This thread is in the Gambling board therefore it would not be acceptable to give disproportionate attention to avoid 1xbit over any other scam (or selective scamming website) by selectively pinning threads. The forum (unfortunately) does not moderate scams and by that I mean moderators will not get involved unless there is a pressing case put forward by the community and even then I have seen them nuke just maybe two threads during my time here. There is already a pinned thread in the Scam Accusation board where 1xbit has been mentioned in the subject title and considering there are several scam threads that come and go, it is already a victory that 1xbit is mentioned by name: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0Scam warning threads already exist elsewhere but I broadly agree it would be a good move to have a pinned thread. Having said that I think it would be far more constructive if any such pinned thread were not related to a single entity or organisation (such as 1xbit/1xbit1) but rather act as a generic warning. This is a good suggestion to have a pinned thread for general scam discussion serving as a warning and where users make regular comments and discussions on any ongoing scam casino both those who are present in the forum or outside the forum. This will go a long way to warn potential victims from falling for such scams since their will already have information about the entity on the thread, 1xbit or other scam entities who have exited the forum may find a way to come back under another guise so there is a need for relentless efforts combat any possible return and also a fine way to stop others scammers from gaining any attention here in the forum. |
|
|
|
I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig. If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling. Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading. But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved. That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged. I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam. With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with. You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts. That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process. It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate. If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying. And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it. Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter? I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust. And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members. I think the case you make is too hypothetical. LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation. I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing. |
|
|
|
I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict? I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread. I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime. From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree. I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what properly constitutes a crime. According to you, how many different types of crime are there and at what levels should they be deemed worthy of a tag? The different crime you mentioned was related to scam attempts but could there be cases where account buyers are spamming not scamming and deserve a tag? I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate. I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back. Please elaborate further. As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.
We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account. The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability. If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate? Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message. It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless. Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address. This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address. We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account. I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history. Now we have two dates from members as far as possible amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any potential amnesty should be conditional or not. |
|
|
|
It is very difficult to provide any better advice than this considering the current situation stormbounty finds himself in. The fact he has crossed the line as far as his choice of words are concerned is certainly not helping him. Now that he has managed to sign a message the best thing he can do is to wait a few days for Whirlwind to look in to the matter for him. The previous days do not count but as he has signed a message, maybe it should start from now. ~snip~
and now comes the important part, your behavior is not helping, I understand that this money could be all you got, and it's so important for you to get it, but what do you get from calling them names and all that? it will only make things worse for you, after all, they could ignore everybody's opinion, don't bother with checking any signature, and simply stick to their rules which you have agreed upon before using their service, you lost your private key -- your funds are gone.
I suggest you edit your posts, take a deep breath, send the signed message to their email along with the letter of guarantee, and then wait a few days before posting anything. |
|
|
|
I noted so it seems the OP did not get back to you after you sent the email explaining the need for further information yet he posted here effectively saying there was nothing else to send to Duelbits. I am glad to read the matter has not been closed from your side and as soon as the OP is able to provide you with the specific information you asked for, you will be able to assist him further. Dear Community Members,
We would like to address the concerns raised regarding the $500k withdrawal currently on hold. We appreciate your concerns in this matter.
First and foremost, we want to emphasise that it would be much easier for us to release the withdrawal to avoid any negative exposure within this thread. However, doing so without obtaining the necessary information from the user would have serious consequences.
We understand the desire for transparency, but we must uphold the utmost confidentiality when dealing with such matters. It would be highly unprofessional to publicly disclose any further details about this case or the user involved.
As many of you are aware, we are one of the most reputable crypto casinos. We have successfully processed thousands of withdrawals of similar or even higher amounts within a matter of seconds to minutes.
Nevertheless, there are rare instances where we require additional information before processing such significant withdrawals. This is done to ensure the protection of our users and maintain the integrity of our platform.
Currently, we are still awaiting the full set of information required from the user. We have received partial information, which so far has been highly appreciated, but there is one last piece of the puzzle that is still missing.
Once we receive the complete and necessary details, we can proceed with the withdrawal promptly.
Please rest assured that our team is available 24/7, dedicated to resolving similar cases as efficiently as possible. However, we rely on the full cooperation of our users to expedite the process.
If you have any further inquiries or if additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are here to assist you.
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting you go back in time to tag accounts that were traded way before you even existed in this forum now that you are a DT member? If so, then go ahead, that's your choice. I'll be prepared to do that, yes. Inactive isn't the same as banned. That is where I invite debate and conversation in order to find general consensus because if previously sold yet currently inactive accounts are tagged what would be the pros and cons as far sending out a message as a deterrent is concerned? Thanks for your good wishes. Unfortunately, in deleting 2,650 trust feedbacks, I wasn't able to archive all of them, so I'm starting with those I have notes for: You certainly have your hands full with this one  I'm strongly against retroactive punishment when it applies to offenses committed several years ago and involves inactive accounts or accounts that have since proven themselves as trustworthy and/or valuable members of the community. This is for a few reasons:
- the "offense" may not have been deemed as such back then,
- the person may have genuinely changed for the better, and
- we should be able to demonstrate some leniency toward long-time members in the spirit of forgiveness. You make a great case against blanket tagging with the possibilities you cited, especially the demonstrating leniency part. I invite more views and opinions from members because widening the debate will bring benefits to the discussion. If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016. If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate? I have mixed feelings on this for a couple reasons. 1st of all, buying and selling accounts in not prohibited or against any rules of the forum.
RULE 18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
Discouraged does not mean illegal. The definition of discouraged is having lost confidence or enthusiasm; disheartened. This is a welcomed timely reminder that account trading is (as you put it) discouraged but not against the rules of the forum however much it is frowned upon by the members of the community. Still, there is no harm in having this debate in order to read and to understand a multitude of views and opinions on this matter. I am sure someone who got scammed by a trusted member only to later discover the account was sold by the original owner would have a different opinion to say someone who is maybe have purchased an account some years ago but has constantly and consistently received excellent advice provided by an account buyer say in the technical boards (Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support etc), then in my opinion it would be a pointless exercise tagging the account and that is why this debate with these points of views are great to read. I have posted my opinion many times on the subject and feel that if the account is a nobody, then it's no big deal. If they haven't built a rep and don't have any + trusts, they have hurt noone. An account and name is what the person who controls makes it. The accounts sold with a bunch of positive trust and big reputations are the only accounts we should worry about as they have the best odds at scamming the community. The only reason someone would pay a premium price for a trusted account is so they can get away with a scam they have planned. We as a community should evolve and grow, but what you suggest is regress. You mention several more very important angles about account trading in that trusted green member accounts can plan scams and that we should watch out for those and you would not be wrong for saying it. At some point, at some stage there has to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the buying and selling of forum accounts. If there is blanket tagging on account buyers and sellers, would it be appropriate to do it on the basis you pointed out that it is not illegal for buyers and sellers to do it according to the rules? On that basis there should probably not be any blanket tagging for that specific reason alone. If there is no blanket tagging for account buyers and sellers then can a different approach be taken which would still be acceptable as general consensus? I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate. |
|
|
|
The stories that are made up by some forum members in order to seek merits are becoming more and more unbelievable yet they continue regurgitating lie after lie. What would you really say the chances are of that scenario happening as you described it? Add to that the OP stating he will refuse to share transaction details therefore no evidence will be provided yet he assumes we all are basically going to take his word for it that someone not from this forum paid him $2500 and forgot about collecting his work and the OP being a caring individual is trying to reunite the client with his work? No, we will not take his word for it. Someone who is not a member of this forum, but knows a bitcointalk moderator, paid OP to do a job, but forgot to collect it and the moderator doesn't seem to know them either, so OP wrote this story on bitcointalk, so that person, who doesn't use bitcointalk, sees it and responds... I bet only OP understands his motives, but we are all dumb for not understanding and not believing. |
|
|
|
This has been a trend recently. If memory serves correct there were around 3-4 cases within the last say 6 weeks where the OP created a thread for a particular reason complaining about a neutral/negative tag but in the end they dug themselves in to a hole and did not stop digging. Some account farmers make the mistake of being over-confident therefore they have threads questioning their feedbacks and within a short time that becomes their error as their associated accounts begin to be listed. They bring attention to themselves without realising the impact it will have on their farming activities. And in the end the funny part is that the only thing this thread has done so for for the OP and the associated accounts is get them more negative feedback and removal from trust lists.
As the saying goes, when you are in a hole stop digging.
So a single negative from someone who has not been active for years that a lot of people may have ignored is now a major thing since there are so many more people looking and posting about it.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I've got about 350 trust feedback remaining (some of which that have account sellers mentioned). I'll have a look through my notes and see if there are others.
More to come. Thank you for your efforts. The numbers involved are colossus therefore let us wait to see what you bring on your next post, who knows you even bring up some surprises. While I do agree, it really can become a full time job to deal with.
Case in point the entire Dank14 issue. I saw the topic this AM, replied to it @ 6:45 AM give or take and had the idea of looking through the other accounts and adding them to my ~ list and tagging them.
The time it can take is not insignificant
For these scammers / spammers it is their job, so that is what we are fighting against. People like me have to take the time to do it when we could be doing other things.
Yeah, it makes me look lazy but I'm being honest here. If it's a choice between tagging someone and creating a post about how to pull your coins from a non-standard collectable private key or helping someone setup their node when it's giving them trouble. Those will win every time over tagging someone. Dave it does not make you lazy and it cannot be denied what you are saying is true because taking a look at (and then tagging) accounts is a time consuming exercise. You have to prioritise where you want to spend your time and only you can decide where it is better spent. As you suggested, if there was a template for copying to the feedback it would help those that wanted to utilise it. JollyGood, I agree with you about not discriminating but I've also given second chances to members to whom I've given negative trust years ago if, and only if, they've shown evidence of 1) not engaging in the buying/selling of accounts, and 2) not getting any more negative trust OR receiving legit positive trust since I gave them the negative. You have first hand experience in this matter which will be helpful. Keeping in mind the two conditions you wrote above, in your opinion what is the furthest back (in years) is an appropriate number to go before the account is deemed to be not appropriate to tag? I still think these new idiots buying or selling accounts ought to be negged all to hell, and if they come to my attention I'll do so. Anyone who's been here for a while should know that trading accounts is dangerous if the account(s) in question carry a positive reputation, as they can be used to scam, and they can also become a nuisance if they're used by sig spammers or bounty hunters who just want to write crapola nonstop.
But none of that is new info to most of us. Hopefully others will read what I just wrote and understand why account sales are severely frowned upon--even if they technically don't break forum rules. That is one of the dangers of the forum being flooded with spam and low quality posts when accounts are traded. It would not be a surprise if the buyer wants to get to work posting immediately. If the new/recent account sellers and accounts buyers manage to face problems some may decide to give and even if it is a small number it would mean our persistence is tagging accounts would have had some impact. |
|
|
|
No it would not be sufficient for anything and to go through all that hassle just because someone using their service has made a series of errors is not productive nor a good signal to send out to others who use the service incorrectly. Having said that, the letter of guarantee is sufficient and the address within it should be the address the rightful owner is capable of signing a message. If the owner cannot sign a message from the address because it was going to a coinjoin address, the owner should not have his mistakes paid for by Whirlwind. What would happen if Whirlwind paid him for his mistake and then a few days later another member presented the same letter of guarantee along with a signed address claiming he is the rightful owner? If the circumstances surrounding stormbounty losing his private key are correct, he will have to both take and accept the loss and then move forward. If he wants to use Whirlwind again he will have to keep in mind how it works otherwise he should use the services of an alternative he finds more convenient. oh come on, i'm still on the page, no other mixer does this, none, if i left the page and returned it would have been different, i watched the deposit come in, yet i cant withdraw.
So do you still have the page open currently? Wouldn't that be a sufficient way to prove that @stormbounty is for sure the rightful owner of this note if you say screenshare/livestream to whirlwind support and they can actually confirm? |
|
|
|
As the situation quite expectedly progresses along the farcical track with each post from the OP and with no evidence of any $2500 payment ever being made let alone being received by the OP being presented and with the OP categorically stating he will refuse to provide evidence, I wanted to take the opportunity to add that both the Newchanka account and the Cyberczar account have received negative tags from me and have been excluded from my trust. I suppose the OP must be disappointed he brought unnecessary attention to both the Newchanka and Cyberczar accounts but he has nobody except himself to blame. |
|
|
|
Currently the private key is generated by the user in the frontend on the main page. If we were to show it on the next page as well that would imply we generate it ourselves and store it, that's why we didn't do it.
So this raises another question for the community: Do you think we should show the private key on the deposit page as well if that implies we also have access to it? Others will no doubt express their opinions but I think if you showed the private key it would imply that a breach of trust has occurred. In my opinion it would be a mistake to do that. I would, once again, lean towards the more clear-cut yet harsher side of things. It is stated before you Generate the note and once you've generated it that you need to save the private key or else your funds will be considered lost. Like I've said before it's a tough situation but user error should not compromise the overall security of a service. I do not why the member in question felt the need to use tor and clearnet together when he simply could have just used tor. Something went wrong and he ended up with a letter of guarantee and nothing else (no private keys). Is it fair to say that the full error lay with him rather than his version of events where is stated as saying some part of the blame lay with Whirlwind because they had hosting issues? For me the way I understand it from previous posts, the clearnet will always be under some form of DDoS and all have been advised on a number of occasions to use tor therefore I fail to see why he is claiming Whirlwind are part responsible for him not saving his private key when he was opening and closing multiple tabs and using multiple browsers. In this scenario, the user has stated he can provide a letter of guarantee. Assuming this letter of guarantee is indeed the correct one, it will have a deposit address inside it. If the user can also sign a message from the address(es) which sent funds to the address contained within the letter of guarantee, I would say that's pretty compelling evidence that the user is telling the truth and does indeed own those funds. You are right about the letter of guarantee, he can provide it but he cannot provide a signed message from the address. He has already stated that will be unable to provide a signed message because he was withdrawing the funds from Whirlwind to send to a coinjoin address (maybe to Coinomize, YoMix, [banned mixer], Mixero, Mixtum or another). |
|
|
|
|
This is self-moderated in order to stay on-topic and to keep clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammers
Account sellers are not accepted within the community, their accounts are tagged with negative trust as soon as they are noticed by several members and I welcome that course of action as we try to minimise the impact they have on the wider forum with spamming and nefarious activity.
Going further, as a community we should not be selective about which accounts we tag for being previously sold on the basis of some traded accounts might be deemed as positively contributing to the forum. As a community we should be able to achieve some form of consensus about effectively what is the correct course of action in these types of circumstances.
If we as a collective pick and choose which sold/bought/traded accounts we tag and the ones we opt to not tag, then in my opinion we are setting a dangerous precedent because if we allow traded accounts to operate freely with impunity on the basis 'x' amount of time has passed (therefore they should not be tagged) it will send a signal to other would-be account buyers and account farmers. They too can use that as an argument and it should never be allowed.
If accounts are continuously traded on the understanding that if they are exposed at a later date they can try to defend their position by saying they purchased the account a long time ago and deserve to be given a chance just as other traded accounts were given a reprieve, it is unacceptable. This should not cloud any judgement and this practice should stop.
Once again to be clear, in my opinion if account traders make what are deemed to be any positive/good contributions towards the benefit of the forum, that cannot be superseded by the fact the account was traded. On that basis I will ~exclude accounts from my trust list and tag them.
If you know or suspect any members operating traded accounts feel free to post their name in this thread and state why you think they are using a traded/sold/bought account in order for it to be discussed as a prelude to it being possibly tagged by myself and/or others.
Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag. After all, if you feel strongly enough about it to mention the account here maybe you should consider placing your own tag beforehand.
|
|
|
|
The OP obviously concocted the story in the hope to be on the receiving end of frantic merits from the community as a thank you gesture for his (alleged) integrity but his plan backfired. He received trust exclusion and he also received negative trust therefore had he not created this nonsense thread he would have avoided it. What made me laugh was the manner in which the original ambiguous lie put forward using as much incomprehension as possible yet as soon as I tagged his account he edited the OP and added very comprehensive English to elaborate on what allegedly happened with the $2500 he will never be able to prove he received. As you correctly pointed out, there is no proof of anything the OP claims except that he has created this type of thread in the past. Does people's past experience/mistakes really defines them ? I believe people makes mistake and learn from it as well, maybe the OP was never aware of account selling not being encourage in the forum for the first place before such post was made in the past.
If the OP really got the offer and was paid that amount of money and the person who hired the OP is no where to be found, without considering the OP's past I will say it's of a good intentions, because most people will be silent and want to squander the money without even making any form of noise.
If @OP is not aware of account selling, it's his mistake, not the DT members. If you did plagiarized post in 2011 and you're active until now, but someone report your plagiarized post since 2011, do you think the moderator is wrong since they ban you because of old mistake? There's no proof if he's really own the $2,500, there's no proof if he got hired, we're here just because we trust his words, but it seems it's not. The OP has a history of account trading therefore dismiss the nonsense he is posting. Do not believe anything the OP is claiming because he is attention-seeking. He probably thinks that by making up false stories and narratives he would receive merits but his irresponsible conduct can be traced back to his first post in the forum under this "Newchanka" account: Clean member account for sale.
In good standing
No negative trust
No of posts: 90
Start Bid: 0.02
BIN: 0.03
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely right, there were instances of account farming related to easily exceeding 10+ 20+ fake accounts all being used for either merit abuse, signature campaigns and various nefarious purposes. You are an experienced individual therefore you should know when the person you are communicating with starts using excessive amounts of smileys within their replies they do not have much more to add (not that they may have had anything of substance to add in the first place). This post is not off-topic because it is yet another example of an account that was created or purchased for the sole purpose of earning through signature campaigns yet took unnecessary steps that got them noticed. That is why this thread was created because the John Abraham account took unnecessary steps that got that his account noticed. This naim027 must be a super human or a bot. He is naim027, he is John Abraham, he is AnotherAlt, he is cryptoSoul, he is Dic3lov3r, he is paradice, he is Royse777 and now he is an early developer rby, who knows he could also be Little Mouse Who knows? He could be! That's something many of us have seen many times. I know a guy named Khan or something like that had 10+ full and senior member accounts- all were being used for signature campaigns at the same time. He was first being caught by Bitbollo for spreading bs about Covid in Italian thread. I caught a guy with 30+ accounts once and at least 10 of those were being used for his scam projects bounty programs. In your case, I don't buy that you are the real owner of RBY account which may or may not be connected to naim027. |
|
|
|
Well if that is the case he has failed because it looks as like the three forum members that left negative feedback (Poker Player, The Sceptical Chymist and myself) have all taken individual decisions to not revise nor modify the respective feedbacks. I think it is clear to him he has lost the account as far as earning an income from it is concerned therefore he tried his best at trying a different approach to attempt manipulation via the PM route. naim027 was trying to unban his account by sending PM's to moderators and administrators. Now he (John Abraham) is trying to convince three of you to clean his account reputation. We shouldn't forget that we are dealing with a liar and storyteller While you guys can try to match up to much data with other accounts, The truth is those are not my alts.
After being exposed, the confession has zero value.
This is not only a confession but also an explanation of the story. Yes, I own all four accounts. I was Evading a ban. I tried to pretend like a new user.
|
|
|
|
No there is no beef The OP is a fantasist who makes up stories in order to try to receive merits whilst claiming he is doing nothing like that. As far as I am concerned he claims he writes for a living but he has avoided answering the question while posting about other things. I thought he would at least provide an answer but I probably gave him undue credit. I don't care about the post at all I'm just watching the beef & this question poped up 😄 |
|
|
|
I merely asked the OP what the connection was between the Newchanka account and the member operating the Cyberczar account. He has posted a lot in this thread but has unsurprisingly remained unwilling to answer. Why are you implying the OP has more than one account? Is having more than one account on the forum a problem? Me and most of users have more than one |
|
|
|
The OP is calling you a dumb fellow who is living in the past. I guess that is his way of insulting  You should ask the OP about the exact relationship between his Newchanka account and the member operating the Cyberczar account maybe that will drag him from the past and back in to the present. Since he likes to write a lot maybe he will provide an explanation that would make sense But you seem to be living off bitcointalk. I'm talking about your account deals. The way I see it, we'd next see someone come and claim they were the ones who broke a deal with you and got all the money back. These stories usually have a continuation if left to unfold in peace, but unfortunately for you too many people came to this thread and spoiled it. Back to the drawing board  Like the other dumb fellows, you're still living in the past... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
