cryptodevil has left negative trust on a bought account

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules.   Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole  which you already know.  Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.

The OP(or at least the account I guess) is one of the shill accounts of the now failing ponzi scheme Cloudmining.website. The recent threads might be the reason why CD chose to tag them now

Ok I have no idea about any of that.  And ponzis are also allowed on this forum, and I'm sticking with what I wrote above.  I don't support ponzis, but if they're bad enough to earn negative trust, they ought to be banned.

[1714796093]

1714796093

[1714796093]

1714796093

[1714796093]

1714796093

[mexxer-2]

I don't support ponzis, but if they're bad enough to earn negative trust, they ought to be banned.

Quoting Lauda for you

Depends on who you ask about it. However, if it were to be removed then investor-based "games" should be banned completely else something like this will happen again:

Some time ago the "Investor games" polluted the Games board.

Tolerating them as they are right now(negs here and there) is fine IMO, as I'm pretty sure they are not going anywhere any time soon

[suchmoon]

Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth

That is impossible to do and you should know this. You should know very well that it would be trivial for someone to use an alt account to create a facade that an account was purchased, even if an escrow is used as many escrows provide their services for free (a small number will even cover tx fees).

It is up to the person leaving the trust to "prove" (or some derivative of "prove") that an account was not sold when relating to some kind of alleged action/scam that took place a long time ago.

It is up to the aggressor to make their case, and only when such aggressor has made a strong enough case does the person being called a scammer need to present some evidence in his defense. I don't think you would like it very much if the OP were to say that you stole 100BTC from him and tried to force to you prove your own innocence.

So how does that work then? Any red tagged scammer can say "I bought this account just recently" and you would defend their right to get the negs removed?

The OP has no case. The OP has nobody else to blame for the incredibly dumb decision to buy a known ponzi shill account if the purchase really took place.

Funny how SpanishSoldier hasn't posted even once in this thread but the usual suspects are busy inventing new precedent. Good luck with that.

[Quickseller]

Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth

That is impossible to do and you should know this. You should know very well that it would be trivial for someone to use an alt account to create a facade that an account was purchased, even if an escrow is used as many escrows provide their services for free (a small number will even cover tx fees).

It is up to the person leaving the trust to "prove" (or some derivative of "prove") that an account was not sold when relating to some kind of alleged action/scam that took place a long time ago.

It is up to the aggressor to make their case, and only when such aggressor has made a strong enough case does the person being called a scammer need to present some evidence in his defense. I don't think you would like it very much if the OP were to say that you stole 100BTC from him and tried to force to you prove your own innocence.

So how does that work then? Any red tagged scammer can say "I bought this account just recently" and you would defend their right to get the negs removed?

Someone who wishes to leave negative trust today for someone who scammed someone two months ago should check the security log for any password changes between when the scam occurred and today. If the password changed in the relevant timeframe then someone wishing to leave negative trust needs to consider if these password changes reasonably resemble the ownership of the account changing hands. If the password has changed between when the scam occurred and today then ownership of the account changing can be refuted with blockchain evidence (and/or other evidence to otherwise prove that the person before the password changed is the same person as after the password changed).

In the same example as above, if someone scammed two months ago and I leave negative trust today, if the password were to change in a week I would not consider to remove my negative rating just because there is evidence that ownership changed hands after the account was marked as a scammer.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Sorry to be a bit off topic here but Cryptodevil seems to have been removed from the DT.What Am I missing ?

[Quickseller]

Sorry to be a bit off topic here but Cryptodevil seems to have been removed from the DT.What Am I missing ?

You must be using some kind of custom trust list. He is still in dooglus's trust list.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Sorry to be a bit off topic here but Cryptodevil seems to have been removed from the DT.What Am I missing ?

You must be using some kind of custom trust list. He is still in dooglus's trust list.

Ah well! Thanks for pointing it out.

[shorena]

-snip-
Someone who wishes to leave negative trust today for someone who scammed someone two months ago should check the security log for any password changes between when the scam occurred and today. If the password changed in the relevant timeframe then someone wishing to leave negative trust needs to consider if these password changes reasonably resemble the ownership of the account changing hands. If the password has changed between when the scam occurred and today then ownership of the account changing can be refuted with blockchain evidence (and/or other evidence to otherwise prove that the person before the password changed is the same person as after the password changed).

In the same example as above, if someone scammed two months ago and I leave negative trust today, if the password were to change in a week I would not consider to remove my negative rating just because there is evidence that ownership changed hands after the account was marked as a scammer.

#1 use PayPal for a deal
#2 wait 1-3 months
#3 fake account trade
#4 wait a little longer
#5 charge back
#6 "account was sold m'kay"
#7 profit

There is no perfect solution to this. I think you are just in on this because it gives you ammunition for your case against doog.

[whywefight]

Even sirius said there that he regrets his decision to hand over Bitcointalk to current "authorities".

where can this statement be found?

[Quickseller]

-snip-
Someone who wishes to leave negative trust today for someone who scammed someone two months ago should check the security log for any password changes between when the scam occurred and today. If the password changed in the relevant timeframe then someone wishing to leave negative trust needs to consider if these password changes reasonably resemble the ownership of the account changing hands. If the password has changed between when the scam occurred and today then ownership of the account changing can be refuted with blockchain evidence (and/or other evidence to otherwise prove that the person before the password changed is the same person as after the password changed).

In the same example as above, if someone scammed two months ago and I leave negative trust today, if the password were to change in a week I would not consider to remove my negative rating just because there is evidence that ownership changed hands after the account was marked as a scammer.

#1 use PayPal for a deal
#2 wait 1-3 months
#3 fake account trade
#4 wait a little longer
#5 charge back
#6 "account was sold m'kay"
#7 profit

A couple of points.

#It is a bad idea to accept PayPal from someone unless they have a very strong reputation, and this is regardless of the amount in question (it really is an overall bad idea to accept PayPal at all).

#Accounts with very strong reputation have incentives to maintain their reputation because of the money they can earn from such reputation (ex., from escrow fees, from being able to charge a premium/pay a discount for Bitcoin and other things that are traded, borrowers are more likely to request loans from reputable lenders, being able to charge a premium for their signature, ability to run a business).

#someone who is able to buy any significant amounts of Bitcoin with their PayPal will have significant amounts of trust that would equate to people trusting them with large amounts of Bitcoin/money either via sending first or trusting them to act as escrow.

#when an account is revealed as being sold, it will often lose significant amounts of its trust (ratings).

#The prices of forum accounts are currently very low.

With the above being said, if someone were to (attempt to) charge back PayPal transaction(s) worth large amounts then they might as well simply take Bitcoin (and/or other valuable property) without giving their trading partner anything in return. If they were to try the scheme you described then they would likely lose their existing reputation and would be left with an account that they might as well purchase on the cheap.

Also, PayPal does not have a "chargeback button" and they will not necessarily agree with every dispute, especially those regarding transactions that happened several months ago.

There is also the point that the admins can better tell for sure if an account was actually sold and can leave trust accordingly if they feel that a negative rating is warranted.

[Digitalbitcoin]

Why cryptodevil wants prove that everyone is scammer. Rather he is a scammer. Making negative rating on user accounts without any accurate reason.
He gives me negative rating for nothing, even can also check my profile with reference link. There is nothing I have posted even whatever if posted by mistake as was newbie I have make it all clear.

Even never ask for loan or any type of payment to any user in forum. SO why this cryptodevil doing devil activities with forum member.

Even people are on forum already know who is scammer or not.

Even on PM i contact he says me that I have put a link of my website and that website showing some of pozni ads on website and for that reason he gives negative trust. I asked to give referance link where I have post such link but fuuuuss. nothing was there so,
what the f**k is this.

And who gives rights to give false negative rating to member without any strong reason.

User on internet are that much aware to understand where to believe or not. There is no need to say them.

SO why  ?


My suggestion is to Ban this cryptodevil. So that he can feel pains. And I will feel happy.

[Vod]

Why cryptodevil wants prove that everyone is scammer. Rather he is a scammer. Making negative rating on user accounts without any accurate reason.
He gives me negative rating for nothing, even can also check my profile with reference link. There is nothing I have posted even whatever if posted by mistake as was newbie I have make it all clear.

Even never ask for loan or any type of payment to any user in forum. SO why this cryptodevil doing devil activities with forum member.

Even people are on forum already know who is scammer or not.

Even on PM i contact he says me that I have put a link of my website and that website showing some of pozni ads on website and for that reason he gives negative trust. I asked to give referance link where I have post such link but fuuuuss. nothing was there so,
what the f**k is this.

And who gives rights to give false negative rating to member without any strong reason.

User on internet are that much aware to understand where to believe or not. There is no need to say them.

SO why  ?


My suggestion is to Ban this cryptodevil. So that he can feel pains. And I will feel happy.

I see you deleted a lot of your old incriminating messages.  Of course you are going to look "innocent" now...

[Digitalbitcoin]

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

[Digitalbitcoin]

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

But what if he fails to proove it ?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

He doesn't have to prove anything to you.  No one does on this forum.  It's enough to suspect someone is a scammer.   Now suck it the fuck up, be a man, and move on.

[Digitalbitcoin]

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

He doesn't have to prove anything to you.  No one does on this forum.  It's enough to suspect someone is a scammer.   Now suck it the fuck up, be a man, and move on.

Ok I agree But. I think that he can also give neutral feed back as giving user option to trust specific user or not but placing negative mark makes people interrogative without knowing facts. Even no trade happened within me and cryptodevil.

[Digitalbitcoin]

Ya because I see lots of user posts links there. Nothing else. Even I have personally correct all data and make it useful for forum user.

But as I read for negative rating User must get scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. In such case only user can give negative rating.

I am challenging cryptodevil to prove how I scam him and for what amount. If he prove it I will leave this forever.

He doesn't have to prove anything to you.  No one does on this forum.  It's enough to suspect someone is a scammer.   Now suck it the fuck up, be a man, and move on.

Ok I agree But. I think that he can also give neutral feed back as giving user option to trust specific user or not but placing negative mark makes people interrogative without knowing facts. Even no trade happened within me and cryptodevil.

Well can more positive rating will override on negative ratings?

As if I have 1 negative feedback and 2 positive feedbacks can these condition override or affect on forum profile.

[Edwardard]

Well can more positive rating will override on negative ratings?

As if I have 1 negative feedback and 2 positive feedbacks can these condition override or affect on forum profile.

if you get more positive feedbacks from dt then the statement "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" which can be seen currently below your trust score will disappear. and also your overall trust score will improve a bit. but for that you have to earn many positive feedbacks from dt which maybe very hard for you. note that the negative feedbacks have more impact on your profile than the positive ones. so it is possible that the red colour you got may turn into black but not green. you can take macrotheminer, for example.

[Omegasun]

I have logged into this account after a long time and found that it is marked with negative trust, when I was not online. Since this account is in my possession, it has not been involved into any activity. The last post that was made by this account was on July 21, 2015, whereas the trust was left on August 3, 2015. I bought it in between and have nothing to do with cryptodevil's judgement about the activity of the previous owner. Therefore, my request was to remove the negative trust, so that I can normally use this account on this forum. But, after communicating with cryptodevil to & fro multiple times, this is what the end result is...

I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.

So, I would like to know from the forum administrators, who, I believe, have chosen a list of trusted members to leave feedback, why allowing account trading on Bitcointalk, if your trusted member thinks account buying is an act of deception?

poor OP. you must unsupport ponzi because thats a scam investment site. cryptodevil is just helping other people so that no will scam. the feedback in your trust is not for buying an acct. it for rpomoting ponzi scam.hahah

[cryptodevil]

Rather he is a scammer. Making negative rating on user accounts without any accurate reason.
He gives me negative rating for nothing, even can also check my profile with reference link. There is nothing I have posted even whatever if posted by mistake as was newbie I have make it all clear.

What, are you seven or something?

"I didn't do anything"
"He rated me for no reason. Check my posts, you can see I didn't do anything"
"Even if I did something it was because I was a newbie"

Just to clarify, bitcointalk has a backup site you can reference to find those 'awkward' posts you didn't make.

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/oxbtc-integrated-investment-platform-cloud-mining-bitcoin-litcoin-deposit.564642/#post-13221418


You then asked me to delete the rating after you removed that review, to which I responded:

I see you still promote eobot 'cloud mining' on your site, a known ponzi scam. That's hardly the behaviour of an honest person.

You deleted that review and then asked again for me to delete the rating to which I responded:

Your site is explicitly promoting nexusmining, a known cloud mining ponzi and, what's more, one that you must know is a known cloud mining ponzi but choose to promote anyway.

That's hardly the action of a trustworthy person.

Your reply was a convoluted explanation of all your websites and the things you do and how you've been ripped off, too, etc. etc.

Had you simply removed your nexusmining promotion instead of trying to justify it I would have removed the rating. Since then I didn't hear anything from you about it other than today's posts in this thread.

I'll delete the rating this time because you appear to have since removed these scam recommendations. I will not do it a second a time, however, so think carefully about which services you are promoting in future.