them and delete anything you have tweeted for them.
^ThisPromoting a known scam site could earn users negative trust. |
|
|
|
Negative trust shouldn't be dished to people for not having collateral. Honestly, the people giving loans on this site shouldn't be doing so, it's ridiculous to require 130-150% in collateral.
Personally I would require at least 100% collateral. 130-150% would apply only if the collateral can easily reduce its worth by 30-50% (for example an non-stable altcoin). Anyway in this case OP is offering at most 12.5% collateral. That means he's asking for a 3.5-BTC loan without collateral. His account and reputation are worth close to zero so he'd had nothing to lose if he decides to default (or simply can't pay). Even a pawnshop doesn't require that much collateral.
I'm sure they would require more than 12.5% collateral, especially if the loan is given anonymously. ...it's another to permanently scar someone's account....
It's not permanent. If OP closes this thread as soon as he comes back online then I will remove my feedback. Negative trust serves as a warning and several times is not permanent. Blatant rip offs (i.e asking for a ton of btc with new account, no explanation, no collateral etc) should be given negative feedback, but I don't think the OP's post could be considered a blatant rip off.
Sadly it's not possible to know whether it's a rip off if he doesn't offer collateral.
If we don't discourage asking for big loans without collateral then we would be calling for scammers. Anyone can buy or farm a Member account, ask for a 4BTC loan, give 0.5BTC as collateral, pocket the 3.5BTC and just rinse and repeat. I strongly believe we shouldn't allow this. There's no way to know whether OP is honest or not, unfortunately. But if it this kind of loans becomes a common practice then you can be sure more than 90% will be dishonest eventually. |
|
|
|
First, the simple fact to try to pass an edited screenshot as proof raises a read flag. Running an exchange site without SSL is suspicious too. But: The domain perfectonlinechanger.net was registered on January 06, 2015 ( whois). However here you're posting "successful history" as old as October 2013. Sure! It has to be legit! |
|
|
|
|
I you don't either close your thread or offer valid collateral worth more than the loan plus interest you will receive negative trust in a few minutes. You can add [Closed] to the beginning of thr title and lock it using the left-bottom button.
|
|
|
|
On Tspacepilot, I disagreed with Wardrick, who has horrible judgement (the guy defended the obvious scammer Woodcollector) so Theymos pretty much straight up told me to counter his trust.
Others are doing that now for Neotox, and I'm fine with it.
It doesn't make sense to counter a feedback that doesn't exist anymore. Wardrick removed the feedback and tspacepilot doesn't have any negative DT anymore. I'm "doing that now" here but as I said of course I will remove it if the negative is removed or isn't DT anymore (as I did on zazarb's profile after you removed your negative), so it's not a valid excuse. ...but we're going off-topic. well i wasn't aware of it, its not like i'm keeping tabs on tspacepilot or wardrick. I changed the neotox to neutral because of the number of strong opinions here. Actually maybe i'm getting wardrick confused with tecshare lol...but i still disagreed with his feedback. (You mean TF?) He is not on DT (and could hardly be further away from it) so a DT counter doesn't make sense there either as it's supposed to be to remove the "undeserved" red from the account. But again off-topic so I'm just leaving now. |
|
|
|
I changed the neotox to neutral because of the number of strong opinions here.
I guess this solves it then. I've removed my counter. |
|
|
|
On Tspacepilot, I disagreed with Wardrick, who has horrible judgement (the guy defended the obvious scammer Woodcollector) so Theymos pretty much straight up told me to counter his trust.
Others are doing that now for Neotox, and I'm fine with it.
It doesn't make sense to counter a feedback that doesn't exist anymore. Wardrick removed the feedback and tspacepilot doesn't have any negative DT anymore. I'm "doing that now" here but as I said of course I will remove it if the negative is removed or isn't DT anymore (as I did on zazarb's profile after you removed your negative), so it's not a valid excuse. ...but we're going off-topic. |
|
|
|
Epic! https://www.changetip.com/collect/921946AdamGuerbuez just gave 2500 Dollars (25.00 bits) to Eminem on Twitter using ChangeTip. It's easy, fast, and convenient to send money with ChangeTip. Join now and start tipping! The people who received the tips may have felt disappointed. Although probably even US$2,500 don't mean too much for them. It's really unacceptable they didn't fix something that simple as that.
Why no one tipped a fake account of himself then took the money?
Or it just appears that you tipped, but the other part gets the notification but not the money?
They do get the money, but just 1 satoshi/0.01bits for every stated 'Dollar'. With a fake account you'd still be sending the same received amount. |
|
|
|
The person who sent a negative trust was not justified as selling accounts has been taking place for years now but what about people sending positive trust to negate the trust? Sorry but hilariousandco and EcuaMobi sending trust ratings without any reason doesn't make them look good either. It's misusing the trust system for personal reasons rather than making the person look trustworthy.
That positive feedback is a 'counter' and of course I'll remove it if the referenced negative one is removed or stops being DT. Read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174567.msg12367824#msg12367824My feedback is not a testimony of OP's trustworthiness, it's just to counteract the negative one as described. |
|
|
|
I've always had my doubts regarding selling accounts, especially to newbies and even more to users with negative trust. However it's allowed now.
It is ? Can you paste a reference please? For example: In addition to the enforcement issue: From time to time people have asked me whether they could sell their accounts or use them as collateral because they have an emergency need for money or have come on hard times. I'm not going to tell them they can't do this. It's your account and you can do what you want with it. I find it pretty distasteful (it's like selling your identity), but the act of selling your account does not itself hurt anyone else, and in fact scams via account sales are very rare.
I agree with theymos it's not a very nice activity. But it's not directly scammy and to establish a policy to forbid/strongly discourage it more discussion is required. |
|
|
|
People also can buy accounts because it is then easier for them to start up a business because if a newbie starts a new buissiness then most people will not pay any attention.
If they are truly a newbie on the forum, why should we trust them? Are you saying its a good thing that a newbie can come on the forum, pay a few satoshis, instantly appear more trustworthy, and then use that appearance to start a business where people will be sending them money? This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm trying to discourage. I've always had my doubts regarding selling accounts, especially to newbies and even more to users with negative trust. However it's allowed now. Directly leaving negative trust is not the way to discourage something that could happen indirectly. I agree leaving negative feedback would be deserved if someone sold an account to a user with negative trust; didn't warn when he realized a former buyer was trying to scam; or didn't help to stop him; or willingly helping a scammer in any way. But to establish a no-account-selling policy further discussion is required. Even if admins just limit to "it's allowed because it can't be prevented" or "it would happen anyway" you could start a thread to ask for non-admin-but-trusted-members' opinion. There we could discuss the implications of having that practice strongly discouraged. DT members' non-neutral feedback is/should be more than just an opinion because it can render accounts green or red. |
|
|
|
I have no problem even if they remove whole trust system from forum because its better to have no such system then giving ipower to the guys who misuse them against forum rules
giving power to such users is like giving loaded gun to monkey, if someone doesn't have ability and take action emotionally then its same thing
if you get power you get responsibility too, but if if after getting power someone think they can do anything then its worst then giving gun to monkey
I do not think negative feedback (at least from DT) is deserved just for selling accounts unless there's an agreement/rule to forbid it or unless trusted/green accounts are being sold to untrustworthy users or other actions are made that may help scammers (which is not the case here AFAIK, let me know if I'm wrong). Besides I think jonald_fyookball has left several undeserved negative and positive trust in the past, I've explicitly removed from my trust list a couple of months ago. However OP you're criticizing him for acting "emotionally" and frankly you're much more guilty of that in this thread. Your generalized accusations are not helping too much. I get you must be affected by this but try and be more objective about all this.
That said maybe it's worth (re-)opening a discussion to decide whether selling accounts should be forbidden or at least not used as collateral. But until the community decides it trusted negative feedback is not deserved. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
