Sending merit to his alt , Etherscan proved

[Azizbrothers]

Hi , I have a good catch here
This guy send merit to his alt
Suspects:


1-   Mankeen

Used this wallet

0xdda03a2E46FbB97303350455ac842C2C49306654

 in this post  Click - here

https://i.imgur.com/Mb94JPj.png
 

And this Click - here

https://i.imgur.com/Cp1dGDF.png


2-   Mr.Coinzer
Used this wallet

0xBB9cd47E267f7Bf7AB6da394Ff0CaA8EaE810BFc

In this post

 
https://i.imgur.com/GBgNzeV.png

And this wallet :
 

0xA681C50E167ae4546257B60B6e4e87abF318dA32

In this post

https://i.imgur.com/MtvaMHT.png

3-   CryptoNine : no evidence yet


merit summary for Mankeen

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=680704


Mr.Coinzer sent merit to Mankeen

And Mankeen sent merit to CryptoNine and
CryptoNine sent merit to Mr.Coinzer


Mankeen sent 32 merit to CryptoNine for this reply!

بالضبط ما هو استخدام بلوكشين للمشروع، وما هو الحل هو أنه يجلب أو ما هي المشكلة هو تحديد، ما هي قيمة أنها جلب إلى كريبتو.

Translation:

Exactly what is the use of Blockchain for the project, and what solution is it brings or what problem is determining, what value they bring to crypto.

Yes it is 32 ! for shitty post

CryptoNine gives 17 merit to Mr.Coinzer for this reply

قبل 9 سنوات، بيتكوين بدأت على فكرة مماثلة لجعل المعاملات أكثر كفاءة والباقي هو التاريخ. ولكن توكن بيتكوين  يختلف في حقيقة أنه في حين أنه يهدف إلى جعل المعاملات أكثر كفاءة، بل هو أيضا عملة مجتمعية.

Translation

9 years ago, Bitcoin started a similar idea to make transactions more efficient and the rest is history. But Bitcoin is different in the fact that while it aims to make transactions more efficient, it is also a community coin.

And Finally , Mr.Coinzer gives merit to Mankeen
I think the 3 accounts are for the same person

And here is the proof from Ether scan

Mankeen: 0xdda03a2E46FbB97303350455ac842C2C49306654

Mr.Coinzer: 0xBB9cd47E267f7Bf7AB6da394Ff0CaA8EaE810BFc
                 0xA681C50E167ae4546257B60B6e4e87abF318dA32

Etherscan Txn 1
Etherscan Txn 2
Etherscan Txn 3


3 transaction for Mankeen and Coinzer Wallets

Mankeen- 0xdda03a2E46FbB97303350455ac842C2C49306654
Mr.Coinzer - 0xBB9cd47E267f7Bf7AB6da394Ff0CaA8EaE810BFc

And


Etherscan Txn 1
Etherscan Txn 2
Etherscan Txn 3

0xdda03a2E46FbB97303350455ac842C2C49306654
0xA681C50E167ae4546257B60B6e4e87abF318dA32

[mdayonliner]

Good one..

Please quote the thread on this post 11 CASES so far: Merit farming/trading. I will tag the users with red trust even if any DT member do the same or not.

[Azizbrothers]

Good one..

Please quote the thread on this post 11 CASES so far: Merit farming/trading. I will tag the users with red trust even if any DT member do the same or not.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers . Also , local sections are lack of DT members i think it is better to Add DT members in local sections

[maeusi]

If I remember right, DT members are not interested anymore in tagging alt meriters.

[LoyceV]

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers .

I can't find back the link, but as far as I know theymos disapproves of red trust for merit abuse. Also, they didn't break any forum rules.

[Azizbrothers]

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers .

I can't find back the link, but as far as I know theymos disapproves of red trust for merit abuse. Also, they didn't break any forum rules.

Can I give merit to my alt accounts?

No, this is frowned upon and will almost certainly lead to you receiving negative feedback if discovered.

Look at this , Also hailariousanco tagged someone for sending merit to his Alt proved by Etherscan

[maeusi]

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers .

I can't find back the link, but as far as I know theymos disapproves of red trust for merit abuse. Also, they didn't break any forum rules.

Maybe you mean this one?

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

[mdayonliner]

Good one..

Please quote the thread on this post 11 CASES so far: Merit farming/trading. I will tag the users with red trust even if any DT member do the same or not.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers . Also , local sections are lack of DT members i think it is better to Add DT members in local sections

I also tagged all three with another new one while I was digging the rabbit hole.

[maeusi]

Good one..

Please quote the thread on this post 11 CASES so far: Merit farming/trading. I will tag the users with red trust even if any DT member do the same or not.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers . Also , local sections are lack of DT members i think it is better to Add DT members in local sections

I also tagged all three with another new one while I was digging the rabbit hole.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers .

I can't find back the link, but as far as I know theymos disapproves of red trust for merit abuse. Also, they didn't break any forum rules.

Maybe you mean this one?

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

... nevertheless I think, if evidence is clear, merit abusers should be tagged by DT-members, because those abusers take advantages (upranking, earning in merit based signature campaigns) against honest members in the forum.
Maybe members, who still have sMerits, could merit also those, who uncover cheatings, like OP did.

[virendarnagpal]

I noticed several cases of this type, but never tried to report as these can not be claimed to be breaking of forum rules. Merits also awarded for just asking foolish question. Several such cases already reported by some members.
But I think the sources almost dried up / drying up.  Now getting any such merit will be very tough for them.  It is very tough to get merit for serious members too.  Only extra ordinary intelligent persons will promote to higher ranks. 

[Azizbrothers]

Good one..

Please quote the thread on this post 11 CASES so far: Merit farming/trading. I will tag the users with red trust even if any DT member do the same or not.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers . Also , local sections are lack of DT members i think it is better to Add DT members in local sections

I also tagged all three with another new one while I was digging the rabbit hole.

Done , we are waiting for DT member to red tag this law breakers .

I can't find back the link, but as far as I know theymos disapproves of red trust for merit abuse. Also, they didn't break any forum rules.

Maybe you mean this one?

So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?

I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.

Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.

... nevertheless I think, if evidence is clear, merit abusers should be tagged by DT-members, because those abusers take advantages (upranking, earning in merit based signature campaigns) against honest members in the forum.
Maybe members, who still have sMerits, could merit also those, who uncover cheatings, like OP did.

i dont want to get merit , if they want us to follow rules , they should punish law breakers or the hole system will be useless , the evidence is clear and they dont even want to take action

[Azizbrothers]

pump