On the contrary it is obvious you do otherwise you would not have been vocal to this extent. 

Poker Player has a right to his opinion about you posting in similar fashion to naim027 and to my knowledge he is not DT therefore where is the problem? He could not come to that conclusion blindly, he obviously spotted similarities therefore he gave his opinion and I still have not gone through all your post history but from what I have seen I can understand why Poker Player mentioned similarities your Learn Bitcoin account has with naim027.

Are you now advocating censoring comments?

If this is true, I would like to know who this DT member is. Post a link.

In the end the problem is that people are opinionated and they want to express views. Until or unless there is either a different mechanism added to this forum or an overwhelming majority consensus (or intervention from theymos), this debate will continue.

There is now a trend where members create threads to question neutral tags, it is unnecessary and brings more attention to themselves. Having said that there is a huge distinction between a neutral and negative tag and the one place placing the tag has a right to exercise their opinion based on how they interpret the evidence they have access to.

I am fairly confident he will return here to post, I am expecting it. Without a shadow of doubt the priority for the current owner/operator of the account seems to be the signature campaign participation therefore I would not be surprised if he returned to post some incoherent ramblings while saying he has no case to answer.

You obviously have issues with DT members which go beyond the story you have presented here. I had your name added to a list of users that were going to have their post history looked at sometime this week and an appropriate tag would be have been left if it was warranted. Having said that, the post from you today (and my reply to it) will not prejudice the outcome.

If you do not know what the exact reason was should you really be singling it out for scrutiny? It will not take you long to read through his post history or the threads that member has been making a nuisance of himself in, maybe then you will be in a better position to know what the exact reason was and then cite it. No, I put it to you that you know exactly what happened.

If you are that inclined to write about it here as a comment, why did you not write to the members that distrusted you to ask why they did it? I think you are trying portray yourself as someone who does not know what is going on and that portrayal really defeats the object because you are clearly the opposite.

That is usually an argument deliberately put forward by members as a smokescreen for their own failures. You (and every other member) can claim to have been making quality posts and that is simply subjective therefore that debate is not worth having. If you say one thing another does not have to agree.

Stand by your conviction or withdraw the allegation. Make a list of the threads where any arguments took place and mention the names of any members that received neutral and/or negative tags from any DT directly as a result of arguing with a DT members. Let us see which tags are unjustified.

Post a link, where did they write it?

Again, stand by your conviction or withdraw the comment. Make a list of when these alleged incidents happened and include names so we can go through them one at a time.

=============================



I broadly agree with hugeblack in the comments he left on your feedback. I do not believe the story that you gave for deleting the post history.

After reading through the thread I also have left you a neutral tag but it was very close to being a red tag (and could yet end up becoming negative trust after I further investigate especially the highly questionable ratio of merits sent and received between this deadsea33 account and a couple of others): https://bpip.org/Profile?id=106374

In future if hugeblack does remove his neutral tag, I will not remove mine unless there are exceptional circumstances and I just cannot see those happening. As for nefarious conduct including merit abuse, if that is confirmed you will receive a negative tag and if given for those reasons that also will probably not be removed unless exceptional circumstances. I will check your account history in more detail when I have time.

You should change the subject title of the thread because hugeblack did not make false accusation against you.

loginsam45 you have been registered in the forum since 3 days ago therefore your rank is newbie but as you are already posting about possible linked accounts in the Reputation board, I would say it is clear you are another example of someone who is using this new account but has at least one other account.

I could be wrong but if the idea was to have your posts merited you are going about this the wrong way. You should consider taking the opportunity to explain why you are using this loginsam45 account. Also, consider letting us know how many other accounts you have and what your motivations are for having them.

You are not surprised, you are playing ignorant. This is a discussion thread regarding the rby account and the Rubycoin scam and it was created to keep any other thread I created on-topic.

Nonsense. I created a thread over 4 years ago about the Rubycoin scam but looks like I forgot to tag the rby account and that was already mentioned.

PytagoraZ is showing signs of extreme narcissism as though the world revolves around him. He already knows all this but is pretending to be ignorant.

Over the years we all have seen strange conduct from members. PytagoraZ has not been the only one displaying an over inflated ego with extreme levels of self-importance but he certainly has ulterior motives.

No, we are not going off-topic. This thread was created to discuss anything at all related to the rby account or the Rubycoin scam. Also, there is nothing for me to finish because I did not start anything. The rby account started this with the Rubycoin scam before the account changed hands.

This thread will remain unlocked as it would discourage the current rby account owner/operator (and members such as yourself) to post nonsense elsewhere. This thread was not created to discuss whether or not such specific thing related to the rby account occurred as the OP states:

Where would he have received investment from? There has to be a bankroll in order for a casino to operate as a viable business. Granted he stole the previous bankroll and blamed it on an imaginary hack but this time he claims BetKing is now privately bankrolled and "The pool has been funded with $100,000 from other unrelated projects and the site owners personal funds to kick start the relaunch of the site."

If he really has managed to fool investors then eventually through lack of any real interest from gamblers in the betking.io website, it will definitely close. Whether he closes the website as an exit-scam would be determined when that stage comes but it definitely will. Other casinos are too far ahead therefore betking.io can only dream of getting a slice of those customers but like previous occasions it will fail, again.

I think that is the expected norm with all forum members. If anybody wishes to discuss any situation or any topic they are free to create topics and threads to contain the conversation within it. If any member believes he has been treated unfairly by any fellow members he should probably send them a PM first to discuss the issue and failing that he should consider creating a thread to discuss it openly with members.

You have created a new account around 48 hours ago and made this your second post. Reading through your post history it seems clear this is not your first account here therefore your motives remain unknown (for now).

It would be seriously insulting the intelligence of members if we were to believe the nonsense that PytagoraZ is not an alt-account. Whatever the motive was behind creating this PytagoraZ account, it has failed but other newbies accounts created days ago are already posting in boards that they should have literally no knowledge about therefore the drama will continue.

This member clearly has some ulterior motives against me, maybe I tagged one or of his previous accounts. Having said that, one of the reasons why these alt-account and farm operators feel some sense of empowerment is because they see occasional posts in almost every thread that appears questioning the tags I left. Some mentally imbalanced trolls just cannot stop themselves from posting asking members to distrust me and somehow that makes them feel important  

This issues has been resolved and the OP has received the amount he was claiming. The OP should have locked this thread after he received the disputed funds but he has not been online from before Duelbits completed their investigation. As there is nothing more for anybody to add I hope a moderator will lock the thread.

I am unsure exactly what that guy (stormbounty) intends to do because his options are limited. On the basis he did not keep a copy of his private key he has only himself to blame for his predicament.

Whirlwind will not pay him anything because they did nothing wrong. Members here have decided to not support stormbounty because his incompetence led him to this situation.

Whirlwind have suggested that if he really believes he was scammed he can go to minerjones with his allegation, he is holding $40,000 in escrow. From my perspective what is clear is that not only is stormbounty not going to get funds he lost access to because of his incompetence he does not deserve to unless he finds his lost private key. I do have some sympathy towards him but that is about as far as it goes.

If you stand beside stormbounty in the mistaken belief he will get his funds from either Whirlwind or the escrow (minerjones) then you will be standing for an eternity. The only way stormbounty will receive his funds is if he manages to locate his private key and by what he has already told us that is an impossible task.

Now that betking.io has yet again been re-launched I think it is fairly safe to assume at some stage there will be an exit-scam. The owner operator of betking.io has already used various excuses when closing down the website.

If previous victims of betking consider taking a united approach in legal action it might stop a new generation of investors becoming victims.

You are all advised to remember that if you sent any funds to betking.io either for participating in gambling or in order to invest via any new tokens that they will put up for offer with ROI that simply will not be feasible, you will not see your investment again.

It brings me no happiness or pleasure to inform members reading this thread that betking.io has been re-launched again. I cannot recall how many times the owner/operator has closed and re-launched the website, each time seemingly carrying out some sort of scam.

You are advised to keep away from investing in betking.io when the owner decides to launch worthless tokens and you most probably will be out of pocket if you have funds on their website and that happens to be the time the owner decides to exit scam again.

How much longer will this scammer try to rinse the Betking name?

I thought it was a matter of time before he returned but did not expect it this late. If anything, I would have expected him to have returned with (yet another) re-launch a long time ago.

At least for him there is one member that is already playing even with miniscule amounts of BTC if those figures are even correct. I wonder how long this will go on for before he tried to fund it with another round of tokens and investments. In the end, he will run off again that is inevitable.

I am surprised you contacted him, that is definitely being dedicated to the cause. If he does get back to you I hope it does not bring back bad memories of the scam.

As far as the current owner/operator of the rby account is concerned they can continue lying and that was to be expected since naim027-style set the bar of compulsive lying and manipulation to never-before seen levels, others had to catch on.

You may well have started this thread regarding the distrust retaliation that the rby account has exacted upon you but (as you may have seen) in some roundabout sort of way you were right to distrust him.

Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts
The curious case of forum member: rby (of the Rubycoin scam)
SCAM: [RBY] Rubycoin

The current rby account owner is still claiming to be the original owner/creator even though the account was created a developer and the writing styles were different, in order to justify waking up the account after years of hibernation he came up with an elaborate smokescreen. The current rby account operator stated the account was operated by a group of people yet he was not scamming therefore others were scammers.

And after Covid-19 he miraculously remembered he had an account here and instead of creating a new account to contribute to the community he decided to revive the rby account even after the Rubycoin scam. He said it did it because of nostalgic value, he finds it difficult to let go of things but he managed to delete most of the rby account post history along the way. Yes you read that right, that is a new excuse to add to the list to account traders: nostalgia

You already pointed out the retaliation by the current owner/operator of the rby account and you were absolutely right in distrusting him in the first place. You should consider locking the thread now as all that had to be said has probably already been posted.

This is a welcomed post to read. To add features that include depositing and withdrawing to include both Ethereum and XMR is probably going to be welcomed by most as long as privacy is prioritised and you have already stated it will be. I look forward to seeing these modifications implemented.

The fact Whirlwind have been busy testing the beta and are trying to continue innovating and updating their services (rather than just sit back and relax) is commendable.

It is a mess that is for sure and maybe that was why it was never sorted out in the past. With there being that number of members who have their own views the chances are it will be difficult to agree to anything but at least an effort is being made to reach some consensus in order to move forward.

I am not sure a case by case basis is a good idea simply because it invites those that do not deserve it another opportunity to waste time in the hope members here will be engaged in in-fighting. That is just my opinion and it is one of many therefore I invite more participation in this discussion.

Thank you for your efforts, I appreciate it.

I hope members in the Russian language board manage take notice and pass the word around between family and friends especially those that could be towards the slightly elderly age groups.

Are you still of the thought that there should be blanket amnesty for account traders before say 1st July 2023 and that all traded accounts discovered after this date can be tagged: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457879.msg62478118#msg62478118

Various views have been put forward, I would like to compile and present them as comparators to take the discussion forward.

That was precisely why I decided to tag the rby account. I should have tagged it in 2019 when created the scam thread but the account and not necessarily the new owner was the receiving the tag and in those circumstances they have to accept the collateral damage (as you put it) and move on.

If an account has been associated with a scam, it should be tagged for that specific scam regardless of whether the new owner/operator is posting excellent quality content or low quality trash.

There are many cases as you aptly pointed out where those with multiple accounts or purchased accounts are quietly receiving this signature campaign payouts by posting in threads where they can keep a low profile yet for inexplicable reasons they decide to get involved in threads where they get noticed and for that reason some members start looking to those accounts only to discover the accounts were either hacked/brought/sold or there are a series of connected alt-accounts.

They do not learn from others mistakes and like others they get themselves noticed and only have themselves to blame.

The current rby account owner/operator was never going to admit to purchasing the account from fear of being tagged and he could not admit to being the creator of the rby account and Rubycoin scam because that was a developer/coder, therefore he concocted an elaborate story which basically should be sold as a script to a film studio.

Call it a factual hunch, if there is such a thing. He will be unable to make any technical statement let alone practically do it and even then it would not prove much in the context of his negative feedback.

He purchased the account for signature campaigns and along the way made himself helpful here and there (with some members and in some threads) in the hope of creating misdirection if the past ever caught up with him.

He purchased the account because he did not know much about it. He probably did very little research about the Rubycoin scam but the irony is that had I remembered to tag the account back in 2019 it would probably not be put on the market for sale.