How about leaving - feedback on hacked account once verified proof.

[BitcoinBazaar.net]

Hey All,

My account has been hacked and submitted proof. I'm waiting since 5 months and no updates from admin.

Hacker using my account to earn money through signature campaign without any issue.

Most of the signature campaign doesn't allow -ve trust account. In order to stop the hacker to use my account for signature campaign, can you submit -ve feedback on my hacked profile (yes, ofcourse once verified my proof)?!

How about doing the same for all the hacked accounts?

Please follow the below format:

My Hacked Profile:
Thread about Proof of my account:

Mods / Legendary accounts feedback will be appreciated.

Let's join the hands and fight against hacked accounts.

[1713932687]

1713932687

[1713932687]

1713932687

[1713932687]

1713932687

[1713932687]

1713932687

[1713932687]

1713932687

[BitcoinBazaar.net]

Here is mine,

My Hacked Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=361655
Thread about Proof of my account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2721567.0

Thanks all.

[Alone055]

Any account, once proved hacked, is red tagged as soon as a DT member comes to know about it. And your account, that you claim has been hacked, has been tagged already by Lauda.

[shilpyh]

Already hacker got red trust now he/she would not be able to join on a signature campaign.

[BitcoinBazaar.net]

Already hacker got red trust now he/she would not be able to join on a signature campaign.

No, he is using signature campaign. few campaign owners accept hacked account and paid them.

I contacted rewards.com campaign leader (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1794352) and he denied to remove him 

i don't know how they will get +ve trust from -ve account signature's 

[digaran]

Already hacker got red trust now he/she would not be able to join on a signature campaign.

No, he is using signature campaign. few campaign owners accept hacked account and paid them.

I contacted rewards.com campaign leader (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1794352) and he denied to remove him 

i don't know how they will get +ve trust from -ve account signature's 

Because negative trust means jack in this forum since we have some rogue crooks tagging whomever they wish, people will stop caring about red tagged accounts all together.

[zyx1122]

Any account, once confirmed to be hacked, is immediately marked red after a DT member learns of it. You can use this method to determine if your account has been hacked.

[BitcoinBazaar.net]

Any account, once confirmed to be hacked, is immediately marked red after a DT member learns of it. You can use this method to determine if your account has been hacked.

It's already marked but it's not stopping hacker... he's still using it for signature campaign.

[BTCforJoe]

Because negative trust means jack in this forum since we have some rogue crooks tagging whomever they wish, people will stop caring about red tagged accounts all together.

This is not necessarily true. I don't care to get into the details of the politics behind the DT members you consider to be "rogue crooks", but I will say that any reputable campaign manager won't accept red-tagged members. However, the campaigns that are just created here for the views (a.k.a. the bad actors) don't care about the negative score. They just care about how many times they can get their sigs displayed on the forums here. This issue isn't a problem with the DT members, but rather the campaign managers who accept neg-trust members, and the companies that hire them to manage their campaigns.

For the record, the majority of these campaigns are for shitcoins and airdrop bounties.

[athanz88]

Nice word BTCforJoe, shit people like this,especially digaran, need to know all the counter things for what he had said. He always says his lunatic words and force people to believe him, and i guess some of people believe in him for unknown reasons, because maybe they are both lunatics.

To add something from BTCforJoe, even member without red tag wont be accepted if they are on the ban list like SMAS or darklist, that is the difference between a great managers and great companies with bad managers and bad companies.

[Thirdspace]

Hi there, How am I supposed to remove his signature campaign when we do not have access to his BitcoinTalk account? We have no idea who that is nor do we accept scammers.. We have our best interest for our community we would not accept our signature on it. EVER. I am slightly confused on why we are being blamed for someones account on here being hacked???! On our end he is black listed from entering any bounty claims. If you have a better solution please do tell.

How about NOT approving members with negative trust to your signature campaign? Especially if the given trust is because of a hacked account.

It could be the case that the hacked account enrolled and get paid before painted red
by the sound of the manager's response, he kicked and blacklisted the hacked account already
he is only defending himself for unable to remove his signature from said account, which is plausible

[coinlocket$]

~
Hi there, How am I supposed to remove his signature campaign when we do not have access to his BitcoinTalk account? We have no idea who that is nor do we accept scammers.. We have our best interest for our community we would not accept our signature on it. EVER. I am slightly confused on why we are being blamed for someones account on here being hacked???! On our end he is black listed from entering any bounty claims. If you have a better solution please do tell.

He can wear it, you can do nothing about it.
The only thing you can do is to not pay him even if he wear it, but it seems already done.

[dazz.]

Any account, once confirmed to be hacked, is immediately marked red after a DT member learns of it. You can use this method to determine if your account has been hacked.

It's already marked but it's not stopping hacker... he's still using it for signature campaign.

I'm in the same boat, and eventually managed to at least get the account banned. Something you may want to consider since that's something a mod can do, and you can then wait till an admin can review your case and maybe get your account back. Feel your pain, Hope it goes well

[Rewards.com]

Already hacker got red trust now he/she would not be able to join on a signature campaign.

No, he is using signature campaign. few campaign owners accept hacked account and paid them.

I contacted rewards.com campaign leader (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1794352) and he denied to remove him  

i don't know how they will get +ve trust from -ve account signature's  

I want to clarify some things before this turns into a bashing sessions around how we are terrible bounty managers and allowing 'hackers' to join our bounty.

* We have over 50k people participating is any number of ongoing campaigns, and as much as we would like to check everyone, unfortunately we cannot. Like most, we do the best we can. Since there are no good API's for BTT or automated solution, our team isn't able to vet in detail every profile of every bounty participant. When someone reports something that COULD be an issue, we address it until we figure it out.

* @BitcoinBazaar.net already discussed this several weeks ago, and at the point he was still attempting to prove to BTT that he was the 'real' owner of the BitcoinBazaar.net account. As we AGREED to at that time, we would NOT award any bounty to anyone until BTT made a determination. This was the ONLY way to fairly handle this because we (rewards) has no idea if the person messaging me now is the correct owner or the hacker attempting to carryout an attack on the original owner.

* @BitcoinBazaar.net agreed that was the best way to handle it and was going to notify us when BTT made a determination... no determination has yet to be made.

* No points have been awarded.

* @BitcoinBrazzar.net's said he has been working for 6 months w/ BTT Admins to reclaimed 'hacked' account... to date there is still no resolution.

* The only way @BitcoinBazaar.net would know if we awarded him 'points' would be if he logged into our bounty platform and checked. HOWEVER, if he logged in and checked he would have just confirmed that he is the hacker since the 'hacker' would be the only one that would know the email and password associated to that account.

* I have the email address of the person that setup an account pointing to that profile and will email them again explaining what @BitcoinBrazzar.net is alleging and post his response if any is received.

* Below is the type of 'feedback' @BitcoinBazaar gives. Certainly seems like he is on the up-and-up



Unless anyone has a better solution, We believe this is the best way to protect the true owner of the account, but continuing to hold the bounty until a determination has been made.

We pride our selves on running everyting we do w/ integrity and to the best of our ability and it'sI'm also disappointed in the community here that automatically assumes we were in the wrong without knowing the other side of the story. Imagine if this was reversed

[Welsh]

I want to clarify some things before this turns into a bashing sessions around how we are terrible bounty managers and allowing 'hackers' to join our bounty.

* We have over 50k people participating is any number of ongoing campaigns, and as much as we would like to check everyone, unfortunately we cannot. Like most, we do the best we can. Since there are no good API's for BTT or automated solution, our team isn't able to vet in detail every profile of every bounty participant. When someone reports something that COULD be an issue, we address it until we figure it out.

That's the managers faults. You choose to accept that many participates. You choose to ignore who signs up, and look to this as an excuse. Ultimately, if you are managing something you should be manually checking everyone that enters to assure that they are a suitable candidate.

You shouldn't be relying on others to report it for you. You should be making an initial assessment, and then checking periodically on all members. This is why large amounts of people that aren't distributed via the work force isn't a good idea.

[Rewards.com]

I want to clarify some things before this turns into a bashing sessions around how we are terrible bounty managers and allowing 'hackers' to join our bounty.

* We have over 50k people participating is any number of ongoing campaigns, and as much as we would like to check everyone, unfortunately we cannot. Like most, we do the best we can. Since there are no good API's for BTT or automated solution, our team isn't able to vet in detail every profile of every bounty participant. When someone reports something that COULD be an issue, we address it until we figure it out.

That's the managers faults. You choose to accept that many participates. You choose to ignore who signs up, and look to this as an excuse. Ultimately, if you are managing something you should be manually checking everyone that enters to assure that they are a suitable candidate.

You shouldn't be relying on others to report it for you. You should be making an initial assessment, and then checking periodically on all members. This is why large amounts of people that aren't distributed via the work force isn't a good idea.

You're again making 2 big assumptions.

* assuming that @BitcoinBazaar is actually not the hacker himself or someone w/ a vendetta against the account holder.

* At the time we reviewed his bounty he had negative trust.

* WE DIDN'T' APPROVE HIS BOUNTY!

We have done nothing wrong, in this situation except to protect the TRUE owner of the account on our Bounty Platform... I hope the true account holder gets validation in the end.

[Welsh]

You're again making 2 big assumptions.

* assuming that @BitcoinBazaar is actually not the hacker himself or someone w/ a vendetta against the account holder.

* At the time we reviewed his bounty he had negative trust.

* WE DIDN'T' APPROVE HIS BOUNTY!

We have done nothing wrong, in this situation except to protect the TRUE owner of the account on our Bounty Platform... I hope the true account holder gets validation in the end.

I'm not making any assumptions. You said yourself that you can't check every user participating. Even, if you employed a manager to do it, and for some reason they aren't or can't right now you have to be prepared to come up with a temporary solution to this. You also personally said yourself that you listen to reports of other users. Where are my assumptions in this?

Sure, I hope the account does end up in the hands of the true owner.

but I will say that any reputable campaign manager won't accept red-tagged members. However, the campaigns that are just created here for the views (a.k.a. the bad actors) don't care about the negative score. They just care about how many times they can get their sigs displayed on the forums here. This issue isn't a problem with the DT members, but rather the campaign managers who accept neg-trust members, and the companies that hire them to manage their campaigns.

For the record, the majority of these campaigns are for shitcoins and airdrop bounties.

I for one don't actually care about them accepting red tagged members. I do care, and I would hope that their employer cares about accepting untrustworthy members. In my opinion a good manager wouldn't just restrict anyone with a red tag, but only those which have legitimate red tags, and they've investigated it themselves, and deem it an accurate tag.

There's several members on this forum which have received negative ratings from other members on DefaultTrust depth 2 that I would consider trustworthy. It seems that most campaigns restrict them from applying, but that's actually pretty lazy in my opinion. It doesn't take much to look at why that feedback was given, and whether it has any credibility. Plus, not everyone is going to agree with the rating, and it could well be subjective.

Moreover, due to the moderated nature of the trust system, and how anyone can leave a rating for any reason it would be unfair to prevent someone from something or view them negatively, because they've changed their email in the last 30 days for example. (Especially when backed up via a signed message)

[LoyceV]

You're again making 2 big assumptions.

* assuming that @BitcoinBazaar is actually not the hacker himself or someone w/ a vendetta against the account holder.

If you follow Lauda's reference link (posted with the red trust), you'll see my post here.
A signed message is generally accepted as proof of ownership on Bitcointalk.

[BTCforJoe]

Blaming BitcoinTalk for not having a proper API to manage all your participants is like blaming Ford for getting a speeding ticket after you were pulled over for, well, speeding.

No one is going to side with you with your "woe is me" attitude; as others have mentioned, you chose to accept so many participants, so it shouldn't be the responsibility of the forums or the staff to reprimand your users after you've decided to accept them in the campaign.

If the pool of participants have become too big for you to handle, then you need to hire more campaign managers. It's essentially on YOU, not the forum or its staff.

Just sayin.