Quickseller Gave me a negative trust Without Considering any possibility

[TerminatorXL]

-snip-

The reason for using a throwaway account is this: Don't want my main account to get banned

http://s11.postimg.org/up85p4sw3/Capture.png

Are you the author of this article?

Broster, you & your buddies don't want to reveal the names of your alt accounts, and you expect me to confirm or deny my IRL name?
Nice try, Anon

[Muhammed Zakir]

Broster, you & your buddies don't want to reveal the names of your alt accounts,

 -snip-

Nice try, Anon

I am not his alt nor he is mine. I am not a close friend of his and thus, not a buddy.

P.S. I only have one alt which I haven't made any posts after March, 2014. Haven't used it for over 1 year now and will never be able to use it again.

and you expect me to confirm or deny my IRL name?

Oops. Didn't know it was your IRL name. You don't want to answer it then. Skip it.

[theymos]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

[Bicknellski]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Those 2 people need to cut him loose.

[TECSHARE]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Of course you and Badbear only reserve such measures for people like me with one single overblown accusation against me, but for people like Vod and Quickseller suddenly again you repeat the mantra of how you do not moderate trust.

[Twipple]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Now that you have seen this thread, can't you just look at the IP's used and everything to verify I am not the alt that he claims I am ? Kind of feeling ridiculous that even the forum doesn't do anything for such trust abuse that Quickseller is implementing.

[Muhammed Zakir]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Now that you have seen this thread, can't you just look at the IP's used and everything to verify I am not the alt that he claims I am ? Kind of feeling ridiculous that even the forum doesn't do anything for such trust abuse that Quickseller is implementing.

You can easily use a Tor or VPN. Also even if a scammer account was sold, negative feedback should not be removed. Proof for this are plausibly manipulated. Many threads will popup if negative feedback are removed for these kind of things. I feel sorry for your loose but you will have to live with it. I suggest you to join a campaign which accepts users with red rating.

[Twipple]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Now that you have seen this thread, can't you just look at the IP's used and everything to verify I am not the alt that he claims I am ? Kind of feeling ridiculous that even the forum doesn't do anything for such trust abuse that Quickseller is implementing.

You can easily use a Tor or VPN. Also even if a scammer account was sold, negative feedback should not be removed. Proof for this are plausibly manipulated. Many threads will popup if negative feedback are removed for these kind of things. I feel sorry for your loose but you will have to live with it. I suggest you to join a campaign which accepts users with red rating.

Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have.  Obviously TOR/VPN can be used, but I don't think tacoman or me were using that before the negative trust was given.

Also, Twipple had no traces of scam or anything . Its just the address that was posted by Twipple which somehow was related with the address that tacoman posted which I believe both of them were deposit address for the same site like localbitcoins or a gambling site.

[alani123]

M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have.

I like to be part of this forum and I need to post for this to happen. Putting a paid sig helps me get some money atleast for the time I spend. If you think I am spamming, feel free to report those spammy posts or tell a mod that I am spamming & to ban me.

Obviously TOR/VPN can be used, but I don't think tacoman or me were using that before the negative trust was given.

How can you tell tacoman didn't use VPN/Tor before getting negative trust? It is obvious scammers use VPN/Tor when/before they start to scam.

Also, Twipple had no traces of scam or anything . Its just the address that was posted by Twipple which somehow was related with the address that tacoman posted which I believe both of them were deposit address for the same site like localbitcoins or a gambling site.

Blazr did a great analysis but result was negative (for you). If you can provide proof it is a deposit/withdrawal address of an exchange/gambling site, it will be removed.

M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.

I post what I understand/know. Twipple requested/said theymos to do an IP check and I said it may not work. May I know if there is something wrong in what I said? The post you are referring to isn't derailing or irrelevant.

[alani123]

I'm not saying that what you're saying here is wrong, I just notice you post on threads about Quickseller too often and defending his actions most of the time.

[Bicknellski]

M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.

There is a pattern across more than just the MZ account and Quickseller.

Reason?

Same person?

Partner?

Paid shill?

Spam of someone building the account for sale later?

[Twipple]

Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have.

I like to be part of this forum and I need to post for this to happen. Putting a paid sig helps me get some money atleast for the time I spend. If you think I am spamming, feel free to report those spammy posts or tell a mod that I am spamming & to ban me.

Then stop posting the obvious, ofcourse I know he could be using TOR/VPN , and so does Theymos or any admins , but there are other reasons I believe he was using a normal IP before based on his posts.

With your unnecessary comments you are just supporting Quickseller, without knowing all the facts.
PS: Get a life, don't just post on the forum to be paid.


As for Blazr's analysis, it was just on the exchange sites. It could perhaps be any Online bitcoin service. its almost impossible to know which one, but all the transactions happening or happened with those wallet addresses do point out that it is not one person's wallet, those addresses have been used only once, and only in that sweep together.

[Twipple]

Still sticking to what I said. Isn't it obvious already, that it is an exchange/gambling site/Bitcoin service address ?
The addresses have been used only once, and only for funds transfer outside to another address. It clearly follows an exchange/gambling site deposit pattern.

Even if we stick to what Quickseller said, that common owner behind them, then even with that, no one creates a brand new wallet, creates 3 addresses under it, and imports them together, and only use them for sending money out, ONLY ONCE , so his bitcointalk accounts could be neg repped 3 months later.

3-4 of these addresses which were sweeped, have only one transaction. All you need to do is follow the transactions, and it will become evident that they are from any exchange/site.

And My MAIN ARGUMENT :
If Twipple was actually a scammer, and was ditching the account, why would he request a loan to the only address that will lead to him being tracked, and that too for an amount, which is 1/3rd of the amount, he would have easily got if he sold the account ? It all clearly doesn't add up.
Even the loan amount doesn't move out until 6 days later when it is sweeped out, together with all the addresses.

[Twipple]

Here is the address he mentioned I am in control of : https://blockchain.info/address/1Fo6Uy8JWnV9SnDM5LBnYA8nnCQgbfbyDT

Click on any transaction , and tell me if you see it being used as an individual user's transaction. And the keys claimed are used only in one transaction. 

[tspacepilot]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread). 

If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write

~Quickseller

then he is excluded?

Is that actually correct?

[Muhammed Zakir]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread). 

If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write

~Quickseller

then he is excluded?

Is that actually correct?

Yes. No. of persons who exclude must be greater than number of people who add him. If 1 more person in trust depth 1 add him, 3 people in trust depth will have to exclude him.

[tspacepilot]

As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.

Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.

Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread). 

If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write

~Quickseller

then he is excluded?

Is that actually correct?

Yes. No. of persons who exclude must be greater than number of people who add him. If 1 more person in trust depth 1 add him, 3 people in trust depth will have to exclude him.

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

[Vod]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link.  

Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11193212#msg11193212

[Quickseller]

Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it?  How did you know this?

Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link. 

Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.msg11193212#msg11193212

He actually responded to that exact quote, the response was several days after theymos had posted that statement.