svojoe, green-trusted probably hacked/bought account

[actmyname]

User in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=32003

You got this huge post gap between October of 2016 and September of 2017 and the first post after the gap is an address stake.

what i cant understand is this code taken from https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L1356:

You see that "if TestNet" hashing is LYRA2, else it is scrypt_N_1_1_256

so are we mining scrypt_N ?  

Code:

    uint256 GetPoWHash(int height) const
    {
        uint256 thash;

        if( !fTestNet && height >= 500){
            LYRA2(BEGIN(thash), 32, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, 2, height, 256);
        }else if(fTestNet && height >= 138){
            LYRA2(BEGIN(thash), 32, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, 2, height, 256);
        }else{
            scrypt_N_1_1_256(BEGIN(nVersion), BEGIN(thash), GetNfactor(nTime));
        }

        return thash;
}

From block 500 lyra2

So your saying, that ontop of a 10% on-going premine, The first 500blocks had been Scrypt-N to benefit GPU miners?

My sig:

Code:

1HKCukVJbQJjeymYxFPBZvtjf9JDAtoCG1

Code:

This is svojoe, today is 21.09.17

Code:

ILiESin/7O5q02LpQFY+jQsNY5I4Gi/oqcXaqI19KarHWxpYQs+5ToaO9jJbBdeG7hVO6SNWcnRuzxsKLC8fDRo=

Thx!

The posting style changes dramatically, from this (in the early days):

Yeah all this chatter about hooking up pc power supplies is a pursuit of the damned, for additional pain and misery.  Just get real power supplies and be done with it.

I do not know how these units were designed, but let's assume for a sec they have a thermal cutoff.  Then some of the sections may shut down if they get too hot.  Inconsistent fan on your three blades could cause that.  Laying them flat on a surface with no airflow to one of the sides could do that.  Too close together, etc.

To determine if it is a hardware problem, swap the little board with the RJ45 connector between known good and suspect.  Then swap the power board.  Then swap the RJ45 cables, which can definitely go bad.

 If you move a part around and the problem follows the part, you have a bad part.  The only exception would be special handling of that part's IP address by the router.  Obviously each of the blades needs a discrete IP and it must be in the addressing range of the router.  They all came as 192.168.1.254, iirc.

I set mine to 192.168.1.200/201/202...

Note there is a reset switch between two pins, it reset back to default IP.

This is good advice,   Though all three of my blades are exhibiting the exact same behavior so I don't know how to play them off against each other.  I did however try to move the strongest PSU around them and it made no difference.  I'm convinced the blades themselves have a reset timer built in.  As if a condition exists that is causing them to re-start in an attempt to mine.

I am fairly certain it is not a heat issue, I have the three blades mounted about 2" apart vertically and I have a extremely strong blower blowing between/around and through all three.   It is thousands of CFM.  It is the style you would see at a store to dry off the floor after a long rain.  I have to run it on the lowest setting otherwise I risk blowing the blades across the room!    When I reach into the gale force winds, the blades are warm only.   on all surfaces.

My 'gut' is telling me there is a connection issue causing my blades not to recieve proof of work/submission etc from the pool and they are auto-restarting.   I am going to try to get into my router and make sure I open all ports (if they are not) and see what gives.  I have a feeling these blades think they need to restart because they think they are hashing without reward?    Are they smart enough to check for that and restart?!

to this:

There are no cryptos about privacy at your portfolio. I'd like to advice ZEC, DASH, XMR, ZEN, Verge or PivX. I guess some of them should grow in middle term.

Moreover, one day before the gapped post, the password to the account was changed: https://archive.is/sPr0x#selection-343.0-347.19

Haven't found any email/other password changes via archive but I think this is enough evidence of a change.

[svojoe]

Hello. This is my confession.
Yes, you are right, I've bought this account in September 2017 for $750 from the owner, I guess. I think so because I didn't get any messages from anyone asking to get it back or something like that and the price was really high. I'm a decent guy and I never abuse anyone, never use green trust to scam.
Sorry.

[TheUltraElite]

Hello. This is my confession.
Yes, you are right, I've bought this account in September 2017 for $750 from the owner, I guess.

QFR
archived - http://archive.is/UAT96#selection-2093.0-2097.6
Why do you want to buy an account when you can make a new account - added on that you can buy the copper membership to get rid of the newbie jail as well for a few bucks.

I think so because I didn't get any messages from anyone asking to get it back or something like that and the price was really high.

Why would the seller even want it back?  Stop making a fool of yourself.

I'm a decent guy and I never abuse anyone, never use green trust to scam.
Sorry.

If you never used the green trust to scam anyone why are you even saying "sorry"?
Whatever be the case bought account cannot be trusted. They are or will potentially be used to scam shitpost farm accounts and perform other shady activities. Hence you have to bear the negative trust on your account.

[Quickseller]

Do you really think it is necessary to tag this guy for buying the account 9 months after the fact? Just curious.

[actmyname]

Do you really think it is necessary to tag this guy for buying the account 9 months after the fact? Just curious.

If a user buys trust and isn't caught for x duration that doesn't mean they can get away scot-free purely because of the timeframe. Account trading is akin to buying trust, i.e. reputation.Didn't think you'd go to this argument.

[Quickseller]

Given the circumstances, do you really believe he “bought trust”?

[actmyname]

Given the circumstances, do you really believe he “bought trust”?

I have already given my stance on account trading, where I have a personal equivalence between buying trust, reputation, and hence buying accounts. You can certainly search for it.

After all, when you buy an account, you are essentially purchasing its reputation, its trust. Is this wrong?

[digaran]

What did svojoe do to deserve a negative trust from you? did he scam anybody? did he get into campaign managing business that you don't like to see people to do around here?
He never scammed anybody, however if you are going to ignore the timeframe of events you might as well tag Blazed for being involved in account trading back in the days, but I guess if you ever do that you'll get kicked out from his trust list immediately, so it is in your best interest if you don't tag him and keep tagging other people and other campaign managers.

[marlboroza]

What did svojoe do to deserve a negative trust from you? did he scam anybody? did he get into campaign managing business that you don't like to see people to do around here?
He never scammed anybody, however if you are going to ignore the timeframe of events you might as well tag Blazed for being involved in account trading back in the days, but I guess if you ever do that you'll get kicked out from his trust list immediately, so it is in your best interest if you don't tag him and keep tagging other people and other campaign managers.

What did manahab, sonicrings and jaketezz do to deserve a negative trust from you?
Somewhere in my question you can find answer to your question

[Quickseller]

Given the circumstances, do you really believe he “bought trust”?

I have already given my stance on account trading, where I have a personal equivalence between buying trust, reputation, and hence buying accounts. You can certainly search for it.

After all, when you buy an account, you are essentially purchasing its reputation, its trust. Is this wrong?

Is your concern that he bought the account, or that the account he bought has positive trust?

If it is the later, it doesn't look like he has engaged in any trades since buying the account, according to his sent/received trust history,  and he is currently participating in a signature campaign. Based on the evidence, I would say he was more likely buying an account that is xx rank, so he can participate in a signature campaign that happened to have some trust.

The person who gave this account positive trust has not been active for years so asking for it to be removed would have not accomplished anything.

Since we are discussing researching accounts that may have been sold a long time ago, I might ask what your opinion is on aTriz being very clearly sold, and going into business with someone who has an even stronger stance on sold accounts than you do, by a large degree.

[Lebrianso]

wow bought 9 month ago and get tagged right know. sadjoe
im also have list some member who have sell account from collateral loan


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312157.msg13426901#msg13426901
its old. will you still tag ?

he is not buyer . he is seller . wow dealers is the problem.

[actmyname]

wow bought 9 month ago and get tagged right know. sadjoe
im also have list some member who have sell account from collateral loan


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312157.msg13426901#msg13426901
its old. will you still tag ?

he is not buyer . he is seller . wow dealers is the problem.

Yeah. Doesn't matter about their notoriety. I've tagged the user in question. I actually forgot about them for a while. Giveaway abuse is definitely not something I condone.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

After all, when you buy an account, you are essentially purchasing its reputation, its trust. Is this wrong?

No, that's completely correct.  The problem here is who you're trying to convince, i.e., a person who thinks he can do a deal with a person and also act as the escrow for the transaction....and a few other flawed perceptions along with a healthy dose of no self-awareness.  QS is best not replied to, IMO.

I'm sure there are some people who buy accounts only to get into a signature campaign and end up being constructive contributors to bitcointalk, but my view is that they are the rare exception and hardly the rule.  When you buy an account, yes, you're assuming the reputation of the original owner if you don't disclose that the account is purchased.  You take credit for the post history, the rank, trust, merit, and everything that goes along with it. 

It's very easy to scam if the account has a good trade history and/or a high rank.  We all know there are people here who'll maybe look at the trust page, but normally just the rank and activity and if the trust score under the avatar is red or not.  I see it all the time. 

The second thing is that people buy high-ranked accounts in order to join campaigns/bounties, and they end up trying to post in the main section, where they're completely incompetent in the language, and it ends up polluting the forum something fierce.  So if anyone's been wondering why I've been tagging accounts for about 2 years now, those are the reasons.  Account selling is poisonous to bitcointalk.

[actmyname]

No, that's completely correct.

Good.

The problem here is who you're trying to convince, i.e., a person who thinks he can do a deal with a person and also act as the escrow for the transaction....and a few other flawed perceptions along with a healthy dose of no self-awareness.  QS is best not replied to, IMO.

I have never let Quickseller's history determine my attitude towards them. They can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that I have remained quite civil when we encounter one another in a discussion.

I'm sure there are some people who buy accounts only to get into a signature campaign and end up being constructive contributors to bitcointalk, but my view is that they are the rare exception and hardly the rule.

One notable user that comes to mind is Avirunes. So, it is possible that account trading can result in some good but for the most part it's being given to people that won't bring about good post quality. After all, it's quite common in the Russian board and I don't think that most of the consumer-base is very fluent in English.

When you buy an account, yes, you're assuming the reputation of the original owner [... and] you take credit for the post history, the rank, trust, merit, and everything that goes along with it.

Agreed.

[Quickseller]

I'm sure there are some people who buy accounts only to get into a signature campaign and end up being constructive contributors to bitcointalk, but my view is that they are the rare exception and hardly the rule.

When you buy an account, you quite literally have invested in your ability to constructively participate here. Further, the forum is not affected if someone is using a purchased account to post crap verses someone using an account that posts crap.

  When you buy an account, yes, you're assuming the reputation of the original owner if you don't disclose that the account is purchased. 

That is a disingenuous argument. You (should) know very well that if someone advertises they purchased an account today they will receive multiple negative ratings.

It's very easy to scam if the account has a good trade history and/or a high rank. 

This is a common argument, however I have not seen evidence this is actually a common occurrence. In fact, I believe the fact that an account is a purchased account has a material affect on a scam attempt is a fairly rare occurrence -- the most recent example I can think of this happening is aTriz, which was a couple of months ago.

[actmyname]

When you buy an account, you quite literally have invested in your ability to constructively participate here. Further, the forum is not affected if someone is using a purchased account to post crap verses someone using an account that posts crap.

I will disagree with this statement.

You buy an account, presumably, to increase your pay. Let's consider two scenarios, shall we?

1) The buyer has a Newbie account or no Bitcointalk account and aims to participate in signature campaigns. You can conclude that their post quality will not be great considering their experience. Moreover, their crap output is amplified due to less wait time between posts.

Newbie and Jr. Member accounts require merit to rank up. Buying an account does not. This means that they won't have to write quality content, since they're already at (presumably) a rank that can participate in campaigns. If you want proof, jump into any thread outside of Reputation and Scam Accusations.

2) The buyer already has a Bitcointalk account and simply wants to buy another account to increase income, regardless of its rank. This means an increase in required output of posts. I know you vehemently denied the fact that more posts = lower quality, but let's face it.

The majority of account traders are probably going to put in the same amount of time (at least for two accounts) and compensate by dropping the quality. You can often see the effects when you stumble into threads that have general titles that can be responded to within a minute.