Bitcoin Forum
May 02, 2024, 08:52:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!)  (Read 3133 times)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
April 20, 2015, 08:07:22 PM
 #41

>110 megashill / megaspammer
80-110 likely shill
60-70 spammer / 'main' shill account
30-40 normal people
<30 sensible people
-snip-
We could discuss this in a spinoff thread if people are interested, propose some variants to increase accuracy / usefulness. Sorry for the derail.
Here are some random PPDO's of the people in the thread:
tspacepilot 206
LaudaM 173
TerminatorXL 72
erikalui 71.4
redsn0w 60.7
Blazedout419 44.3
quickseller 34.7
dogie 16.3
ACCTseller 12.5
Then this is horrible. I don't know how I achieved this. I'm thinking back at the inputs.io days where one didn't get banned for spamming (I had no idea what I was doing).
Anyhow it's quite obvious that ACCTseller is the second account to quickseller who is on the default list according to me. I also see negative rating for tspacepilot.

IMO, I don't think anyone should trust TF's word.  He was a liar and a scammer.  
Also there is something worse. One doesn't bring up things that happened so long ago for an apparent reason. Quickseller it looks to me like this was intentional. I mean it is pretty obvious.
If I was tspacepilot, I probably wouldn't even remember what happened back then.

[snip]
You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP or how having an alt account is against any rule. The fact remains that the OP scammed and there is no reason why the community should not be warned when they are potentially dealing with scammers.
-snip-
EDIT: can anyone help me figure out if Quickseller is on default trust directly (level 1) or he's merely trusted by someone on default trust (level 2)?  I imagine that if it's the former then I'll have to talk to Theymos or one of the forum moderators (does anyone know who, exactly, I should approach?).  If it's the latter then pointing that person to this thread may be enough to get this straightened out.  It's seems pretty clear that using default trust as a way to carry out a personal vendetta using the accusations of a known scammer as evidence is not how default trust is intended to be used.
I've checked. On the default trust list he is under BadBear.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
1714639956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714639956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714639956
Reply with quote  #2

1714639956
Report to moderator
1714639956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714639956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714639956
Reply with quote  #2

1714639956
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714639956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714639956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714639956
Reply with quote  #2

1714639956
Report to moderator
1714639956
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714639956

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714639956
Reply with quote  #2

1714639956
Report to moderator
TerminatorXL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:13:05 PM
 #42

>I am fairly certain you are the person who wrote the article that you posted.
Your opinions are of zero interest to me.

>you would be evading your ban which shows that you have a disregard for the rules.
Never claimed to be a law-abiding citizen, for all you know I'm just an incompetent brokeass hustler, like you.
That (other than making me a petty hustler), wouldn't change a thing, not as far as far as my posts are concerned. Those stand or fall by their content, not my username's reputation.

>You still haven't explained how this would do anything to do with the subject of the OP
Your alt getting tossed off the default trust will resolve this thread. Simple.

>how having an alt account is against any rule.
Having an alt is not against the rules. Having an alt and not owning it makes you a weaselly sleazebag, unfit for default trust.

This is a throwaway account. Threatening a disposable account with bans is a bit weak.
As is being afraid to admit (or try to deny) you're Qickseller's alt.
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:22:37 PM
 #43

IMO, I don't think anyone should trust TF's word.  He was a liar and a scammer.  
I didn't trust TF's word, I read through this thread and found that it was admitted that the OP cheated TF out of an unknown amount of Bitcoin. The amount is/was disputed however I think it is pretty clear that that the OP scammed. MZ quoted the relevant posts here although there are more posts that point to his guilt.

I don't trust TF and don't like putting pressure on people to help/repay him however a scammer is a scammer.

You may be right that a scammer is a scammer but anyone with an objective mind here will see the following very clearly:

1) that TF came up with some unsubstantiated accusations about me approximately 3 years ago and
2) the fact that I've got absolutely 0 other complaints from anyone since and
3) the fact that I'm not doing any trading things here (never have) and
4) the fact that you were running around calling me "an idiot" and
5) the fact that I personally disagreed with you in several threads here in Meta and elsewhere
6) the correlation between you're resignation from the signature ad campaign we were both in and the appearance of trolling alt ACCTSeller saying he was going to get me kicked out of my campaign
7) the appearance of your negative feedback on my account, successfully getting me kicked out of my campaign appearing within only a few hours of ACCTSeller's necro bump of the discussion of TF's false accusations
Cool your intransigence in the face of everyone on here saying "wtf?  you're neg-repping a guy for ancient history accusations from a known scammer/liar"

All this adds up to exactly one obviously conclusion, you decided to get me removed from my campaign for personal reasons, ie, you didn't like that I called you out as a hothead and you found a way to get me back for it. 
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:28:08 PM
 #44

1- you admitted to the substance of the claims therefore you scammed. It was not 3 years ago.

3- if you don't trade then you should not care about the trust system yet you try to get it changed Roll Eyes

8- most people who are questioning my rating are shills whose opinions have been ignored (if they make any fact based arguments then they will be taken into consideration).

All your other points don't matter because the negative was given because there was a claim that you scammed, I looked into the claim, did not find the person making the claim credible however you admitted to the allegations therefore you admitted to scamming.
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:34:24 PM
 #45

1- you admitted to the substance of the claims therefore you scammed. It was not 3 years ago.

Incorrect.  I have not admitted to the "substance of the claims".  I am not sure how you would know anything about my alleged use of coinchat over 2.5 years ago or how you think this is relevant to anything other than you finding a way to get me kicked out of my signature-ad campaign, which you have succeeded in (albeit temporarily).

Quote
3- if you don't trade then you should not care about the trust system yet you try to get it changed Roll Eyes

Incorrect.  I have other reasons to care about the trust system.  I care about the community and the drama on the forum and far too many times I've been an observer on massive drama about the assymetrical relationship that the default trust status provides to those on it.  Surely this is part of your motivation in this smear campaign you're working on.

Quote
All your other points don't matter because the negative was given because there was a claim that you scammed, I looked into the claim, did not find the person making the claim credible however you admitted to the allegations therefore you admitted to scamming.

Funny, you now say that you don't believe tradefortress' accusations but that somehow you think I admitted to them.  I can see why you wouldn't want to have your neg-ratings be a mere echo of TF's known lies about me but backpedalling to this is just laughable.  Anyone who takes a moment to read through that thread (why would they unless they have an agenda to try to find some sort skeletons to dig up against me?) can see that I categorically and repeatedly deny the accusations.

I think you're backpedalling to this now because you realize that digging up an old TF accusation is just making you look bad and now you're trying to find a way to save face before you lose your position on default trust (and, consequently, your license to bully).
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:39:08 PM
 #46

Well for clairification here is where it was proven that you were in the wrong.

there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides

If tspacepilot had not withdrew any fund from coinchat, and Tradefortress has lowered his rep for no reason, wouldn't the first thing tspacepilot would say is, hey, I never withdrew anything? They have argued about the amount, but the reasonable first step a person would take in defending themself is saying that they had taken nothing. Tspacepilot did not say they didn't withdraw Bitcoin earned by the Bot, they said they didn't withdraw 1.5 BTC or .5 BTC.

also


I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct. 

1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where.  Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount.
2) The b0t thing is a red herring.  Yes I registered that username but almost never used it.  I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned.   Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.

To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.

You didn't withdraw "anywhere near that amount" so you did withdraw something. And you "Almost never" used the illegal bot, but you did use it.

I know you won't admit to scamming because that is the kind of person that you are, you won't come clean when caught doing something you shouldn't be doing but instead try to find loopholes to weasel your way out of it. You take no personal responsibility for your actions.

You do not care about the community. You spend 5 minutes between posts which is a clear indication that you are a profilic spammer, I would be curious to know if there is any evidence of you using a bot to post on bitcointalk, especially considering how many posts you had previously made in a short amount of time.
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:40:01 PM
 #47

8- most people who are questioning my rating are shills whose opinions have been ignored (if they make any fact based arguments then they will be taken into consideration).

Right, shills like LaudaM and Vod (so far).  Known shills ...
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:53:47 PM
 #48

Well for clairification here is where it was proven that you were in the wrong.

there is not even evidence that the bot even made 0.01BTC until it has been proven everyone should stop taking sides

If tspacepilot had not withdrew any fund from coinchat, and Tradefortress has lowered his rep for no reason, wouldn't the first thing tspacepilot would say is, hey, I never withdrew anything? They have argued about the amount, but the reasonable first step a person would take in defending themself is saying that they had taken nothing. Tspacepilot did not say they didn't withdraw Bitcoin earned by the Bot, they said they didn't withdraw 1.5 BTC or .5 BTC.

also


I'm sorry salty but this isn't correct.  

1) The amounts are invented, I;m not sure from where.  Tf asserted 1.5 then .5 and I never withrew near that amount.
2) The b0t thing is a red herring.  Yes I registered that username but almost never used it.  I had hoped to deploy a bot under that name but never got the bugs worked out before I was banned.   Tf and I even had a discussion one time about that bot and he did not object to the name at the time.

To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.

You didn't withdraw "anywhere near that amount" so you did withdraw something. And you "Almost never" used the illegal bot, but you did use it.

I know you won't admit to scamming because that is the kind of person that you are, you won't come clean when caught doing something you shouldn't be doing but instead try to find loopholes to weasel your way out of it. You take no personal responsibility for your actions.

You do not care about the community. You spend 5 minutes between posts which is a clear indication that you are a profilic spammer, I would be curious to know if there is any evidence of you using a bot to post on bitcointalk, especially considering how many posts you had previously made in a short amount of time.

It's a good thing that you're not on a jury to decide proof or we'd all be pretty fucked.  What salty says here, which is reasonable, is questioning why I didn't deny that I withdrew something earned by a bot.  The plain fact of the matter is that as this accusation is nearly 3 years old, it's really hard to honestly say why I did or did not reply in a certain way that long ass time ago.  What I can say now, as I recall clearly, is that I was using coinchat for chatting (not by bot) and gambling (not by bot), I was experimenting to make a bot (with tradefortress' help, teaching me about the api), and that he accused me of all kinds of random things after that (making up number, making up usernames, etc).  How you think this adds up to "proof" is beyond me.

EDIT: hard to believe that I actually stooped to the level of trying to explain to you whatever bullshit TF was making up about me back then.  I haven't even reread through that old thread because I don't want to give you any further pleasure from it.  Feel free to keep on quoting it if you need to, everyone here can see that taking TF's side in an ancient false accusation isn't making you look trustworthy.
/EDIT

What's more, I love how the guy who consistently drops 150+ posts per week is accusing me of posting too much.

As far as what kind of person you are, I'm looking forward your explanation here:

Quote from: LaudaM
Also there is something worse. One doesn't bring up things that happened so long ago for an apparent reason. Quickseller it looks to me like this was intentional. I mean it is pretty obvious.
If I was tspacepilot, I probably wouldn't even remember what happened back then.

Pretty clear to anyone observing this that you went on a mission to troll me with your alt and when you thought you'd found some relevent skeleton from 3 years ago you necro bumped it in order to have plausible deniablity that you your main account just "found" this feedback in the new posts in Meta and just happened to read through those pages of old old lies and accusations in order to decide that I was "proven" scammer and you are somehow doing the community a favor by neg-repping me.  In fact, it's pretty clear that you're doing yourself the favor of enjoying swinging your dick around because you wanted to find some way to get me kicked out of my campaign.  As I said, you've succeeded, but only temporarily---once BadBear gets online and looks at this I have a feeling I'm either going to see that negative trust disappear because you delete it or because you're not on default trust anymore.  I'm pretty sure that BadBear doesn't want someone like you taking his trust as a way to effect personal vendettas.
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 506


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
April 21, 2015, 03:19:24 AM
 #49

@tspacepilot: If you were experimenting with bots, why did you withdraw coins you got from the experiment? Using bot is against rules, so you shouldn't withdraw coins you got from bot-chat.

ABitNut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 764
Merit: 500


I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 03:38:27 AM
 #50

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 506


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
April 21, 2015, 03:51:33 AM
 #51

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 04:26:50 AM
 #52

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

I honestly don't see how you guys can know anything about what happend on coinchat so many years ago.  I can barely remember myself other than that I had a good time and enjoyed the fun until admin/tradefortress banned me for "abuse" which I didn't do.  It's even weirder that you guys would put stock in some weird likes that tradefortress made up at the time.   Especially given that he's a known liar and theif and I've basically got a 3 year reputation with 0 issues except this one.  Now, as to why quickseller is going after me, it's clear (read upthread).

As to whether this kind of personal vendetta is allowed for people on default trust (he clearly had a mission to get me removed from the signature ad campaign i was in) that's a question for the mods.

MZ, I only ask you to put yourself into my shoes, actually maybe that's impossible because you seem to be very careful not to cross anyone powerful here. But imagine that one day you disagreed with quickseller, nex thing you know he will find some reason to say that you are now a scammer---spending all night looking through 1000s of posts to find some kind of thing to possibly misinterpret.  Now, how do you want others to react, to take the side of the powerful abusive person, or to realize that you've spent years on here doing nothing but chatting and talking and helping and learning about bitcoin and which of these should hold more weight.  Think about it.

Try to find one issue that anyone on here has with me beyond tradefortress (known scammer), quickseller and his clones (soon to be removed from power, certainly).  There are many people who I have disagreed with (ask Vod, for example), but for all except quickseller, they know the difference between disagreement and using your power to bully.   Even quickseller stayed up all night looking through 2000 posts from me over 3 years and the only thing he could find was lies by a known liar and theif.
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 04:45:24 AM
 #53

@tspacepilot: If you were experimenting with bots, why did you withdraw coins you got from the experiment? Using bot is against rules, so you shouldn't withdraw coins you got from bot-chat.

MZ, just saw this so I'm replying.   This just underscores how little you know about the situation.  Coinchat was a site in which making bots was encouraged.  As I said in the thread, TF even helped me to make a bot.  There were all kinds of bots there which ran gambling games or other useful services.  I was new to coding and was learning as I went.  As far as I know, I did not withdraw coins made from "bot-chat" as you call it.  Why would you presume to know the rules of a site you obviously never visited (it closed nearly 2 years ago, as far as I know it went down with TF when he stole everyones bitcoins in the inputs.io scandal)?
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 05:59:34 AM
 #54

It's a good thing that you're not on a jury to decide proof or we'd all be pretty fucked.  What salty says here, which is reasonable, is questioning why I didn't deny that I withdrew something earned by a bot.  The plain fact of the matter is that as this accusation is nearly 3 years old, it's really hard to honestly say why I did or did not reply in a certain way that long ass time ago.  What I can say now, as I recall clearly, is that I was using coinchat for chatting (not by bot) and gambling (not by bot), I was experimenting to make a bot (with tradefortress' help, teaching me about the api), and that he accused me of all kinds of random things after that (making up number, making up usernames, etc).  How you think this adds up to "proof" is beyond me.
Like I said before, I knew you weren't going to admit to scamming because that is the kind of person you are.

Secondly, you are strengthening your argument by saying this is from almost three years ago. This is a lie. The thread in question was created in September 2013, and considering that it is now April 2015, the activity in question was from just under 19 months ago, which is roughly 1.5 years ago.

To address your concern that you did not deny using a bot "3" (1.5) years ago and "cannot" recall why, the consensus was very clear that you had admitted to scamming TF and CoinChat and that you were in the wrong. 
wait a damn minute s o youwere using a bought to make btc chatting  and don't understand why you were banned?  Cry maybe because thats completely uneffin fair.  Roll Eyes
You don't have to sign a ToS for it to be active. Using the service means that you agree with the ToS. Damn, how can someone be so ignorant as you?
You spammed with a bot to get BTC and now TF wants it back. Sounds legit and logical to me.

My 2 cents.
give it up. you botted his site, got caught and now you're mad he found you. 
Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.
If Tspacepilot cares more about his trust rating here than his ego I'll bet if he admits prior guilt and apologizes to TradeFortress he might see his trust rating restored.  I think TradeFortress did the right thing initially warning the forum with limited information.

Many of us on the forum have been scammed by new members.

0) Your bad. Mods have better things to do then constantly repeating the rules.
1+2) As soon as you use the site, you make an agreement with the site owner (TF in this case). So you have agreed to follow the rules.

You used a bot, which is only allowed if it has "bot" in his name. So "b0t" isn't allowed. You were abusing the system and that is illegal, no matter what. So stop whining, be a man and give the BTC back which you earned by breaking the rules.

You should calm down.


Whatever you are arguying about the CoinChat problem, does not change anything.
If I understand correctly, you admitted that you used a bot, even if you were sometimes chatting normally.


Anyway, you will never get the trust rating removed before paying back TF what he wants (half of coin or something).


From now on. You have 2 options:
1) paying back the coin, and not being marked as a scammer here.
2) refusing to pay back and being marked as a scammer.



If you don't pay back, regardless of you thinking it as unfair, you will be marked as a scammer.
And in my opinion, if you break the rules of a btc related website, you are not really trustworthy.


That said, you can keep crying here, but it won't change a damn thing.
You have 2 options (I said it earlier). Choose which one you want to take and move on.
Second sentence is only an example. It does not mean that it has to be a currency trade, just an example... 


If the facts are true, and it seems that you do not even deny them ; you actually did steal that amount of btc from TF.
Does not matter anyway: trust rating are not moderated.
-sighs- You are not stealing if you follow the rules. According to TF you broke the rules. So pay up or shut up.
Why so much drama?
You don't want to pay back?
You don't like the trust rating?



This discussion seems pointless and endless Sad
Clearly tspacepilot did is unethical. Its common sense. My advise to you tspacepilot refund TradeFortress and move on.
Did you just seriously called me a sockpuppet? Because I agree with TF's opinion? You must be an idiot.
You have 2 choices

1. Refund TF and apologize
2. Create new alt and back to square 1

The tf alt patrol seems to be marching through this thread.

I'm in no way affiliated with TF.

You create a bot and spam coinchat and withdraw bitcoin. You are not following the rules. Is that hard to understand?
 
You check the terms and conditions of a site, before signing up. That is kind of the expectation that you understand the rules of a site before using it.

The rules explicitly state that all bots must have "bot" in the name so that they Do not get paid for chatting. You make a bot that does not follow those rules, and illegitimately gain .5 BTC. I cant understand what the misunderstanding his here, you stole .5 BTC from Tradefortress by using a bot that was not allowed. You get paid for chatting on coinchat, not having a bot spam for you, and because of your bot, Tradefortress is out .5BTC hence the negative trust.

I'm really not understanding where the question of, why don't I get negative trust for stealing .5BTC from someone? If it was an honest mistake, you would have seen that it was against the rules, said oh sorry, and returned the ill gotten coins.

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

Salty sums this up well, I agree with him.  OP looks to be completely in the wrong here, TF in the right.
What matters is if TF used the trust system in accordance with its rules. According to theymos,
Quote
On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this…
Therefore, TF can use feedback for whatever he wants. If it becomes frivolous, then people will ignore TF's trust or the entire trust system. Action does not need to be taken by the trust system admins.

Since I tend to be very conservative when it comes to deciding if something is unethical, it sounds like TF gave someone .5 BTC because his banning mechanism and bot detection were inadequate, and now he's retaliating through the trust system. However, the OP was gaming the system (coinchat) and not following the rules, and other people would call that unethical. TF would go so far as to say that it's stealing! It's hard to determine if that makes someone trustworthy without a definition of trust that everyone agrees on.

this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress  when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken 

I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it


No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin.

tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence?
there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him

Ok, assuming that the bot only made .01 BTC, that means the amount is still wrong, but the principal is the same. Tspacepilot went on TradeFortress' site, and used illegitimate ways to gain Bitcoins. Tradefortress' feedback would still be valid, although he should probably change it to .01BTC if there was evidence.

But really, what is the difference between scamming .01BTC, .02BTC, or .5BTC, either way they would still have the negative feedback from TF and the reason. The arguement here isn't whether or not tspacepilot abused the site and took Bitcoins from Tradefortress, its A) whether its ok to post it on Bitcointalk, a different site, and B) Whether tspacepilot is at fault for abusing the system.

From the hundreds of other cases I've seen, the answer is yes to both. The amount isn't a major factor.
The rules state that a bot has to have "bot" in it's name, not "b0t". This has been mentioned before. So using that bot would have given you BTC you didn't deserve, because you break the rules.

Quote
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
For fuck sake, stop bringing this up. We already destroyed that argument. You don't HAVE to be in a currency trade agreement for him to decrease your trust rating. If he thinks you scammed him, he is allowed to, no matter if you guys ever made a trade.

God, why do I even bother talking to you. You only see your own truth and nothing else. I am out of here.
Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.

Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.

Uh,  was this supposed to a link?  I thought you agreed that blind tf cheerleading wasn't helping and you planned to move along. 
Nope and yep. But if you twist stuff I say, I will have to correct it.

I'm not saying I think you are a bad person, I'm just saying that in light of this case, I find your arguement invalid, and Tradefortress' allegations to be reasonable and believable based on the dialog between the two of you. I do believe that the amount may be incorrect, but the principal behind the thread/accusation, is that in my opinion, you exploited Coinchat and recieved Bitcoins that you should not have based on the site's rules in place. Your first comment was that you didn't know about the rules until after you were banned, to justify what happened. If someone gains unintentionally as you are claiming, as a result of ignorance of the rules, it would make sense that you apologize, and refund the amount in question. In my opinion, it is a valid claim that because TradeFortress suffered a financial loss due to the exploit, it is reasonable for him to make a mark on your trust until you two come to a resolution.

-snip-
It should also be noted that there was exactly one person backing you up (zackclark70) who did not seem to particularly like TF in the first place and was likely biased.

At this point, I am fairly certain that you scammed CoinChat out of some amount, and that like in September 2013 you are trying to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility. Except this time you are resorting to intimidation to get me to remove the negative.



In fact, it's pretty clear that you're doing yourself the favor of enjoying swinging your dick around because you wanted to find some way to get me kicked out of my campaign.
See below. This is not the first time that you have claimed that negative trust against you was some kind of personal vendetta against you. Sure we have exchanged heated words in the past after you started trolling me, but I can assure you that the reason for the negative does not have anything to do with personal feelings.

-snip-
Please, community members, let me know what's relevant here?  As far as I can see, this is an angry bitcoin mogul who's feeling vindictive because I cashed out more than he wanted from his site which gives out free bitcoins for chatting.   Now he's going to do his best to smear me on the internet anywhere he sees me, no matter the relevance.
(Note that in this post you admitted to withdrawing more then you should have.)

Ok, thanks for the feedback r3wt.  I don't know if you're a moderator here.  But now I understand that tradefortress and powerful people on this site can use the marketplace trust system to abuse people who they hold a grudge against for actions unrelated to bitcointalk.  That is, marketplace trust and 'risked' BTC don't actually have to relate to any trade agreement on this marketplace.  In fact, if what Tradefortress is doing to me is acceptable then it's clear that  'risked' BTC doesn't actually have to mean that you sent anyone that amount of BTC, just that you feel it's an amount you are owed according to reasons which you only have to justify to yourself.
-snip-
If you admit we did not engage in a currency trade then that is obviously tantamount to admitting that you are abusing the marketplace trust system because of an unrelated personal grudge.  Tf, why don't you admit that it's time for you to make this right?  Drop the false allegations against me and I will drop mine. I really don't think this is helping you or your reputation to keep holding out on charges that you have admitted are false.
This one is somewhat unrelated, but still somewhat related. You are admitting that you are making a false allegation, therefore there is no reason why anything you claim someone else is doing should be trusted.
Still this is missing the goddamn point.  tf runs a site that gives away money for chatting.  I chatted for hours and hours and received money.  Tf decided he doesn't want me there anymore, fine.  How does this give him any right to lie about me on bitcointalk.org?  He is suggesting that he and I had some currency trade agreement and that I didn't follow through.  That is false.  I have entered into 0  marketplacd transactions and tf's grudges against former users should not be taken out by him on their trust ratings.  If he is going to act like that, I think it's a strong reason to remove him from the default trust list so that at least new users can make up their mind for themselves about people he holds grudges against.

Again, he suggests variously that I am spamming or defrauding or stealing, sometimes 1.5 btc sometimes other amounts, all based on his whimsy and with 0 supporting evidence.  How is any of this relevant to the marketplace trust?  Even he admits it's not, that it's based on his personal grudge with me about how I used coinchat some months ago.
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coin chat.

  As I said, you've succeeded, but only temporarily---once BadBear gets online and looks at this I have a feeling I'm either going to see that negative trust disappear because you delete it or because you're not on default trust anymore.  I'm pretty sure that BadBear doesn't want someone like you taking his trust as a way to effect personal vendettas.
I don't get anything special in return for being in the default trust network, despite that this statement is clearly meant to be a threat. If BadBear decides that he wants to remove me from his trust list then that is his decision. I am not going to make a huge deal out of whatever decision he makes, although I don't think he will remove me for this.

I think it is fairly clear that you are a scammer, you are a spammer and that the trust rating is appropriate.

There are a good number of clearly shill accounts in this thread, including gamblebitcoin (who is a brand new account that happens to be taking your side), TerminatorXL (who is an alt of CozyLife who was banned for making shit posts and has written articles about his position against the sale of accounts on a site with no editorial integrity [lol]). Additionally neither LaudaM, nor erikalui is on my trust list and as a result their opinions are not considered without any facts/logical arguments to back them up. Vod simply said that I should not trust TF's word, which I do not. 
ABitNut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 764
Merit: 500


I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 06:09:48 AM
 #55

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign  Wink

Again, it's just my opinion.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 06:16:43 AM
 #56

I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 06:58:53 AM
 #57

I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 07:02:21 AM
 #58

I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.
I don't think, I know that the two of you are the same person, I just want to see if you admit it (which I know you won't), or deny it, which you probably won't either because you are going to "exercise your right to remain silent" although I do have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the same person.

I am not backing down from my original claim, I am just pointing out that there is more to this thread then the negative that I left you.
tspacepilot (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1076


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 07:09:10 AM
 #59

I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298


View Profile
April 21, 2015, 07:16:03 AM
 #60

I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful Wink

I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it.

I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right). 


I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban).
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!