Re: how do I make new threads?

[erikalui]

Used a bot?? What are you talking about lol....
You shouldn't label This thread at being bs because of my trust rating... I could have made this from an alt with pos trust, but I decided not to and come out on my publicly used account.

You're just another example of someone who is scared of quickselller imo,

"I have no issues with you as Op....."

Just another ass licker who doesn't want to get negged

Excuse me! Mind your words. I am not talking about you who is using a bot but about that other user https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

I don'e care about you or any other member and I don't need to be in anyone's good books here. You fight your own battle as I am least bothered about a person who uses abusive language.

I am educated enough to be independent rather than to use abusive language for anyone or praise someone when it isn't necessary.

[Bicknellski]

It seems as though you have created this thread simply to state Quickseller has alt accounts. Creating an "honest" ponzi would be in fact quite profitable. Supported by the fact that the owners could be held accountable in reality if things were to go South. Even if not, it would still be quite profitable.

Seems there is a connection between the following.

Dogie
Quickseller

Funny how Wardick as well as others are immediately coming to their aid across a variety of threads. Interesting, how recently their interest has turned to these 2 accounts out of left field. It is almost if they are magnetically drawn to the threads with those two names right?

I wonder why someone would see the connection between Dogie / Quickseller and need to defend just those to two accounts given the wide range of other accusations that get made in the these forums Wardick seems overly enthusiastic in very recent time to these two accounts being challenged by the community about their ethical behavior.

I think someone is clearly "biased" towards defending certain accounts. I wonder what motivates such accounts?

I would question the validity of this account being independently controlled by an individual other than Dogie or Quickseller.

You just need to look at the posting hours of each account to see that this is an absurd claim.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020;sa=statPanel
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=85316;sa=statPanel
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=87869;sa=statPanel

Really...
Wardick and QS look pretty damn similar to me :|

Just read their posts and you can tell they're written by different people. Come on, even though you don't like QS, you can't tell me you actually believe this. Also, though the distributions look similar, one is shifted by a few hours, which is statistically significant when the distribution is of over 1000 posts.

You used what software and sample size to do that collocation analysis? Are you trained to make that assessment? Does your assessment include the possibility an account is shared? It really begins to look more like a coven when none of these accounts seem interested In an open dialog about the issues raised initially or call for the thread to be locked. Seems some accounts are more prone to that sort of tact ONLY in a couple of threads centered on Dogie and Quickseller. Nothing to see here move along just isn't going to cut it.

[Blazr]

You used what software and sample size to do that collocation analysis? Are you trained to make that assessment? Does your assessment include the possibility an account is shared?

Collocation analysis cannot be used to differentiate different identities like that it is only useful for finding a lead but it does not prove two individuals are the same person. In fact I have not ever heard it used for this purpose, normally you would expect stylometic analysis to be used as collocation wouldn't work here due to a lack of context-neutral speach (we're all talking about Bitcoin).

IIRC Quickseller has sold items from his account and those items were shipped from east coast US, Dogie is in the UK according to your sig. This explains why the stats pages are off by a few hours, the timezone gap.

[Bicknellski]

Thanks for the background info. That should help narrow down things a bit. Easier to dig up info on Eastern US based people who are likely to trend towards team Allcock.

Also thanks for history/ terminology lesson. Appreciated.

You used what software and sample size to do that collocation analysis? Are you trained to make that assessment? Does your assessment include the possibility an account is shared?

Collocation analysis cannot be used to differentiate different identities like that it is only useful for finding a lead but it does not prove two individuals are the same person. In fact I have not ever heard it used for this purpose, normally you would expect stylometic analysis to be used as collocation wouldn't work here due to a lack of context-neutral speach (we're all talking about Bitcoin).

IIRC Quickseller has sold items from his account and those items were shipped from east coast US, Dogie is in the UK according to your sig. This explains why the stats pages are off by a few hours, the timezone gap.

[Wardrick]

It seems as though you have created this thread simply to state Quickseller has alt accounts. Creating an "honest" ponzi would be in fact quite profitable. Supported by the fact that the owners could be held accountable in reality if things were to go South. Even if not, it would still be quite profitable.

Seems there is a connection between the following.

Dogie
Quickseller

Funny how Wardick as well as others are immediately coming to their aid across a variety of threads. Interesting, how recently their interest has turned to these 2 accounts out of left field. It is almost if they are magnetically drawn to the threads with those two names right?

I wonder why someone would see the connection between Dogie / Quickseller and need to defend just those to two accounts given the wide range of other accusations that get made in the these forums Wardick seems overly enthusiastic in very recent time to these two accounts being challenged by the community about their ethical behavior.

I think someone is clearly "biased" towards defending certain accounts. I wonder what motivates such accounts?

I would question the validity of this account being independently controlled by an individual other than Dogie or Quickseller.

That is a very bold and hypothetical thing for you to say. I simply found two threads the one with Dogie because it has been posted in for quite awhile and I haven't made a comment in it, and this one. Most people could say this is a much more interesting thread than 99% of current meta threads at the moment. I honestly don't have time to read through a mini novel of texts right now so I am going to hold off on stating further opinions of the matter.

[peligro]

Acting as escrow for a signature campaign is the opposite of "aiding and abetting" them. They are unlikely to pay their participants anything if the funds are not escrowed, Quickseller is preventing a number of people from being scammed by doing this.

This is an argument I don't get. The account was already marked by BadBear. If they couldn't get an escrow they wouldn't have been able to get the participants. Quickseller could've given another rating on top of BadBear's and made the campaign dead. Instead he became escrow which allowed them to get users and had the signature displayed across forum. It was lucky that they folded so soon, otherwise this signature campaign would've caused more damage.

Protecting those participants doesn't make sense. They should've been marked for supporting a scam company, like devthedev had done earlier. Getting a reputed escrow added a certain amount of legitimacy to the campaign. To the ordinary participant, since Quickseller was with the campaign, they figured they are not doing anything wrong either.

Furthermore, numerous trustworthy members have escrowed signature campaigns for scams, such as Dooglus and Mitchell with dicebitcoin.

This is not the best example as dicebitcoin didn't look to be scamming initially. A better example is Tomatocage, becoming the escrow for the account trade of KingofSports. In that he was directly helping a scammer earn some money. This is something which is accepted here for some reason and doesn't make sense to me.

[TerminatorXL]

[...]

Not sure what you're getting riled up about. I've defended you by pointing out that you haven't invented lying, cheating, or theft
You don't really think of yourself as the root of all evil, do you?

I think you have implied that I was doing all of those things on here which I have not.

Never in your life
I remember you asking me yesterday to prove that ACCTseller was your sock. And look, the very next day, with no effort from me whatsoever... *poof*! No more need for proof

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing wrong with having an alt account and it is against no rule. Having an alt account did not assist in any kind of scam, any kind of lie or in any kind of cheating.

>I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.
The difference being I've made no claims at being someone who belongs on some cheesy trust list, of being honest, or even of being a decent human being. I'm using an alt account to prove, by example, of just how ridiculous and intrinsically flawed this sort of thing is.

You still have not pointed out any transgression that I have done.

Sure I have, though not in the last two sentences
Hang tight, I'll restate my accusations, and even bring up a few more

>Also I have never used any account to support my own position.
You've left negative trust from at least 2 of your accounts to whateverhisnickis. If that's not supporting yourself with your alts, what is?

As I mentioned previously in one of the other threads, the first negative was left by ACCTSeller was because of something I felt was untrustworthy (trying to significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result), and was appropriate that the community be warned, but was not appropriate  for him to have a "warning:trade with extreme caution" tag. Once I found out that he had scammed, I left the more harsh negative rating from this account as anyone who has actually scammed (and not repaid what they stole) should have a "trade with extreme caution" tag.

You asked for an instance of your multiple accounts working in consort to "support [your] own position."
I have given you an example of you leaving multiple negative ratings, from two accounts that you control, to tspacepilot. Whatever your rationale, it is a clear case of using multiple accounts to "support [your] own position."

Now on to what you're being accused of.
You're accused of being unfit to be on the default trust. One of the multiple reasons for this is your artless use of multiple accounts with which, to use your phrasing, you "significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result."

True, you're the only person on the default trust to abuse it, you're far from unique in that respect. What makes you noteworthy is the exceeding ineptitude with which you proceed to go about it.
In short, your lack of savoy faire - the social graces required of all but the lowliest of street hustlers, combined with unwillingness to follow the advice of your betters, makes you an embarrassment to those of us associated with these august fora.

"So where are these new examples of my duchebaggery," I almost hear you ask. "You promised!!"
Allow me to direct your attention to the PM in which you ask me to start a new thread on tspacepilot:

It would probably actually be best if you did reopen a thread so he can be called out and not censor others from agreeing that he actually did scam

I have taken the time to explain that doing so would only annoy the less quarrelsome members of this community, and that everyone's best interests would be best served by letting the matter drop. You thought you knew better and... here you are, embroiled in the same aspy drama that's an embarrassment not merely to everyone involved, but to every passer by

I'd like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that this is the Meta section, the Supreme Court of these boards, so to speak, where extant law is put to the test and consigned to the flames when found lacking. What has brought us here, sirs and madams, under these most unseemly circumstances?
Idiotic forum policies condoning account peddling and pay-to-spam advertising.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

[Quickseller]

[...]

Not sure what you're getting riled up about. I've defended you by pointing out that you haven't invented lying, cheating, or theft
You don't really think of yourself as the root of all evil, do you?

I think you have implied that I was doing all of those things on here which I have not.

Never in your life
I remember you asking me yesterday to prove that ACCTseller was your sock. And look, the very next day, with no effort from me whatsoever... *poof*! No more need for proof

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing wrong with having an alt account and it is against no rule. Having an alt account did not assist in any kind of scam, any kind of lie or in any kind of cheating.

>I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.
The difference being I've made no claims at being someone who belongs on some cheesy trust list, of being honest, or even of being a decent human being. I'm using an alt account to prove, by example, of just how ridiculous and intrinsically flawed this sort of thing is.

You still have not pointed out any transgression that I have done.

Sure I have, though not in the last two sentences
Hang tight, I'll restate my accusations, and even bring up a few more

>Also I have never used any account to support my own position.
You've left negative trust from at least 2 of your accounts to whateverhisnickis. If that's not supporting yourself with your alts, what is?

As I mentioned previously in one of the other threads, the first negative was left by ACCTSeller was because of something I felt was untrustworthy (trying to significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result), and was appropriate that the community be warned, but was not appropriate  for him to have a "warning:trade with extreme caution" tag. Once I found out that he had scammed, I left the more harsh negative rating from this account as anyone who has actually scammed (and not repaid what they stole) should have a "trade with extreme caution" tag.

You asked for an instance of your multiple accounts working in consort to "support [your] own position."
I have given you an example of you leaving multiple negative ratings, from two accounts that you control, to tspacepilot. Whatever your rationale, it is a clear case of using multiple accounts to "support [your] own position."

Now on to what you're being accused of.
You're accused of being unfit to be on the default trust. One of the multiple reasons for this is your artless use of multiple accounts with which, to use your phrasing, you "significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result."

True, you're the only person on the default trust to abuse it, you're far from unique in that respect. What makes you noteworthy is the exceeding ineptitude with which you proceed to go about it.
In short, your lack of savoy faire - the social graces required of all but the lowliest of street hustlers, combined with unwillingness to follow the advice of your betters, makes you an embarrassment to those of us associated with these august fora.

"So where are these new examples of my duchebaggery," I almost hear you ask. "You promised!!"
Allow me to direct your attention to the PM in which you ask me to start a new thread on tspacepilot:

It would probably actually be best if you did reopen a thread so he can be called out and not censor others from agreeing that he actually did scam

I have taken the time to explain that doing so would only annoy the less quarrelsome members of this community, and that everyone's best interests would be best served by letting the matter drop. You thought you knew better and... here you are, embroiled in the same aspy drama that's an embarrassment not merely to everyone involved, but to every passer by

I'd like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that this is the Meta section, the Supreme Court of these boards, so to speak, where extant law is put to the test and consigned to the flames when found lacking. What has brought us here, sirs and madams, under these most unseemly circumstances?
Idiotic forum policies condoning account peddling and pay-to-spam advertising.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

LOL what? Did you read what I said? You are going between talking with a good amount of logic and talking like a crazy person (no offense).

[Quickseller]

More proof QuickSeller does not to deserve to be on default trust

- Aiding and abetting a ponzi https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1021240.msg11055166#msg11055166
- Selling hacked accounts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=884261.0
- Non-transparent escrow behavior (indicates scam attempt) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018585.msg11034617#msg11034617
- Using multiple shills to push up th eprice of his sold accounts

Credit to an anonymous source for providing this proof

Ouch.

Well that certainly is interesting.

What does Dogie have to do with the Quickseller account? That be my next question.


@TheGambler

Currently there is a strong strong undercurrent of covering of threads with these accounts all backing Dogie and Quickseller. Given that there is certainly more digging that should be done into who the hell this Quickseller really is and what sort of trust should be given someone who uses multiple accounts to boost sales and run up prices. Unethical and why would anyone ESCROW with someone you don't know their real name and some sort of identification or IRL meeting. Most of these long con scams in hardware revolve around any number of people being anonymous and shilling the shit out of the hardware.

You start seeing patterns in these accounts all gravitating towards covering each others asses it begs the question is it one person not 4 or 5?

Ask your source about Dogie and his relationship to Quickseller he might know.

You can always tell...
But where is this taking place? Where can I take a look for myself?

Im sorry bae, but if you seriously start to listen to what this guy says then you will find absolutely nothing on me lol. He will give you a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that not only make zero sense but even if true would not be wrong. There is actually a good chance that you would like me after talking to that guy........and we can't have that haha

[TerminatorXL]

[...]

Not sure what you're getting riled up about. I've defended you by pointing out that you haven't invented lying, cheating, or theft
You don't really think of yourself as the root of all evil, do you?

I think you have implied that I was doing all of those things on here which I have not.

Never in your life
I remember you asking me yesterday to prove that ACCTseller was your sock. And look, the very next day, with no effort from me whatsoever... *poof*! No more need for proof

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing wrong with having an alt account and it is against no rule. Having an alt account did not assist in any kind of scam, any kind of lie or in any kind of cheating.

>I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.
The difference being I've made no claims at being someone who belongs on some cheesy trust list, of being honest, or even of being a decent human being. I'm using an alt account to prove, by example, of just how ridiculous and intrinsically flawed this sort of thing is.

You still have not pointed out any transgression that I have done.

Sure I have, though not in the last two sentences
Hang tight, I'll restate my accusations, and even bring up a few more

>Also I have never used any account to support my own position.
You've left negative trust from at least 2 of your accounts to whateverhisnickis. If that's not supporting yourself with your alts, what is?

As I mentioned previously in one of the other threads, the first negative was left by ACCTSeller was because of something I felt was untrustworthy (trying to significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result), and was appropriate that the community be warned, but was not appropriate  for him to have a "warning:trade with extreme caution" tag. Once I found out that he had scammed, I left the more harsh negative rating from this account as anyone who has actually scammed (and not repaid what they stole) should have a "trade with extreme caution" tag.

You asked for an instance of your multiple accounts working in consort to "support [your] own position."
I have given you an example of you leaving multiple negative ratings, from two accounts that you control, to tspacepilot. Whatever your rationale, it is a clear case of using multiple accounts to "support [your] own position."

Now on to what you're being accused of.
You're accused of being unfit to be on the default trust. One of the multiple reasons for this is your artless use of multiple accounts with which, to use your phrasing, you "significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result."

True, you're the only person on the default trust to abuse it, you're far from unique in that respect. What makes you noteworthy is the exceeding ineptitude with which you proceed to go about it.
In short, your lack of savoy faire - the social graces required of all but the lowliest of street hustlers, combined with unwillingness to follow the advice of your betters, makes you an embarrassment to those of us associated with these august fora.

"So where are these new examples of my duchebaggery," I almost hear you ask. "You promised!!"
Allow me to direct your attention to the PM in which you ask me to start a new thread on tspacepilot:

It would probably actually be best if you did reopen a thread so he can be called out and not censor others from agreeing that he actually did scam

I have taken the time to explain that doing so would only annoy the less quarrelsome members of this community, and that everyone's best interests would be best served by letting the matter drop. You thought you knew better and... here you are, embroiled in the same aspy drama that's an embarrassment not merely to everyone involved, but to every passer by

I'd like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that this is the Meta section, the Supreme Court of these boards, so to speak, where extant law is put to the test and consigned to the flames when found lacking. What has brought us here, sirs and madams, under these most unseemly circumstances?
Idiotic forum policies condoning account peddling and pay-to-spam advertising.

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

LOL what? Did you read what I said? You are going between talking with a good amount of logic and talking like a crazy person (no offense).

Sure. I've read what you said & replied. That was the logical part. Feel free to address it. Or not.

The batshit crazy part was meant to lampoon the general buffoonery of this thread - sleazebags accusing their fellow sleazebags of being sleazebags, with citations, parenthetical notes, and occasional referencing of various wikis.
...as the rest of us look on, facepalm, and, occasionally, point fingers and giggle.

If my stifled laughter and occasional finger-pointing appear to make light of the grave issues at play here, that was not my intent.
The Anons accounts whose fates hang in the balance herein deserve all due solemnity and respect. Occasionally.

[Bicknellski]

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

The biggest mic drop in these forum in years. Well said.

[koshgel]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

[Quickseller]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

I tried to get moreia (the OP) into thinking I wanted to start a ponzi with him in order to build trust with him so he would give up the identity of his alleged default trust account. I was not able to build up enough trust :/

[oxiyusuf]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

I tried to get moreia (the OP) into thinking I wanted to start a ponzi with him in order to build trust with him so he would give up the identity of his alleged default trust account. I was not able to build up enough trust :/

so, you've gained the trust now?

[Quickseller]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

I tried to get moreia (the OP) into thinking I wanted to start a ponzi with him in order to build trust with him so he would give up the identity of his alleged default trust account. I was not able to build up enough trust :/

so, you've gained the trust now?

No. Moreia did not fall for it. This should have been fairly evident in the post you quoted

[r3wt]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

1. QuickSeller = AcctSeller
2. QuickSeller is using default trust to lead a smear campaign against OP, under the premise of the OP's suspected involvement in a ponzi scheme.
3. OP is pissing in the wind.
4. bool DefaultTrust = withUs || againstUs;

[koshgel]

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

I tried to get moreia (the OP) into thinking I wanted to start a ponzi with him in order to build trust with him so he would give up the identity of his alleged default trust account. I was not able to build up enough trust :/

I see. Not sure why I wasn't able to see that from the original post.

Seems to be a lot of arguing in this thread. Can anyone break down what's happening?

Is there direct relation to ponzi involvement?

1. QuickSeller = AcctSeller
2. QuickSeller is using default trust to lead a smear campaign against OP, under the premise of the OP's suspected involvement in a ponzi scheme.
3. OP is pissing in the wind.
4. bool DefaultTrust = withUs || againstUs;

I like this answer the most 

[josef2000]

@TheGambler

You are the one who is scamming everyone on the forum. Why should we trust you instead of Quickseller, who is a trusted member of the forum. You have started serveral Ponzis(I guess) and scammed serveral people. Quickseller prevent these scams.
Dont overreact and try to post shit around this forum. You are only pissing against the wind, so the piss still gets into your face.
We should all be respectful for our scam busters on our forum, like Quickseller. I know he is sometimes too fast giving out trust ratings when he sees something fishy, but thats because he is cautious and care about the people who might get scammed. The poll will not help. Only the people that got the scam busted is arguing against Quickseller. He deserves to be on the defaulttrust, any engaging forum members that have an intention to help out other members should get on there.

TheGambler, please stop posting shit on this forum. You only post anything that has to do with scam.
Also, everybody that has a brain might notice that ACCTseller might be Quickseller. Whats so bad about it? Everyone can have alts, as long as the alt isnt a scammer account its ok.

I respect Quickseller, we should have more members that is engaging like him on our forum. Trusted and loyal members belong here, and not scammers like you

[TerminatorXL]

@TheGambler

You are the one who is scamming everyone on the forum. Why should we trust you instead of Quickseller, who is a trusted member of the forum. You have started serveral Ponzis(I guess) and scammed serveral people. Quickseller prevent these scams.

OP's credibility is irrelevant - his initial claim is not in dispute, FAIK. Quickseller tried to start a ponzi with OP. After OP rejected Quickseller's proposition & started this thread, Qickseller explained away his ponzi proposal by claiming he was trying to entrap OP.

Other than entrapment being grossly unethical, Quickseller's excuse falls squarely into the "yeah, right" category.

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

[Quickseller]

@TheGambler

You are the one who is scamming everyone on the forum. Why should we trust you instead of Quickseller, who is a trusted member of the forum. You have started serveral Ponzis(I guess) and scammed serveral people. Quickseller prevent these scams.

OP's credibility is irrelevant - his initial claim is not in dispute, FAIK. Quickseller tried to start a ponzi with OP. After OP rejected Quickseller's proposition & started this thread, Qickseller explained away his ponzi proposal by claiming he was trying to entrap OP.

Other than entrapment being grossly unethical, Quickseller's excuse falls squarely into the "yeah, right" category.

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

It was actually a ponzi game not a ponzi scam. A ponzi game, in theory can be a non-scam and there were many people advocating that people running ponzi games not be given negative trust because they can, in theory be "fair" (I was not one of these people). A ponzi scam on the other hand is simply something that is designed to build up credibility over a long enough time so that it can attract large amounts of money and eventually run away with investors' money (it also continuously will pay out older participants with new participants' money). Even if the entrapment claim/defense was not true, the facts being presented would not make me any less trustworthy (although one could argue that my judgment was poor by attempting to run a legit game with a well known scammer).

In order for something to be considered entrapment, the person committing the crime/scam would need to otherwise not commit such crime/scam if they were not influenced by the person attempting to entrap them. IIRC, the OP has scammed with either 5 or 6 HYIP schemes, none of which were ran at the same time, and it appears that he is about to add another one to his list. I believe well over half of these were done prior to me initially contacting him about running a potential ponzi game.

The fact of the matter is that the OP is a serial scammer, he has not scammed once and is forever tagged for one indiscretion, but rather has scammed several times and most likely intends to continue to scam. The thing about default trust accounts is that if a scammer is smart, they will not use them to scam directly, but rather will use them to give positive trust to his alts in order to give them additional credibility/trust throughout the community. Once their alts have enough trust, they scam and the default trust account can simply claim ignorance of the pending scam. This is why it is so important to find the OP default trust account (if it really exists) as he will likely use it to give additional credibility to his scams.