Gleb Gamow account was sold Proof

[naturerock]

Suchmoon should be given negative trust.  It is setting a dangerous precedent if we allow high ranked users to break the rules of this forum.

What's this "dangerous precedent" that is being set here?
Suchmoon offering to lend Bruno money for an indefinite amount of time, meanwhile securing the GG account, so it cannot be sold or used for any possibly malicious action, is that it?
The way I see it, suchmoon helped a bitcoiner in need and eliminated a possible risk with their decision.

If suchmoon uses the account in any way (be it signature campaigns, any other posting, trading, or in the worst case leaving feedback), then yes, this is a problematic situation that should be addressed.
But as long as suchmoon's control over the account simply means they are locking anyone else (either Bruno or a possible buyer) from using the account to cause harm, I do not see the problem/danger here.

I'm fine with Gleb being helped out considering his contributions to this forum over the past few years.  I was reading  digaran's opinions on the situation and it does seem a bit unfair considering account buyers/ sellers always get tagged.

I suppose this isn't really an account sale considering the Gleb account won't be used in typical fashion of an account transfer.

I'm fine with account selling so I don't have a problem with it personally I was just going by the rules of this forum.

[1714931408]

1714931408

[1714931408]

1714931408

[1714931408]

1714931408

[digaran]

Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?

Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?

[pugman]

Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?

Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?

No one cares about your tag,bruh! And who are you talking to?

[LoyceV]

Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?

The way I see it, suchmoon offered this for 3 reasons:
1. Help Gleb out with $600
2. Prevent the account to be bought by someone else
3. Make your head explode

Let me go on the record to say that if Gleb ever needs $600 again I call dibs on his account just to prevent it from falling into wrong hands and to preserve its post history.

Let's watch digaran's head explode now.

I'd say all 3 goals have been reached!
I don't believe suchmoon had any other motive to "buy" the account, as it obviously has no monetary value to him.

[Jet Cash]

I think it is a shame that good members of the forum should have to lose the benefits of their previous support for the forum. Here is my suggestion for a possible solution that does not result in the transfer of the account, and its possible degredation as a result.

A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.

[hilariousetc]

I think it is a shame that good members of the forum should have to lose the benefits of their previous support for the forum. Here is my suggestion for a possible solution that does not result in the transfer of the account, and its possible degredation as a result.

A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.

"Good" members of the forum shouldn't be trying to sell their accounts for any reason even if they're desperate for money. People can use their rep for all types of nefarious activity because they have a certain amount of trust. This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer. He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it, but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.

[Welsh]

"Good" members of the forum shouldn't be trying to sell their accounts for any reason even if they're desperate for money. People can use their rep for all types of nefarious activity because they have a certain amount of trust. This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer. He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it, but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.

Maybe, Gleb thought he wouldn't be able to pay the loan. In this is right to assume at least he wasn't willing to borrow the money that he knew several members would be queuing up to give him, and then default on it.

[funsponge]

Everyone saying that every account selling accounts get tagged is wrong there is currently a legendary member trying to sell an account in the auction board but not one really cares about that because it's not someone who is as well known as Gleb.

I am not going to argue that the tag is not justified but to anyone claiming anyone would of got this treatment is wrong. Only The Pharmacist seems to be consistent in tagging people who sell accounts. Everyone else is just looking to slay a giant.

Here is the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4441505.0

[Jet Cash]

I don't approve of accounts being sold, especially with the advent of the merit system. Having said that, I'm not sure that an account should be red tagged just because it has been purchased.  I think some sort of alert stating that the acoount had changed hands might be more useful. Of course if the new owner abuses the account, then red tagging may be necessary. Also., I believe that positive trust should be reset to zero, as the trust referred to the previous owner.

This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.

[TheQuin]

This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.

The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.

[LoyceV]

Everyone saying that every account selling accounts get tagged is wrong there is currently a legendary member trying to sell an account in the auction board but not one really cares about that because it's not someone who is as well known as Gleb.

The seller is known, the account to be sold is still unidentified.

I am not going to argue that the tag is not justified but to anyone claiming anyone would of got this treatment is wrong. Only The Pharmacist seems to be consistent in tagging people who sell accounts. Everyone else is just looking to slay a giant.

As much as I appreciate his consistency, I would argue there's a difference between a green trusted Legendary selling an account and a Newbie selling his dozens of farmed accounts. The latter is less likely to cause massive spam, although I think the account should have a neutral tag stating the date of the sale. But tagging sold accounts won't be possible as long as sellers are being tagged, and sales are an undergrounnd market.
If accounts sales would be public, the buyer would know his account will be scrutinized, and he'll have to be very careful not to spam from his "investment".

I'm not sure that an account should be red tagged just because it has been purchased.  I think some sort of alert stating that the acoount had changed hands might be more useful. Of course if the new owner abuses the account, then red tagging may be necessary. Also., I believe that positive trust should be reset to zero, as the trust referred to the previous owner.

That won't always work, as the accounts that left the positive trust may not even be active anymore.

Buying an account is like cheating the Activity and Merit systems, which were introduced to restrict the spamming capacity for new users.
Apart from the farmed spam accounts, I can think of arguments for both sides. Therefore I won't tag account sales myself, but I'll present evidence if I find it.

[jackg]

This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.

The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.

I'm not entirely sure about the business thing. If some of the staff/people with acces to it, remains the same then I don't think anything has changed too much. If the company get sold outright and the entire staff is changed then the account and business arguably should have their trust and history removed.
Otherwise it looks a lot like it's one rule for one and one rule for another...
Although, the same legal entity do technically own the account - a link to their business probile showing the change of the shareholders would be helpful in fully clarifying all of the information about the account.

That won't always work, as the accounts that left the positive trust may not even be active anymore.

Buying an account is like cheating the Activity and Merit systems, which were introduced to restrict the spamming capacity for new users.
Apart from the farmed spam accounts, I can think of arguments for both sides. Therefore I won't tag account sales myself, but I'll present evidence if I find it.

I think it would be nice to see that if an account is inactive for say a year and gets locked by the forum maybe due to it's inactivity, it should be moved down to DT4 so that there isn't a potential for any scams from the account (the history should remain and the trust level should be regained if the ownership of the account can be proven). I have seen a lot of users here that have positive ratings that have gone on to do immense scams and have retained that positive because the user who gave them a positive has not been online since just before they scammed.

@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow,  has the account gone back to Bruno?

[TheQuin]

arguably should have their trust and history removed.

I semi agree on this bit. I'd say that the people that left that trust should review it and decide if they still feel it is valid under the new owners.

What I was trying to get at is that it shouldn't be the default position that if a business gets sold that it should be tagged red simply because of that in the same way that a personal account would.

[funsponge]

As much as I appreciate his consistency, I would argue there's a difference between a green trusted Legendary selling an account and a Newbie selling his dozens of farmed accounts. The latter is less likely to cause massive spam, although I think the account should have a neutral tag stating the date of the sale. But tagging sold accounts won't be possible as long as sellers are being tagged, and sales are an undergrounnd market.
If accounts sales would be public, the buyer would know his account will be scrutinized, and he'll have to be very careful not to spam from his "investment".

I never considered this and I think thats a real good way of looking at it. Though should the seller release the information about the account they are selling? Otherwise they are protecting a sold account. If that is the case there is no difference between tagging sold accounts and the seller.

[suchmoon]

@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow,  has the account gone back to Bruno?

I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg40211133#msg40211133

And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.

[jackg]

@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow,  has the account gone back to Bruno?

I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg40211133#msg40211133

And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.

Ok that's good. I was considering you controlled it still and then checked back somewhere else and thought it went back to him but wasn't sure.

$600 was quite a small amount compared to the value of his account (though it already had negative trust so)... Quite fast to raise it also so that's good.

[Jet Cash]

It makes me wonder if I should monetise my accouint. I own the .com to go with it, so maybe I should start a new coin, or a fast exchange system.

[Flying Hellfish]

This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer.

I can speculate and maybe add something here:

Bruno seems to be trying hard to move forward his yutucoin idea.  
I think he has figured out it isn't going very far with it with him at the helm flying solo.  I believe he thought bringing in an ICO consultant would be the best way to move the project forward.

ICO consultant cost money and maybe Bruno is unable to fund it himself.  He decides to run a pre-ICO to get enough funding to hire the ICO consultant and run an ICO for yutucoin.

Based on the traffic in the pre-ICO thread and the wallets listed I had not seen much support for his project other than myself and another unnamed user.  I think he didn't get the response he wanted and so decided another option to raise funds would be to join sig campaigns.

He applied to chipmixer and iirc he even mentioned he was raising funds for a project.  His ap was declined and he then applied for bitcloak (iirc) which again iirc was full so he didn't get in.  I didn't follow any other sig apps the gleb account made but I thought he was in another one at least before all this went down.

If I am correct Bruno is now not getting much support from his pre-ICO nor able to monetize his sig space and is still wanting (needing?) to raise money.  

The next decision is to sell the gleb account.  This is where he gets fucking stupid IMO.  You can't argue Bruno didn't try to sell the gleb account, the facts are there.  Selling a DT account privately has way to much abuse potential, that's a fact.

I am not sure at this point it the account passed hands or not (before Suchmoon stepped in and helped diffuse the situation).  I am also not sure if he is "protecting" the buyer and those 2 points still trouble me a bit personally.

Now I will fully admit and have wondered if Bruno made up the whole yutucoin pre-ICO to just make some money to live?  I made up my mind that wasn't the case I actually think he believes in his idea and I sent him a couple hundreds bucks, I'm ok with the gamble!  IF I've been scammed well lesson learned!

"He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it

Perhaps (I say perhaps because I can't speak for Bruno obviously) he didn't want to ask for another loan (he had at least one outstanding to DS) and perhaps he wanted to ask for support in his own way ie launching his pre-ICO instead of asking loan?  If he actually believes in yutucoin he may have thought offering an early bonus for supporting him may be better for everyone than another loan?  Perhaps the sig campaign joining and gleb account sale was another alternative to taking another loan.

On the flip side perhaps Bruno had much more nefarious intentions after all.  Perhaps he is tired of the community or in personal trouble we don't know about.  Maybe he thought he could leverage his notoriety here and whip up a pre-ICO and grab XXX money because he's desperate.  When that didn't go so well he needed money and went to rent or sell his gleb account.

I think it's clear which way I think it went but I will also admit that I would not be comfortable risking anymore than I already have at this point and time.  I'm not in any way arguing what he did (ie trying to sell his gleb account, especially secretly) was smart or right.  I think it was stupid.  

I really don't want to try to speak for Bruno nor am I defending what he did but perhaps I have presented something else to consider in this mess!

I am very happy Suchmoon stepped in and provided at least some temporary situational grounding!

[funsponge]

Suchmoon did the right thing in my opinion and I think it goes to show the trustworthiness that Gleb shown to give it to suchmoon.

@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow,  has the account gone back to Bruno?

I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg40211133#msg40211133

And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.

Ok that's good. I was considering you controlled it still and then checked back somewhere else and thought it went back to him but wasn't sure.

$600 was quite a small amount compared to the value of his account (though it already had negative trust so)... Quite fast to raise it also so that's good.

I do not see why the amount received or quoted has any factor in any of this. If it was sold for $1 or $10000 it would not matter.

[Quickseller]

This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.

The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.

I'm not entirely sure about the business thing. If some of the staff/people with acces to it, remains the same then I don't think anything has changed too much. If the company get sold outright and the entire staff is changed then the account and business arguably should have their trust and history removed.
Otherwise it looks a lot like it's one rule for one and one rule for another...
Although, the same legal entity do technically own the account - a link to their business probile showing the change of the shareholders would be helpful in fully clarifying all of the information about the account.

What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling?

The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?