Are you sure about the availability of "new" change addy feature in all types of wallets by 2013?

Even in 2024, in most of the wallets, this feature is not getting enabled by default.

There is no such common behaviour; when "new change addy" option was not opted, then either one of the input will appear in output as well.

Only in rare cases, exchanges/casinos will able to find exact inputs for a required output+fees for a transaction. In most cases, a change addy is needed and when "new change addy" option was not enabled then one addy will appear in both input and output.

Yeah, because that was a custodial addy (from an exchange or casino, could not recall).

What happened::

nutildah is re-opening a closed case with the help of JollyGood. The reason for re-opening is not letting down their investigation work because they feel like letting down will de-faming of their investigation skills in front of this community.

Profile Links of people involved:
nutildah: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618
JollyGood: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855
lovesmayfamilis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1982152

Reference Link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506921.0

Detailed explanation:

1. nutildah suspected about the ownership of my account with a post from 2021 against my recent local board posting. Even I proved my ownership by signing with a post from 2016, they were not ready to accept and kept refusing without proper explanation or proof for their claim.

2. After 3 weeks of struggle, finally nutildah decided (literally pretended) to remove my trust page tag but asked JollyGood to take over.

3. nutildah had never been ready to give up their one of investigation effort by removing their tag which must be be the primary reason why JollyGood entered into the picture.

4. JollyGood has been active on the same topic but decided to tag all the users whose cases posted on that topic on the same exact day where nutildah removing my tag after unable to explain their claims.

5. Asking for additional tagging is not a problem or asking to take over is not a problem. But, tricking to re-open a closed case by asking another person is a definite sign of abusement.

6. From the beginning, nutildah were too conscious about not removing their tag even after a cryptographic proof was submitted. Due to this exact same reason, the help from JollyGood might have been asked.

7. JollyGood tagged me just after nutildah removing the tag, with contents which is similar to what nutildah did.

8. After I requested JollyGood about removing the tag by citing the proof I had submitted, they revised the comment which is still proving nutildah's investigation is accurate and my proof was manipulated one. This is another clear sign why JollyGood decided to tag on SAME DAY where nutildah removed theirs.

9. Taking over by JollyGood was not a co-incident which can be confirmed by lovesmayfamilis's post here. lovesmayfamilis was primary contributor on that topic but they remained biased even after I submit a cryptographic proof and never stated any opinion but he was excited to talk about my case after JollyGood taking over my case. Being biased even after a proof where they continuously contributing is definitely not a good sign.


Additional Notes:

nutildah :
1. nutildah registered here by 2014 but no traces of any BTC addy prior to 2018. The first BTC addy could be found on the post history is available from 2018 post. Probably all previous posts with BTC addys might have been deleted.
2. By 2014, all 100% posts were from altcoin boards but the posting interest changed to other boards by 2018/2019.
3. The password of nutildah account has been reset for exact 10 times within the time frame of 3 months in 2018.

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=317618



lovesmayfamilis:
A confirmed plagiariser who had been banned at least once.


Looking for your opinion....

Not exactly positive. @JollyGood tricked here.

Importantly, I had struggled for more than 3 weeks of time for convincing @nutildah to remove a previous tag and on the exact same day @JollyGood started this. I am not seeing this was just a co-incidence. (@JollyGood waited and started their part just after end of one long debate; in fact @lovesmayfamilis hinted about this here).

I assume this that they are altogether not ready to revert back their stand (which will defame the power of their investigating skills or something) so tricking one way or other.

Sorry, I am not getting the point of need of separate topic. Why not the root-case and the resolution cannot be on the same topic.

Perhaps this could be the first time, someone stands out and asking a justification for your trust feedback. Otherwise, when someone tries to keep their reputation up, that will not sound like suspicious overreaction to you.

Same efforts need to be shown when someone appeals. You cannot go on your own way. If you are not ready to explain your stand, then obviously you will find the situation as derailing.

This is out of coverage of this topic.

Yes, I have not earned lots of merits. Please note, this got nothing to do with account ownership

If my posts are bad, please remember there is a report option with every post. (Again nothing to do with ownership).

Yes, I am not into any campaign, again, it would be too good at least you explain what it got to do with my account ownership.

I am not answerable to guess work. (Still nothing to do with the context of this topic).

---

@nutildah tried this gimmicks way to make their post look like constructive but nothing to do with the context of the whole topic.

At least as per the criteria of this topic:

Simply, when we are into account trade related debate, there will be no need to talk about the quality level of my posts.

I asked about why focusing on off-topic things to @nutildah in multiple times within this topic here and here and here. But, they ignored and sidestepped.

---

Now, you also counting my post history's quality level against my account ownership. (Let me learn if I am missing anything here).

If this is the real sense you are using that word means, you do not need to count that particular post while leaving a comment in my trust page. You are contradicting yourself. Your claim of sense of using "purport" with that particular post is not matching.

There will be no need of continuing our discussion when you are ready to explain your stand. No topic is meant for only reporting but includes all related things as well.

Yeah, because like the subject-line of this topic reminds, the evidence here being showed up are not final but only Likely. It means, if you have pints to defend, then you may go for debating.

Thank you for your opinion, moreover thank you very much for finding time to leave your opinion, this type of participation will help balancing a healthy environment across this community, otherwise we will have only biased verdicts.

I did the maximum available method to prove my ownership. But in your comment, you sound like I have manipulated to pretend like.

Simply, why not your comment could be like "he signed a message to show ownership", instead of "he signed a message purporting to show ownership".

FYI:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/purport

@JollyGood,

May I know what has been your understanding on leaving comments on trust page? Please remember that you are answerable for your each and every wording to justify your stand.

I am still looking for your explanation for these:

---

Seems like you are ignoring to explain your stand which led me to start this topic.

Yeah, I can sign but what changes it will bring?

Also, I like to ask what makes you feel like purporting instead of actual?

I am not convinced with your term purport in my reputation page. For revising this, what should I need to do.

You are the one who frequents this topic but you are too busy on checking everyone's post history rather stating your opinion into an on-going conversation.

I meant this initiative of fighting against account trade should not be based on individual's decision rather it should be a community driven. It means everyone's opinion matters and should be counted.

In summary, when more people participate in an initiative, then the errors will be very little.

What led you to ask these? I am sure that you need to clarify why you are asking these....

I mean, if you find anything for change of ownership, I am ready to answer for those.

In other words, @nutildah found that beer post and cooked their own story against my recent local board posting. That beer post was from 2021, so I needed to sign with any date before 2021. If you are concerned about before 2016, you need yours.

@JollyGood,

I signed a message here against OP's doubt..

Please remove your tag.... (Also send you PM).

---

@nutildah (OP),

I like to suggest you about keep updating open-post of this topic with the list of cases investigated here along with final conclusion.

There is another domain pertained to bitcoin which is services.

Only very few people are continuously contributing to service related boards of this community and if you want to name one who loves such boards, then it should be OmegaStarScream.

Because, when something is NOT TRUE, why should I bear that?


1. Yes, I signed up in 2013
2. I have been participating in gambling for a long time but not sure why you STATE "all of sudden" regarding this.
3. Yes, started posting in Pak local board recently; no rule or no DT practice prevents that AFAIK.
(Please note I am not switching from one local board to another but only from English boards to one local board)

Now, please tell me what are you proving by my last 120 days activity.

---

I feel like my case in this topic is going 1 to 1 for a long time. Usually I do see lots of people do state their opinion in all other topics but here I feel like I am talking with @nutildah in PM.

There is no doubt this is alarming defeat for the Barcelona as things surely need to be settled peoples are criticizing as they are not understanding coach situation which is doing this all-in available source which are not enough for him, they are having too many injuries and their financial situation is also not good just because of this we have Xavi sacked in last season.

Now hopefully we will be having some better strategy from the Hansie Flick who is taking all responsibility of this defeat and it's good time for them to sit and try to fix their problems which are giving them headache after having impressive start of their season now next few weeks are going to be easy with they are having Bayern Munich challenge on 24 October this could be important game for them after having defeat against Monaco.

Forcing? I am sorry if I sound that way... I have been trying to explain my points, nothing else.

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

Not about how; only when.

Your coin - your decision; only if you look for more privilege then this comes to picture. I am not finding anything scary.

Yeah, if bitcoin has been trading around its 2009/2010 price levels, we may not be here.

Between who pays and who joins, there is an intermediatory aka managers and this topic is all about why not managers encourage the holding of campaign rewards.

Again it is not about what you joined or that happened in 2013 but it is all about what the participants did with those rewards.

---

He brought a proof from my 2021's post against my recent local board posting. But I signed from 2016's post but he claims he was still right.