Scammer Protection?

[dhenson]

To the shitcan with your trust

I've already done business on my other username. Went smooth. No problems. This name is forever associated with distrust and insane accusations. That's fine.

Kruniac is apparently already setup with a 2nd account and making trades.  Are there any protections in place to identify secondary accounts of scammers by those with access to IP address history?

This user has defrauded over 50BTC from forum members over the past week.

[1713514724]

1713514724

[1713514724]

1713514724

[1713514724]

1713514724

[1713514724]

1713514724

[Kruniac]

To the shitcan with your trust

I've already done business on my other username. Went smooth. No problems. This name is forever associated with distrust and insane accusations. That's fine.

Kruniac is apparently already setup with a 2nd account and making trades.  Are there any protections in place to identify secondary accounts of scammers by those with access to IP address history?

This user has defrauded over 50BTC from forum members over the past week.

Scurrilous statements won't change the fact that you can't do anything about anything.

Furthermore, lower that number (even though I haven't defrauded anyone for anything).

Lastly, the only "protection" to prevent that type of behavior would be a forum ban (an IP ban), which would force a user to use Tor or some kind of web proxy to log into the forums and post. Any forum administrator can view the IP information of newly registered accounts, and I'm pretty sure (Over on my forums you can) they can view the IP source of forum posts.

I'm guessing (and just guessing) that if a new user were reported to the administrator for attempting to scam someone, then an IP match would be appropriate to say "Hey yeah. This is a scammer trying his old tricks." However, once you begin polling the IP address of legitimate users in witch hunts, you go down a slippery slope. Just a warning.



I'd imagine the best "protection" in place would be awareness. Don't accept bank transfers from soandso, etc. Of course, that doesn't stop a person from using PayPal. Or BTC. Golly. I guess there's nothing you can do, is there? XD

Also - keep in mind that if you're talking about me specifically, and not forum security in general, I'm about to get another IP address.

[greyhawk]

^  lol this guy is something else..

No actually, he's something usual.

[No 1]

^  lol this guy is something else..

No actually, he's something usual.

pardon me.. I just never seen something so bold

[Kruniac]

^  lol this guy is something else..

No actually, he's something usual.

This.

I'm pretty standard issue. Aside from the unfortunate case of mistaken identity going on, I'm pretty normal.

[runam0k]

pardon me.. I just never seen something so bold

The idea of internet anonymity makes some fraudsters unreasonably bold.  Almost as bold as they are douchey.

Fortunately, some of them are daft enough to disclose their own bank account details in unrelated transactions.  Some even manage to get scammed themselves!

Give it a year or so and the courts and the police will be much better set up to deal with this sort of thing.  They can now, of course, but it takes time and effort.  Too many victims give up.

[Kruniac]

The idea of internet anonymity makes some fraudsters unreasonably bold.

I gave a location where any of you could find me. No one showed up (from this community, that is). It wasn't a dark alley where I'd gut shoot you, either. It was a public place, and anyone who wanted to confront me or something could have. Every last one of you with opinions failed to put your money where you mouth is. I'm not unreasonably bold. I just have self-confidence, unlike those who scream, tantrum, and threaten, and then fail to deliver.

Fortunately, some of them are daft enough to disclose their own bank account details in unrelated transactions.

That isn't daft. It's business. You would disclose your bank account details if you were trying to receive funds via ACH transfer.

Some even manage to get scammed themselves!

Cost of doing business. Get 40, lose 17. You still make out okay in the end, and that's the entire point.

Give it a year or so and the courts and the police will be much better set up to deal with this sort of thing.

200% true, especially if *coins start to become widely accepted by "established" merchants.

They can now, of course, but it takes time and effort.

No. They cannot. There is simply too much anonymity regarding either identities, transactions, or the exact definition of what a bitcoin is.

Take this example:

Bob sells Fred 200 BTC. Bob sends Fred the coins. Fred tells Bob to shove off.

You can not prove that Fred specifically received those coins. They went to a wallet of some kind. That wallet can easily be deleted.

Furthermore, coins can be sent to various destinations to be tumbled, and then shuffled back to a "clean" wallet.

As I've said for a week now - the very nature of Bitcoins makes it impossible to connect a "coin" with a "person". If Bob says "I was Skyping with Fred. I have a video of Fred saying "Okay, send the coins." I have proof that Fred received the coins.", then that statement is incorrect. Bob would in fact have proof that Fred was attempting to purchase Bitcoins, but there is no definitive proof that Fred received those Bitcoins.

Until legal definitions are established regarding "ownership" of a wallet, where signing an address makes you the legal owner of that address, no one can really do anything regarding lost currency.

In fact, I'd wager the 5.7 BTC that I've made recently that the majority of actions taken by PayPal, banks, and other establishments towards "Bitcoin fraud" have not been made for the benefit of the poor taffer who lost his/her coins, but rather to the detriment of the guy who broke a ToS of some kind.

Anyway. Long rant. This of course is just my opinion, and I've tried to be as objective as possible with it. Even if I weren't carrying the reputation that I have, I'd still have these observations. The bitcoin legal ground is almost laughable, and headhunting under the current judicial system would be akin to saying to a judge "Your honor - this man stole my imaginary money! He didn't send me real money for my imaginary money!". Obviously this is a generalization, but it's an accurate lens through which the majority of courts would see the entire situation.

Too many victims give up.

See above. Go back to mining, and/or counting the coins you folks bought at $20/unit. For the rest of you who got here late in the game - life sucks.

[botlove]

Kruniac - Are you living in a trailer park?

this guy?

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=21C10036907&loc=59&detailLoc=CC


the guy that said, and I'm quoting you here:
 "I condone lynchings. I condone crime, too. Anything that wipes out a few more human beings is a good thing. Most people dont deserve to exist anyway." Posted May-29-2008 By Kruniac
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1aae28d04e&comments=1#ZQ8lbCELbcKQgoPJ.99 "

[Maged]

The moderation team is trained to not depend on IP addresses. If someone reports that a user might be a known scammer, we can determine whether or not that is true without the IP address.

[dhenson]

The moderation team is trained to not depend on IP addresses. If someone reports that a user might be a known scammer, we can determine whether or not that is true without the IP address.

Has the 'Moderation Team' been mobilized to deal with this particular tool?

[pheaonix]

The moderation team is trained to not depend on IP addresses. If someone reports that a user might be a known scammer, we can determine whether or not that is true without the IP address.

Has the 'Moderation Team' been mobilized to deal with this particular tool?

the moderation team needs to be about ten times bigger and faster than it is now. each person that gets burned is more word of mouth bitcoin sucks.

[greyhawk]

The moderation team is trained to not depend on IP addresses. If someone reports that a user might be a known scammer, we can determine whether or not that is true without the IP address.

Has the 'Moderation Team' been mobilized to deal with this particular tool?

the moderation team needs to be about ten times bigger and faster than it is now. each person that gets burned is more word of mouth bitcoin sucks.

How is asking the moderation team to play judge, jury and executioner in any way consistent with the mindset of the majority of BTCTalk users?

[cp1]

Just use escrow!

[Kruniac]

Kruniac - Are you living in a trailer park?

Not at all. I can post some nice pictures of my house, actually.

Has the 'Moderation Team' been mobilized to deal with this particular tool?

Nope, they have not. As I've tried to tell you, but you're choosing to be a child about the whole "NUH UH, I DUN LIKE YOU SO YOU ARE A DUMMYHEAD" thing, the only thing they can do is IP ban me. Then I will either use Tor, a proxy, or simply move. This isn't complicated.


You had your chance to "deal" with "this particular tool". Twice, actually. Once on June 13th when I had a small birthday gathering at the West End tavern, and again on Saturday when (if you'd have REALLY been stalking my FB timeline) I had a high school reunion at Cancun Cantina. I was actually looking around in the parking lot for anyone giving me the eye. I guess you guys are just all talk. I brought my five incher and everything.

Hell, I was done by the time I rolled back out at around 1 AM. A friend of mine from school had an open bar - ran about $1500 in drinks for the whole reunion. Awesome. You (or some other temper tantrum manchild) could have gut shot me like a man and left me there. No security. No cameras. Just some drunk guy walking back to the M3.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - stop pounding your chest before you hurt yourself. You're just not built for this. Every single time you've said something about "finding me" or "meeting me", you've backed down shortly afterward. You're just typing away like a "badass". And people actually had the audacity to say to me "ARE YOU -SURE- YOU WANNA MESS WITH THIS GUY?" What, are you kidding? I'm in more danger from getting close with that one guy's wife the other night - at least he isn't an internet presence, and actually knows me. XD


Why do you think my scammer thread got locked? I was clowning you people. Just dogging you. I invited you out, you did NOTHING. You have my sauce, you've done NOTHING. You know my mother, brother, ex-wife, you've done NOTHING.

I was going to have my roommate fill the 2 BTC bounty on "current pictures of me leaving or entering my residence or place of work" and split it with him - that's how serious of a threat you are to me. I have to take a dump due to the ziti I had last night - that's more terrifying than anything I've seen so far.

Just use escrow!

Smartest thing I've ever read. Use escrow. Always. Even if it's a hassle.

[dhenson]

For those following along, don't think that I've dropped anything.  I actually have much more information than I've posted as I'm only sharing it with the police and the IC3.  I know that the $$$ amounts involved are quite low in the overall scheme of things, but I ask those who were scammed to stick with it and work with your local police.  Show them that you are going to keep asking for status updates until something is resolved.

You had your chance to "deal" with "this particular tool". Twice, actually. Once on June 13th when I had a small birthday gathering at the West End tavern, and again on Saturday when (if you'd have REALLY been stalking my FB timeline) I had a high school reunion at Cancun Cantina. I was actually looking around in the parking lot for anyone giving me the eye. I guess you guys are just all talk. I brought my five incher and everything.

Kruniac obviously lives in a different world.  I'm just a regular guy, don't own a gun and would never even dream of resorting to violence to solve an issue such as this.  Kruniac obviously see's that as a weakness which just shows how correct of a move it actually is to leave this up to the authorities. 

Do I realize that it is a long-shot to actually resolve this in a satisfactory way? Of course.  That isn't going to stop me from trying.

How is asking the moderation team to play judge, jury and executioner in any way consistent with the mindset of the majority of BTCTalk users?

Greyhawk,  I really don't see how continuing to allow a known scammer to lurk on this board benefits anyone.  Your comment baffles me.

[Kruniac]

I actually have much more information than I've posted as I'm only sharing it with the police and the IC3.

PM it to me. Proof or you're lying, just like the "face to face" encounter drama.

Kruniac obviously lives in a different world.

Same one you do, pal. Just through a different lens.

I'm just a regular guy, don't own a gun and would never even dream of resorting to violence to solve an issue such as this.

That's the most mature thing I've heard out of all of this drama. I misunderstood your intentions when you kept yapping about flying to places, etc. That's my mistake.

Kruniac obviously see's that as a weakness

Yup.

which just shows how correct of a move it actually is to leave this up to the authorities. 

Yup. No point in risking getting put on the news over a few BTC.

Do I realize that it is a long-shot to actually resolve this in a satisfactory way? Of course.  That isn't going to stop me from trying.

Again, this is mature. I respect this type of statement. No threats. No bravado. No keyboard badassery. Just some simple honesty. Now if you could do that whenever you mention my name, it would be boss.

Greyhawk,  I really don't see how continuing to allow a known scammer to lurk on this board benefits anyone.  Your comment baffles me.

Because the fact is this:

A group of people have a problem with me. The misunderstandings we've had in our business together has nothing to do with the forum at large. In fact, I make contributing posts in threads on a (semi?) regular basis. I'm not a spammer. I'm not trying to steal people's accounts. I'm not posting fake pictures of fake ASIC rigs. I'm just a guy in the world of bitcoin that you and a few others have a problem with. That's all.

You have a problem with me? You solve it. Don't go crying to the forum moderators about something that doesn't concern them. You seemed to have no problem with the moderator's involvement when you THOUGHT you had me by the short hairs and were making all kinds of huge talk over in my scammer thread. You were fine with the sauce you were collecting, you were fine with people making threats towards me, subtly hinting that my family would be harassed, etc. You didn't have any need for moderators then.

Man up.

[dhenson]

PM it to me. Proof or you're lying, just like the "face to face" encounter drama.

I propose an alternate scenario. 
  1) You post ~34 btc in escrow (estimated scammed amount still outstanding)
  2) I post 5 btc in escrow with the same person as incentive for you to play along.
  3) I will order pizza to be delivered to you (your choice of toppings) and give you a call to verify you are enjoying your meal. As more people appear to be living at the residence, I'll even make it two pizza's.

If #3 is met, escrow will be released to the verified victims of your scam (minus the 5 btc which would go back to me), if not, it will all be released to you.

[runam0k]

dhenson - I commend you for persisting with this. I'd try a lodging a civil claim in a small claims court too. It might not be worth the initial expense unless others join, but if they do I think you'd get a judgment in your favour. And that's all debt collectors need.

No. They cannot. There is simply too much anonymity regarding either identities, transactions, or the exact definition of what a bitcoin is.

Take this example:

Bob sells Fred 200 BTC. Bob sends Fred the coins. Fred tells Bob to shove off.

You can not prove that Fred specifically received those coins. They went to a wallet of some kind. That wallet can easily be deleted.

Furthermore, coins can be sent to various destinations to be tumbled, and then shuffled back to a "clean" wallet.

As I've said for a week now - the very nature of Bitcoins makes it impossible to connect a "coin" with a "person". If Bob says "I was Skyping with Fred. I have a video of Fred saying "Okay, send the coins." I have proof that Fred received the coins.", then that statement is incorrect. Bob would in fact have proof that Fred was attempting to purchase Bitcoins, but there is no definitive proof that Fred received those Bitcoins.

Until legal definitions are established regarding "ownership" of a wallet, where signing an address makes you the legal owner of that address, no one can really do anything regarding lost currency.

Needless to say, this is all complete drivel.

It's very easy to establish that (1) Kruniac requested payment in bitcoins to a specific bitcoin address, (2) the correct amount of bitcoins was paid by X (i.e. from an address in his or her control) to that specific bitcoin address and (3) that specific bitcoin address received the bitcoins from the sending address. The PMs and blockchain are more than enough in this regard.

The only difficulty would be actually linking Garrot to his forum nick - fortunately, he did that himself!

I brought my five incher and everything.

You took your dick?

[Kruniac]

As more people appear to be living at the residence, I'll even make it two pizza's.

So you've done the exact same thing you've been doing from the beginning of this saga. You've taken things that I've said and turn them around to make it seem like you've discovered some piece of a puzzle.

I'm the one that said (MANY, MANY TIMES) that multiple people live at my residence.

I've got a better proposal.

Send me 34 BTC.



Profit.

The only difficulty would be actually linking Garrot to his forum nick - fortunately, he did that himself!

Garrott*

You took your dick?

You're irrelevant. Enjoy the sensation.

[dhenson]

As more people appear to be living at the residence, I'll even make it two pizza's.

So you've done the exact same thing you've been doing from the beginning of this saga. You've taken things that I've said and turn them around to make it seem like you've discovered some piece of a puzzle.

I'm the one that said (MANY, MANY TIMES) that multiple people live at my residence.

I've got a better proposal.

Send me 34 BTC.

I'm not claiming to have found that on my own, I fully admit that it's an assumption based on your comments.  What I am claiming is that I know the exact address and phone number.  I also know the name of the home owner.  And I'm not referring to the previous address posted.

I thought my proposal was perfect and this is your reply?  It gives you a chance to prove that I'm lying while making an easy 5 btc.