Imposter Warning for Newbies! (thank you)

[OgNasty]

!!! WARNING: This user is a newbie. If you are expecting a message from a more veteran member, then this is an imposter !!!

I just wanted to say thank you for whoever put in this warning when getting PMs from newbies.  I've noticed an uptick in people trying to scam those accepting my escrow services by impersonating me and asking for BTC.  I believe this warning will stop those scammers dead in their tracks, and I just wanted to say thank you to whoever is responsible. 

I'll admit I have been a bit frustrated in the past by the lack of moderation when it comes to scammers, but this really is a great feature that I think will save people from losing their coins.  Thanks!

[1715631582]

1715631582

[1715631582]

1715631582

[1715631582]

1715631582

[bitcoin_bagholder]

Agreed, great feature for the forum.

There is no joy in mudville over this for the bitcointalk scammers.

[Mt. Gox]

!!! WARNING: This user is a newbie. If you are expecting a message from a more veteran member, then this is an imposter !!!

I just wanted to say thank you for whoever put in this warning when getting PMs from newbies.  I've noticed an uptick in people trying to scam those accepting my escrow services by impersonating me and asking for BTC.  I believe this warning will stop those scammers dead in their tracks, and I just wanted to say thank you to whoever is responsible. 

I'll admit I have been a bit frustrated in the past by the lack of moderation when it comes to scammers, but this really is a great feature that I think will save people from losing their coins.  Thanks!

It was actually done 5 days ago by theymos. You can find the official thread with the announcement here:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1043941

Moderation doesn't spend too much time dealing with scammers because there is too much of them and recognizing scammers and policing the forums for likely scams isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Most people who have been on the forums for long enough will probably make sure to double check the username to see if it's the actual person who they're speaking with but sadly, sometimes this doesn't always happen.

Example:

How did he scam assets out of you?

He created accounts with names that were almost identical to names on the stakeholderlist.

So there would be dudexxx on the list and he would create an account dudexx.

I always check on the google spreadsheet with the search function if the PMs really came from stakeholders. If the search function finds the text you are looking for it marks the entire cell green not just the letters which is why i didn't notize the one missing character. Cell lit up green so I thought it was a match...

Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=677064.msg7673786#msg7673786

[Astargath]

Thats definitely a really good feature however i never understood the lack of scam moderation either. In the scam section there are plenty of accusations that are already shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt and the scammer accused is still in the forum, yeah he might have red trust, but why isnt he banned? And before you say things like, its hard, it wont help banning him, what about the other bans that are happening, the sig campaign bans for useless posts, how come they have time to moderate that?

[Lorenzo]

Thats definitely a really good feature however i never understood the lack of scam moderation either. In the scam section there are plenty of accusations that are already shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt and the scammer accused is still in the forum, yeah he might have red trust, but why isnt he banned? And before you say things like, its hard, it wont help banning him, what about the other bans that are happening, the sig campaign bans for useless posts, how come they have time to moderate that?

If moderators/administrators assumed the responsibility of identifying scammers, then it's quite possible that the community might become more lax and less vigilant about identifying scammers and all of the bannings could potentially create a false sense of security. Those scammers who do pass the staff's checks would then be able to cause even more damage when their ponzi/dice site/exchange/whatever shuts down. Hence the trust system is there so that we can see make our own judgements as to whether or not something is likely to be a scam. Once an account has deep red trust, there is no way that anyone is going to trust them for any further trades so banning them would be unnecessary.

Also, there is a question of who should be banned as well. I won't say any names but there have been people who made a mistake and blew their investors' funds, but later came back and admitted to their mistake and are now active members of the community. Then there are cases like Inputs.io and Mt. Gox where it's not clear what exactly happened. Were they scams? We can't really know for certain.

For a normal forum, it would probably make sense for moderators/administrators to identify and remove likely and confirmed scams. For a community such as this one where a large percentage of all services end up being scams and new ones pop up daily (check out the investor-based games subforum for examples), it would just be too much work.

[Astargath]

Thats definitely a really good feature however i never understood the lack of scam moderation either. In the scam section there are plenty of accusations that are already shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt and the scammer accused is still in the forum, yeah he might have red trust, but why isnt he banned? And before you say things like, its hard, it wont help banning him, what about the other bans that are happening, the sig campaign bans for useless posts, how come they have time to moderate that?

If moderators/administrators assumed the responsibility of identifying scammers, then it's quite possible that the community might become more lax and less vigilant about identifying scammers and all of the bannings could potentially create a false sense of security. Those scammers who do pass the staff's checks would then be able to cause even more damage when their ponzi/dice site/exchange/whatever shuts down. Hence the trust system is there so that we can see make our own judgements as to whether or not something is likely to be a scam. Once an account has deep red trust, there is no way that anyone is going to trust them for any further trades so banning them would be unnecessary.

Also, there is a question of who should be banned as well. I won't say any names but there have been people who made a mistake and blew their investors' funds, but later came back and admitted to their mistake and are now active members of the community. Then there are cases like Inputs.io and Mt. Gox where it's not clear what exactly happened. Were they scams? We can't really know for certain.

For a normal forum, it would probably make sense for moderators/administrators to identify and remove likely and confirmed scams. For a community such as this one where a large percentage of all services end up being scams and new ones pop up daily (check out the investor-based games subforum for examples), it would just be too much work.

So the excuse: ''It would be too much work'' is a valid one? Then you could say that for anything and let every thief escape because it would be too hard to catch all of them so we let all escape. Is not that admins or mods have to assume the responsibility of anything, they only have to ban those scammers that are already confirmed, they dont have to do anything if there are proofs of their scam, thats why i said beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know if you follow me here

[Muhammed Zakir]

So the excuse: ''It would be too much work'' is a valid one? Then you could say that for anything and let every thief escape because it would be too hard to catch all of them so we let all escape. Is not that admins or mods have to assume the responsibility of anything, they only have to ban those scammers that are already confirmed, they dont have to do anything if there are proofs of their scam, thats why i said beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know if you follow me here

Nope. The excuse is "it is impossible if you want to be fair and just"

[Astargath]

So the excuse: ''It would be too much work'' is a valid one? Then you could say that for anything and let every thief escape because it would be too hard to catch all of them so we let all escape. Is not that admins or mods have to assume the responsibility of anything, they only have to ban those scammers that are already confirmed, they dont have to do anything if there are proofs of their scam, thats why i said beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know if you follow me here

Nope. The excuse is "it is impossible if you want to be fair and just"

How can you be fair and just then? In your opinion? Isnt that how real life works? we have a jury wich is a person who decides if it was right or wrong and if the proofs or evidence was enough, why wont that work here? I still dont get it

[hilariousandco]

So the excuse: ''It would be too much work'' is a valid one? Then you could say that for anything and let every thief escape because it would be too hard to catch all of them so we let all escape. Is not that admins or mods have to assume the responsibility of anything, they only have to ban those scammers that are already confirmed, they dont have to do anything if there are proofs of their scam, thats why i said beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know if you follow me here

Nope. The excuse is "it is impossible if you want to be fair and just"

How can you be fair and just then? In your opinion? Isnt that how real life works? we have a jury wich is a person who decides if it was right or wrong and if the proofs or evidence was enough, why wont that work here? I still dont get it

But this forum doesn't want or have the time to be a judge and jury on scammers, that's up to the community to police. Staff have enough to deal with just on the day-to-day running of the site and cleaning it up rather than adding dealing with scammers into the mix which would increase workload tenfold.

[ACCTseller]

The difference between this change and the forum banning scammers is that this change generally will prevent scams from happening in the first place while banning scams would force the forum to make determinations that it is really not equipped to make.

[boxkite]

The difference []

Any reason you're not posting these pearls of wisdom from your main account? Other than farming this alt?

[hilariousandco]

The difference []

Any reason you're not posting these pearls of wisdom from your main account? Other than farming this alt?

Any reason you're not posting them from yours? I really don't know what you're trying to achieve here other than trolling.

[boxkite]

The difference []

Any reason you're not posting these pearls of wisdom from your main account? Other than farming this alt?

Any reason you're not posting them from yours? I really don't know what you're trying to achieve here other than trolling.

This is my main account. Not the case with ACCTseller. I know that to be true because Quickseller has admitted to it.

If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[hilariousandco]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

[boxkite]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

You sound exactly like Quickseller. "We all know"
Unless you're pompous enough to use royal plural, "we" know no such thing.
Quickseller did try to keep his ACCTSeller alt a secret, until he was cornered, like a rat, by another scammer. At which point he owned it, and hence my question re. why he isn't posting from his main account.**Using "main account" in the broad sense. Quickseller is yet to disclose his original Bitcointalk account, so I wouldn't know if he posts from it

[marcotheminer]

Oh boy, here we go again.

[hilariousandco]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

You sound exactly like Quickseller. "We all know"
Unless you're pompous enough to use royal plural, "we" know no such thing.
Quickseller did try to keep his ACCTSeller alt a secret, until he was cornered, like a rat, by another scammer. At which point he owned it, and hence my question re. why he isn't posting from his main account.**Using "main account" in the broad sense. Quickseller is yet to disclose his original Bitcointalk account, so I wouldn't know if he posts from it

I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

[Quickseller]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

You sound exactly like Quickseller. "We all know"
Unless you're pompous enough to use royal plural, "we" know no such thing.
Quickseller did try to keep his ACCTSeller alt a secret, until he was cornered, like a rat, by another scammer. At which point he owned it, and hence my question re. why he isn't posting from his main account.**Using "main account" in the broad sense. Quickseller is yet to disclose his original Bitcointalk account, so I wouldn't know if he posts from it

I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

lol what?

[boxkite]

[]
I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

He was "playing"? Now that playtime's over, see my first post in this thread.
If by "we" you mean "everybody," then you're simply wrong: I, for one, do not. But nice tagteam trolling + bonus for earning a few satoshi with your posts.

Oh boy, here we go again.

I've failed to provide you with the elevated philosophical discourse you've grown so accustomed to here, on Bitcointalk?
So sue me

[Muhammed Zakir]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

You sound exactly like Quickseller. "We all know"
Unless you're pompous enough to use royal plural, "we" know no such thing.
Quickseller did try to keep his ACCTSeller alt a secret, until he was cornered, like a rat, by another scammer. At which point he owned it, and hence my question re. why he isn't posting from his main account.**Using "main account" in the broad sense. Quickseller is yet to disclose his original Bitcointalk account, so I wouldn't know if he posts from it

I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

lol what?

QS is less active on days hilariousandco is more active. Looks like true.

[marcotheminer]

[]
I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

He was "playing"? Now that playtime's over, see my first post in this thread.
If by "we" you mean "everybody," then you're simply wrong: I, for one, do not. But nice tagteam trolling + bonus for earning a few satoshi with your posts.

Oh boy, here we go again.

I've failed to provide you with the elevated philosophical discourse you've grown so accustomed to here, on Bitcointalk?
So sue me

No, it's just another thread that's been led astray by the Quickseller vs Members fights. I think there are enough threads where you could divert the drama to.

[boxkite]

[]
I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

He was "playing"? Now that playtime's over, see my first post in this thread.
If by "we" you mean "everybody," then you're simply wrong: I, for one, do not. But nice tagteam trolling + bonus for earning a few satoshi with your posts.

Oh boy, here we go again.

I've failed to provide you with the elevated philosophical discourse you've grown so accustomed to here, on Bitcointalk?
So sue me

No, it's just another thread that's been led astray by the Quickseller vs Members fights. I think there are enough threads where you could divert the drama to.

Yeah, you're right. You know what they say tho, qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.bitches love Latin.
Please don't mistake this for me undervaluing the importance of this lofty topic - fawning thanking theymos for adding some red text to n00b PMs.

[Jeremycoin]

I've received a message like that too, and who sent those message? the sender which is the newbie? or admin?

[koshgel]

I've received a message like that too, and who sent those message? the sender which is the newbie? or admin?

Whenever a newbie sends a message, the warning is automatically attached.

[redsn0w]

We all know that's not true. And I don't ever think it was a secret that that account belonged to him (not that there is anything wrong with that either).

You sound exactly like Quickseller. "We all know"
Unless you're pompous enough to use royal plural, "we" know no such thing.
Quickseller did try to keep his ACCTSeller alt a secret, until he was cornered, like a rat, by another scammer. At which point he owned it, and hence my question re. why he isn't posting from his main account.**Using "main account" in the broad sense. Quickseller is yet to disclose his original Bitcointalk account, so I wouldn't know if he posts from it

I am Quickseller's original account  . 'We' as in everybody. And no, it wasn't a secret, you just didn't know about it and he was playing with the guy who wasn't sure.

Are you serious ? I am really impressed, however good to know (this forum is awesome, every day you will be more impressed).

I've received a message like that too, and who sent those message? the sender which is the newbie? or admin?

Whenever a newbie sends a message, the warning is automatically attached.

Yes, remember to remove the warnin before reply to that PM or better don't use the quote function .

[erikalui]

I too like the new warning but it should be a customized option only for those newbies who are creating accounts with usernames similar of other trusted users. Also, the message should be like a Warning sign and not attached to the message. It can be a text next to the "Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages."

I am probably now expecting to have an option to be disable this warning.

[hilariousandco]

I too like the new warning but it should be a customized option only for those newbies who are creating accounts with usernames similar of other trusted users.

And how would that work? It would be impossible to work effectively. I think if possible the text should show up external to the actual message or not show up with the quote but it's not that much of a big deal.

[erikalui]

And how would that work? It would be impossible to work effectively. I think if possible the text should show up external to the actual message or not show up with the quote but it's not that much of a big deal.

Ok, this might be impossible to work out but how about only "Brand New" members having this warning attached when they send messages? It's mainly "Brand New" members with "0" activity who behave as imposters as if they post anywhere in the forum, they can be easily traced and hence receive a negative feedback which makes it difficult for them to trade.

"Newbie" members mostly aren't imposters as they usually participate in this forum. Also, the Newbie status remains for more than 4 weeks and hence every message they send will have such warnings.

This message seems more relevant to those "Brand New" imposters rather than all newbies. If the "Brand New" rank remains till a user does not have a minimum activity of about "4-5", it would make the message more relevant.

[hilariousandco]

And how would that work? It would be impossible to work effectively. I think if possible the text should show up external to the actual message or not show up with the quote but it's not that much of a big deal.

Ok, this might be impossible to work out but how about only "Brand New" members having this warning attached when they send messages? It's mainly "Brand New" members with "0" activity who behave as imposters as if they post anywhere in the forum, they can be easily traced and hence receive a negative feedback which makes it difficult for them to trade.

Then they will just make one post to get around that. Maybe adding an additional warning about the dangers of dealing with newbies could be added as its still risky dealing with newbs even if they're not trying to impersonating someone.  

[erikalui]

Then they will just make one post to get around that. Maybe adding an additional warning about the dangers of dealing with newbies could be added as its still risky dealing with newbs even if they're not trying to impersonating someone.  

Yeah! When they make 1 post at least, there are high chances that they will have a (-1) trust which already has a warning "Trade with caution" attached with their account and this second warning won't be much of a use. Additional warning would be fine but again not preferable as a text but a warning next to "Note: PM privacy...." so that it doesn't get attached with the message.

[hilariousandco]

Then they will just make one post to get around that. Maybe adding an additional warning about the dangers of dealing with newbies could be added as its still risky dealing with newbs even if they're not trying to impersonating someone.  

Yeah! When they make 1 post at least, there are high chances that they will have a (-1) trust which already has a warning "Trade with caution" attached with their account and this second warning won't be much of a use. Additional warning would be fine but again not preferable as a text but a warning next to "Note: PM privacy...." so that it doesn't get attached with the message.

Not necessarily. They could easily just make a post in some obscure sub and go unnoticed but if they got busted they'd just try again on another account.

[shorena]

Then they will just make one post to get around that. Maybe adding an additional warning about the dangers of dealing with newbies could be added as its still risky dealing with newbs even if they're not trying to impersonating someone.  

Yeah! When they make 1 post at least, there are high chances that they will have a (-1) trust which already has a warning "Trade with caution" attached with their account and this second warning won't be much of a use. Additional warning would be fine but again not preferable as a text but a warning next to "Note: PM privacy...." so that it doesn't get attached with the message.

Not necessarily. They could easily just make a post in some obscure sub and go unnoticed but if they got busted they'd just try again on another account.

The same might be true for newbies in the future. All it takes is 30 days and posts. I have to admit though that a "theyrnos" or "hilariousanclco" is harder to hide for 30 days in an "obscure" sub than 1 day.

[Mt. Gox]

Fortunately the problem of imposter accounts seems to be an eventually self-correcting problem since the pool of usernames which might resemble a trusted user would get smaller and smaller over time.

...Most people who have been on the forums for long enough will probably make sure to double check the username to see if it's the actual person who they're speaking with but sadly, sometimes this doesn't always happen.

Example:

How did he scam assets out of you?

He created accounts with names that were almost identical to names on the stakeholderlist.

So there would be dudexxx on the list and he would create an account dudexx.

I always check on the google spreadsheet with the search function if the PMs really came from stakeholders. If the search function finds the text you are looking for it marks the entire cell green not just the letters which is why i didn't notize the one missing character. Cell lit up green so I thought it was a match...

Link: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=677064.msg7673786#msg7673786

I retract the above statement because upon further analysis, I doubt even a warning message would have helped in the above situation I linked to:

...Of course all accounts were brand new but then so are many of our stakeholders so that didn't really ring any alarm bells.

So it's not completely foolproof although I suppose the presence of the warning itself might encourage people to become more vigilant in these situations.

So the excuse: ''It would be too much work'' is a valid one? Then you could say that for anything and let every thief escape because it would be too hard to catch all of them so we let all escape. Is not that admins or mods have to assume the responsibility of anything, they only have to ban those scammers that are already confirmed, they dont have to do anything if there are proofs of their scam, thats why i said beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know if you follow me here

The number of scams where it can be confirmed to be a scam without a doubt is actually quite small. Usually it's only when the scammer confesses that you can remove every other possibility.

[guitarplinker]

I think it would also be a decent idea to somehow highlight newbies who post in the Marketplace section. Since the newbie PM warning has come into effect, I've seen a few threads where newbies are trying to publicly scam potential buyers. I don't think anyone has been scammed yet, but there have been a few close calls.

Ex: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023218.msg11312057#msg11312057 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049386.msg11376537#msg11376537

Maybe if their rank was highlighted red, or there was a message under their name saying "Warning: this user is a newbie!" that would prevent some of these public scam attempts. What do you guys think about this idea?

Edit: I did an inspect element with my idea, I was thinking it could look something like this:

[Mt. Gox]

I think it would also be a decent idea to somehow highlight newbies who post in the Marketplace section. Since the newbie PM warning has come into effect, I've seen a few threads where newbies are trying to publicly scam potential buyers. I don't think anyone has been scammed yet, but there have been a few close calls.

Ex: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023218.msg11312057#msg11312057 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049386.msg11376537#msg11376537

Maybe if their rank was highlighted red, or there was a message under their name saying "Warning: this user is a newbie!" that would prevent some of these public scam attempts. What do you guys think about this idea?

Edit: I did an inspect element with my idea, I was thinking it could look something like this:

I edited your picture to make it more representative of what you might actually see since that newbie already has red trust and a signature and personal message that says "Sr. Member" (huh?):



Personally, it feels a little bit redundant but I can see how highlighting the rank could be useful. In any case, using escrow is recommended when you're dealing with other members regardless of whether they are newbies, junior members, full members, etc.

[guitarplinker]

I edited your picture to make it more representative of what you might actually see since that newbie already has red trust and a signature and personal message that says "Sr. Member" (huh?):



Personally, it feels a little bit redundant but I can see how highlighting the rank could be useful. In any case, using escrow is recommended when you're dealing with other members regardless of whether they are newbies, junior members, full members, etc.

Thanks, that probably is a better example of what it would look like on a normal Newbie account. Anyway, this user was a newbie imposter which is the reason for the red trust and the misleading sig/personal text saying Sr. Member. Obviously you can't go wrong using a trusted escrow, but I've seen a few people get screwed over by falling for these newbie lookalike scams.