Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam
The same question I have asked tecsare: Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling? After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT! Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C! While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances.
And flag you supported are 3 unrelated instances. Just because bob placed them all in one thread doesn't make them the same. They are 3 separated cases. It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag
No one abused anything you scumbag. |
|
|
|
While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.
Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place? If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior. So you supported flag without reading thread? It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account: WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!
Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox, I haven't even used this account for weeks...
Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true. You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally. This ^ So you supported flag based on SaltySpitoon's opinion? You didn't read thread which is linked in OP, you wouldn't say what you said if you did  Can you post which accounts SeW900 tried to sell? |
|
|
|
I wonder what flag they can open against me since I have not scammed anyone nor have done anything abusive Spreading homophobia is abusive. If you want you can go flag, flog, or fapfap yourself for that. Fortunately, BitcoinSupremo's post about beating up gay people was either deleted by staff or he deleted it himself. You mean post #17 https://web.archive.org/web/20190510005908/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141126.0;all ? I think his point is the average unknown user could easily catch a tag for this kind of behavior, but the Op is one of the "special" ones that the forum mall cops see fit to ignore.
Can you show example of average unknown user rickrolled someone and got tag after that? I am too high from btc price going up
You shouldn't post when you are too high |
|
|
|
While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.
Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place? If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior. So you supported flag without reading thread? |
|
|
|
get a life bro..  get a job bro...   Even without fake team and plagiarism this is already one big red flag. Huge returns doing literally nothing, artificial intelligence which will make everyone rich, "without high risks" lie, Zedster has found method which willl make him rich, still, they need investors Obvious scam is obvious. |
|
|
|
The main reason behind this happening is after the Merit system was introduced and this type of users are given DT status who thinks that they have all rights to punish anyone who they think are or will or become scammers. They way he talks are clear arrogant and dont bother about the forum reputation, he only just go by his own way whether it hurts the forum respect or not.
I think Theymos should consider about this type of Issues so that the forum should not get the valued users moving away from Bitcointalk forum.
Seems you are already connected with some other account cheaters https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17084215#msg17084215, and, I checked wallet and signed messages and this looks like a solid proof. Also one of accounts have interesting comment in trust page pointing to this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1270591.0. I didn't look further than this. Once again LOL @TE and @QS |
|
|
|
This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. That is not twisted logic and it is pretty much how every justice system works, like it or not. There are many assumptions in your post which I won't comment. Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do More facts: 4) OP didn't prove that he owns accounts which was part of agreement which makes agreement not valid. |
|
|
|
Verified. Please sign message and put today's date in it. Do you mean like that:
Message: I'm the real zackie! 25.06.2019
Address: 161sehE3mkW8owcE5Gt17ph2pvL1891K56
Signature: H7YRZX+u6Hn74XJDfxsWhxPfFcr4a7BHzZkecds67jajGFQgo7KouaDIlq/SF5+Xei6sSNYNRjP1sjo5hYPSgiw=
Thanks, verified:  Now we should wait for account seller number 2 to jump in with "flag" accusation against OP |
|
|
|
It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.
Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:
1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts
So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.
So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.
Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.
None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob, the main point is that Bob never had any intention of purchasing anything, and their information seeking was solely to do damage. The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information. This isn't a matter of accidentally leaking details which could be attributed to unexpected results, this is a case of a deliberate action doing its intended purpose, and the result to be expected. Can you deny that SeW is out money due to Bob's deception? I personally think #1,2, and 3 apply, but #2 is probably the safer bet  How that does not matter? OP didn't provide proof of ownership for accounts which he was trying to sell.In this thread, we are talking about ownership of accounts 1 and 2All other accounts are from different sellers and they are irrelevant for OP's flag.So what loss Bob caused to OP who failed to provide proof that he owns accounts 1 and 2?? If seller number 2 wants to flag bob - they claimed they are owner of account which turned out not to be for sale and supposedly hacked they broke their own contract then (I didn't check for other accounts) If seller number 3 wants to flag bob - as it is shown in pictures there was no deal. Also, nothing here is confidential information. For information to become confidential, you have to make it confidential https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/confidential-informationYou can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately. Here: He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction. Again, SeW900 didn't prove ownership of accounts 1 and 2 which we can only assume he owns. Each flag type 2 or 3 requires thread and you can't create flag on someone else's behalf. |
|
|
|
 OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission, as well as others probably owned by OP. I'm not sure why the accuser would have to prove something that the defendant has confirmed themself? Zackie may be hacked, or by bob's assumption they just don't want to admit that they were caught selling their account. Regardless of if Zackie was hacked or not, that wasn't brought up until two days after this claim. That doesn't mean that SeW900 is innocent, that means that it was absolutely not a factor in this case, and deserves its own case if anything. If Bob started communications with SeW under false pretenses, and as a result did financial damage to SeW, does that not deserve a flag? It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person. Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because: 1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4 2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller. So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case. Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag. |
|
|
|
You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.
Excuse me, but which account OP proved that they own? I am looking at screenshots and for first two accounts I don't see proof of ownership and for other 2 accounts owner (zackie) said account is not for sale - maybe compromised. Am I missing something in OP's accusation? Based on what OP will create flag? Second quotation you have posted is bob's assumption based on coincidence. |
|
|
|
Erc20 masternode? Their model is invest in coin, get dividend, reinvest or withdraw. Looks like "do nothing make money" type of scheme, of course it is ponzi. I have already seen another bitconnect2 today, both are scams. |
|
|
|
It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account: WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!
Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox, I haven't even used this account for weeks...
Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true. |
|
|
|
I checked links again and seems OP changed them, they are placed in this order: http://ohhttp://tehttp://cshttp://hahttp://reLooks like a code or something.
Going to have to 3rd Tec and Quickseller on this one, its not a funny joke. False accusations that are not 100% obviously a joke are bad people stuff.
Not leaving negative feedback over this, but it was annoying enough to consider it. People make mistakes with taboos in discourse communities, whether you learn that a bunch of people would be pissed off by this type of thing will decide if its a lesson learned or it becomes a problem.
What you have described sounds exactly like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling |
|
|
|
Question is, again:
For what will you use donated funds? Update topic with correct information where donated funds will go.
The answer is: to support the team of investigators as they see fit to distribute the donated funds Thank you now take part of my support and send funds to charity organization because I won't be visiting this thread any more and I don't feel like you should keep something that is meant to support " team of investigators" in donation address for people who won't contribute here any more. After you are done send me proof that you have send my share to charity organization. |
|
|
|
Yep, I have just created the flag, but needed the thread first.
What did you expect to get from someone who is already tagged for ponzi business and paypal scam? I think you are telling the truth but please provide enough evidence, no one can support red flag based on your words only. Not supporting it for now. |
|
|
|
Please show me where it has been established Lutpin's account has been hacked? (more than two years ago ?? I'm sure someone would have noticed by now) Taking things out of context usually results in questions like this one ^^ Thank you marlboroza, I’ve removed my support for the moment.
@Timelord - Why did you refuse to give Lutpin an address for your share to be sent to?
I didn't - it's FUD by @Marlboroza - notice he doesn't cite a reference? He only uses the tried and trusted "IIRC" Lutpin said to Timelord that he will send them their share which timelord refused IIRC and created tag type 3.
Sorry for editing post few times.
Unless he's removed that comment by the time you go back and review it. I have to quote this again: notice he doesn't cite a reference? He only uses the tried and trusted "IIRC" IIRC I literally quoted your words at the bottom of that post. You didn't read whole post? Well, that's not my problem. |
|
|
|
For what will you use donations?
Are they going to be distributed to contributors in this thread? Or? I maybe want to donate something but I want to know in which way you will use these funds.
You have already answered your own question:
Donation funds are specifically for mexxer's thread. I believe they are for users who posted their findings in that thread.
So if I donate to addresses posted by you that funds will go to users who contributed in thread started by mexxer? Or: *IF* people were ok with me holding any donation funds I have an idea of using said funds to bid on a slot in the semi weekly advertising spot below the first post on a page to advertise the Known Alt thread to a wider audience.
I don't feel giving pennies to a couple of dozen people, or proportionally a dollar to one person and nickels and dimes to a handful of others based on the number of posts is the way to go.
You will use funds to bid ad space? Or: You did read this didn't you? I have created Vanity Addresses 1KNoWNMK34nGWz2sJy1JzihZdLCGTKcziw and 1KnownXXXNtrjT539vAWckYqWi77jgUXs6 for use in the Known Alts Mk III thread for donations to support the team of investigators as they see fit to distribute the donated funds from time to time.You will use funds to support the "team of investigators"? How will you support "team"? Who the fuck is "team of investigators"? You placed this feedback on my trust page: Formerly an investigator with the "Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III" team. When was I fired or better question is where and when have we signed contract that we are team of investigators? Why are you lying in my trust page? Question is, again: For what will you use donated funds? Update topic with correct information where donated funds will go. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
