hashforce101 - My suspicions about being bought account

[onnz423]

I stepped lately to hashforce 101, whom started offering project managing services lately.
I tried reaching him out yesterday about this matter, but he has not  answered to me at all even though he has been online many times. I requested him for signed message politely, but never got answer.
If you check the posts between july and august, you can see that the grammar has changed alot in few days.
About the grammar, if you check the posts after august, and then you check the posts before july, you can see that the grammar has went from many typos into almost a fluent grammar, which i find very suspicious.
And after the change of grammar, almost instantly he started to offer campaign management services, which i find kind of odd.

[1714601667]

1714601667

[1714601667]

1714601667

[1714601667]

1714601667

[Lauda]

Looking the grammar change, as well as the posting gaps between late 2016 and mid 2017 it does look like that it is either a bought or hacked account. I wonder if we can find a confirmed password/email change in the seclog. I'll try finding that *archived* variant. If he outright ignores or refuses to provide a signed message without a decent reason, then his account is ripe for tagging in my eyes.

[onnz423]

Looking the grammar change, as well as the posting gaps between late 2016 and mid 2017 it does look like that it is either a bought or hacked account. I wonder if we can find a confirmed password/email change in the seclog. I'll try finding that *archived* variant. If he outright ignores or refuses to provide a signed message without a decent reason, then his account is ripe for tagging in my eyes.

This is the reply i got from him, did not get any reply before making this thread:



To me it looks suspicious as well, i do not think that for a long time bitcointalk member, it would be possible to lose the addresses he used to sign messages with in the past.

[Yuuto]

What's with the recent influx of people buying accounts, and trying to become campaign managers? Wasn't there another guy called wizardee trying to pull off the same thing?

Nobody with a bought account should even be allowed to be campaign managers, in my opinion. If they were accepted as campaign managers, then think about what could happen. He could literally let all other account farmers enroll and don't give a crap, or even potentially allow his alts to enroll and post with terrible quality. I think that they deserve to get tagged.

The response that you got was complete BS and further proves that he is a bought account.

[Decoded]

Looking the grammar change, as well as the posting gaps between late 2016 and mid 2017 it does look like that it is either a bought or hacked account. I wonder if we can find a confirmed password/email change in the seclog. I'll try finding that *archived* variant. If he outright ignores or refuses to provide a signed message without a decent reason, then his account is ripe for tagging in my eyes.

This is the reply i got from him, did not get any reply before making this thread:



To me it looks suspicious as well, i do not think that for a long time bitcointalk member, it would be possible to lose the addresses he used to sign messages with in the past.

I'm not a long time member, but I'm definitely not a new one. I had an account on blockchain.info which had all my old private keys, but when I changed laptops, it didn't save my wallet ID and my written recovery slip was hidden somewhere (I still haven't managed to find it).

Has hashpower (EDIT - hashforce, sorry) done anything questionable recently? Or is he escrowing any funds?

What's with the recent influx of people buying accounts, and trying to become campaign managers? Wasn't there another guy called wizardee trying to pull off the same thing?

And the user Windpower.

[Lauda]

Looking the grammar change, as well as the posting gaps between late 2016 and mid 2017 it does look like that it is either a bought or hacked account. I wonder if we can find a confirmed password/email change in the seclog. I'll try finding that *archived* variant. If he outright ignores or refuses to provide a signed message without a decent reason, then his account is ripe for tagging in my eyes.

This is the reply i got from him, did not get any reply before making this thread:



To me it looks suspicious as well, i do not think that for a long time bitcointalk member, it would be possible to lose the addresses he used to sign messages with in the past.

"Bought a new wallet"? What a lame excuse (as in who "buys" a Bitcoin wallet other than hardware wallet, which I'm sure is not what he meant). I'm almost 99% convinced that the user in question has bought their account.

Has hashpower done anything questionable recently?

Read the OP again and you'll understand.

[Decoded]

snip

I mean, it doesn't seem like he's been doing anything towards scamming. Usually they would try and get an escrow job, etc etc. So far he hasn't seemed to take a step towards scamming, but more one towards earning a trusted name on the forum. I do agree however that the sudden change in post quality is the worrying thing. A post gap of one month can't really be put forward as incriminating evidence.

[Lauda]

snip

I mean, it doesn't seem like he's been doing anything towards scamming. Usually they would try and get an escrow job, etc etc. So far he hasn't seemed to take a step towards scamming, but more one towards earning a trusted name on the forum. I do agree however that the sudden change in post quality is the worrying thing. A post gap of one month can't really be put forward as incriminating evidence.

You don't have to explicitly offer escrow services. He is trying to (quote from OP) "whom started offering project managing services lately." which can often end up being a bundle of holding campaign funds and managing it.

[onnz423]

What's with the recent influx of people buying accounts, and trying to become campaign managers? Wasn't there another guy called wizardee trying to pull off the same thing?

Yep, and he even personally admitted it being a bought account (although deleted the reply, but it got archived and i cannot find it).

Nobody with a bought account should even be allowed to be campaign managers, in my opinion. If they were accepted as campaign managers, then think about what could happen. He could literally let all other account farmers enroll and don't give a crap, or even potentially allow his alts to enroll and post with terrible quality. I think that they deserve to get tagged.

I do not think that anyone who has a bought account should even be allowed to post on this forum, this encourages account farming and like you said, terrible post quality, since most campaign managers do not care about their participants replying to every thread with something like "me like. bounty dev?" and they get paid for that post. There should be some kind of standard for quality posts that applies forumwide to those who enroll in campaigns.

I'm not a long time member, but I'm definitely not a new one. I had an account on blockchain.info which had all my old private keys, but when I changed laptops, it didn't save my wallet ID and my written recovery slip was hidden somewhere (I still haven't managed to find it).

This can be fairly dangerous, and should be avoided because not being able to provide a signed message is shady. However i guess that you still did have the same kind of grammar and post quality still, even though you lost the private keys.

You don't have to explicitly offer escrow services. He is trying to (quote from OP) "whom started offering project managing services lately." which can often end up being a bundle of holding campaign funds and managing it.

Exactly. Since we should be able to assume that most legendary members are the original members behind the accounts, instead of someone who just bought the account and is about to use it for scamming.

[xypos]

Just came across this and looking at the way that he has responded to OP he is extremely likely to be a hacked account. His excuse of having his English speaking friends do it for him just does not stack up.

He's still running several campaigns i think.

Having a random legendary that is likely to be a bought account managing campaigns isn't the way to do business, Litra.

[aTriz]

Well, as a fellow bounty manager I feel like I should shed some of my thoughts on this issue, and here it goes.

1. I think that the community right now is just really sensitive towards these management jobs, from my personal experience they do pay out quite a lot and having a high rank does help sometimes. But, man after windpower and wizardee, this? Worst possible time to do this sort of stuff.

2. I have worked with hashforce101 together on the Litra bounty program, and I can personally vouch for him, that he did quite a good job, so he definitely has the skills, but he came across this wrong. Litra raised almost 10 mil, and I feel some of that was probably hash.

3. Here the problem now: Hashforce101, is managing quite a lot of bounties now and even though it's quite obvious he's a bought/hacked account he has been doing a good job lately and doesn't look like Windpower v2 is going to happen anytime soon. Negative trust doesn't seem fair, but just leaving him alone doesn't seem fair either. Negative trust may also cause a lot of ICOs to have their reputation damaged, and that ain't good for anyone.

Solution
Here's what I suggest:

I think Hash's account, should be painted with a neutral trust by Lauda, or any other DT-2 Member. Negative trust doesn't seem fair at all, especially with the pretty good jobs he's being doing. Maybe something like "Likely a hacked/bought account, but doesn't look like he's going anyone harm, deal with caution anyways"

Anyways, I'll like to hear your points on this, let's continue this conversation, I honestly don't feel like a negative is correct here, but once again leaving him alone isn't fair anyway.

PS: Before you guys start looking through my posts, I've already signed a message and sent it to omnz423 a couple of hours ago from a staked address back in 2013.

PPS: Sorry for the bad grammar, anxiously waiting to start boarding my delayed plane, but I had to get this out there.

Take a look at a dictionary. Tagged.

Maybe I should, huh.

[Lauda]

1. I think that the community right now is just really sensitive towards these management jobs, from my personal experience they do pay out quite a lot and having a high rank does help sometimes. But, man after windpower and wizardee, this? Worst possible time to do this sort of stuff.

They pay horribly in terms of $/h, unless you are scamming the service/user who employed you by being too lenient. Now, you don't want to discuss how I know this or try to claim that it isn't true as then I'd have to analyze each manager independently (and in depth). This would push the community towards a new question: Should we be tagging campaign managers pretending to work, i.e. essentially scamming their employer by: 1) Misrepresenting/exaggerating their skillset. 2) Not spending the time and effort that was paid for? It should be obvious that people who are very much strict as I am would answer that with a yes, even though properly executing without abuse wouldn't be easy.

I think Hash's account, should be painted with a neutral trust by Lauda, or any other DT-2 Member. Negative trust doesn't seem fair at all, especially with the pretty good jobs he's being doing. Maybe something like "Likely a hacked/bought account, but doesn't look like he's going anyone harm, deal with caution anyways"

Those are pretty much useless.

Take a look at a dictionary. Tagged.

Maybe I should, huh.

I have not written that in this thread. Why are you making up quotes?

[aTriz]

Well, one can still survive of the money per managing campaigns, bounties, or just btc signature campaigns. The real problem here is that the hours are not being lodged, and since it's just contract work and also online, it's quite easy to say  I did that while you only did that.

So, we can't tag hashforce with a neutral trust, since as you said it's useless, what you think would be the next course of action, in my opinion a negative is still to harsh, but that's just me.

I didn't make up the quote, it's from a pm you sent me.

[Lauda]

Well, one can still survive of the money per managing campaigns, bounties, or just btc signature campaigns.

Sure / not that I care about that. I've encountered people that got busted for X complain that they'd starve or whatever, and I find those excuses as emotional bribery.

The real problem here is that the hours are not being lodged, and since it's just contract work and also online, it's quite easy to say  I did that while you only did that.

Not really, no. I could evaluate all participants of a random campaign of a random manager and could easily asses* (in the majority of cases, but not all) whether the manager is doing his job properly or not.

So, we can't tag hashforce with a neutral trust, since as you said it's useless, what you think would be the next course of action, in my opinion a negative is still to harsh, but that's just me.

I don't see any options other than a negative rating. I'm open to (useful and working) suggestions.

I didn't make up the quote, it's from a pm you sent me.

I'm not sure why you'd quote a PM in here, but okay.

[yahoo62278]

Well, one can still survive of the money per managing campaigns, bounties, or just btc signature campaigns. The real problem here is that the hours are not being lodged, and since it's just contract work and also online, it's quite easy to say  I did that while you only did that.

So, we can't tag hashforce with a neutral trust, since as you said it's useless, what you think would be the next course of action, in my opinion a negative is still to harsh, but that's just me.

I didn't make up the quote, it's from a pm you sent me.

The fact that you find the behavior OK puzzles me and makes me question your trustworthiness. What other then a negative rating should be applied? Obviously you feel it's a bought account. You do not deny that. If it is in fact a bought account, then all the trust that users feel by dealing with that account is false, therefor warranting a negative rating. You never know what that account is going to do once it builds up enough trust in the community.

If someone wants to be a campaign manager, that's 100% fine. I'm not against it, but I do feel that if said person wants to take his/her chances with this sort of job, that they should be legitimate. Buying an account like that, for the sole purpose of managing a campaign shows little faith in their own morals or skills IMO. A person who buys an account is starting out by being dishonest. They were in too big a hurry to actually build their own reputation and try to get a job in a legitimate way. The trust from the bought is obviously not legitimate. They bought the account to get a jumpstart in making money and build off of the reputation someone else has already created for the account.

[aTriz]

You never know what that account is going to do once it builds up enough trust in the community.

I think this is the problem here, and I can't vouch and won't vouch that hash won't pull some dodgy shit in the end.

I think this issue has raised a new question in the community, and that's something about rank and the trust system. Obviously hashforce has only bought the account since he feels a legendary Member would attract more attention than a newbie. Is this the way the forum should work? Newbies get no chances and laughed out of here?

Look at all the threads on services that offer campaign management services, all of them, except the big managers of course and maybe the exception of decoded, get 0 to no jobs, and they hero+ members.

OK puzzles me and makes me question your trustworthiness. What other then a negative rating should be applied?

Why am I getting attacked now?

What other then a negative rating should be applied?

Honestly, it wouldn't be fair to all the icos he's managing and there reputation would be tainted... But I guess it's DT-2's call and maybe this is why I'm not DT.

[DarkStar_]

What other then a negative rating should be applied?

Honestly, it wouldn't be fair to all the icos he's managing and there reputation would be tainted... But I guess it's DT-2's call and maybe this is why I'm not DT.

It's the ICO's fault that they didn't research who they hired despite having financial incentive to do so (unlike onnz423). Also, if they don't want their reputation tainted, they can simply fire him and hire someone else. Being affiliated with a company/group doesn't and shouldn't prevent you from getting untrusted.

Is this the way the forum should work? Newbies get no chances and laughed out of here?

At least 98% of the forum started as a Newbie - even satoshi IIRC. You started, I started, yahoo started, e.t.c.

[onnz423]

What scares me is that he completely ignores the accusations, also on his thread. I think this is a clear sign, that it is a bought account, because he completely ignores the problem and does not bother to even comment with one word to the case. I think this should be enough evidence for tagging, but that is up to you to consider about it.

It's the ICO's fault that they didn't research who they hired despite having financial incentive to do so (unlike onnz423). Also, if they don't want their reputation tainted, they can simply fire him and hire someone else. Being affiliated with a company/group doesn't and shouldn't prevent you from getting untrusted.

Exactly. Of course it brings down the reputation of a project, if they hire someone that actually has no reputation whatsoever and has bought someone elses work. It just makes me sad to see legendary accounts going to waste.

Honestly, it wouldn't be fair to all the icos he's managing and there reputation would be tainted... But I guess it's DT-2's call and maybe this is why I'm not DT.

If someone wants to be trustworthy, they earn the reputation rather than buying it. Only buying an account to me would be enough to tag someone (if i was on DT), because it's extremely shady and you don't give the impression that you really want to be reputable. Even Jr. Member can act as a manager (however they do not get to touch the funds at any point), but Legendary members have alot bigger chance for that. Im not sure why you are trying to reason something that encourages scamming, account farming etc. which is really bad for our community and leads into alot of low quality posts and overall a mess.

[onnz423]

Up! User keeps taking part in new campaign managament, without answering these accusations.
I hope that we can get some kind of progress on this, since it is getting pretty threatening.
You can see it from here.
What i am more surprised of, is how do not the coins check his feedback at all? Are they on purpose doing their jobs so badly that they don't do any kind of research  on who they hire?

[yahoo62278]

Up! User keeps taking part in new campaign managament, without answering these accusations.
I hope that we can get some kind of progress on this, since it is getting pretty threatening.
You can see it from here.
What i am more surprised of, is how do not the coins check his feedback at all? Are they on purpose doing their jobs so badly that they don't do any kind of research  on who they hire?

Most of the coins he is participating in are paying in token payouts, so of course they aren't doing any research. They are risking 0 and the campaign manager is holding nothing. A lot of these projects are getting stalked by these managers. I'm sure they get 3-5 messages as soon as they launch the project if not more. It's kinda sad. The job goes to likely the lowest bidder.

I was considering making a post in Meta proposing only DT members be allowed to be managers. I have not because I don't want users thinking I am only making the post for personal gain. True and not true I suppose. My reasoning behind it though is the simple fact that DT ratings are seen by all. We tag the cheaters 1st hand and the scam projects as well.

I would also toss in maybe a monthly fee to even be a campaign manager that goes directly to the forum. .1btc/month or something. Not trying to kill everyone but I think its fair to say 200-400$ a month job fee. That along with charging these token ICOs to list would help stop the million per week listings.

Now back to the main point, has anyone messaged Hashforce in reference to this thread? If so and he is refusing to answer it might be a case for a tag. I'd really like more opinions on this before I proceed