VIP Member hacked?

[actmyname]

Yes, of course some of my BTC were lost due to the hard drive crash. I didn't saved any BTC I sold most of them. Also I don't tend to earn much from crypto now.

If there were some addresses that weren't lost by the drive, then you should be able to sign them, right?

What happened to the coins is irrelevant. As long as we have a tx history and a signed message we know the circulation of BTC.

[JusticeForYou]

If there were some addresses that weren't lost by the drive, then you should be able to sign them, right?

What happened to the coins is irrelevant. As long as we have a tx history and a signed message we know the circulation of BTC.

Don't you see all of my private key were in a single drive which I used mostly. Also just to let you know, price of BTC were pretty low at the time I was holding large amounts of it.

Please stop trying to juggle me in this questions, I am not here to get into this investigation. I have already confirmed my issue and its very genuine to anyone. Also I have reported a PM confirming my email id from 2012 to Global Moderator.

[Hhampuz]

The issue is that an email proves literally nothing. I'd guess that the most usual way people have their accounts here hacked (unless they are newbie accounts) are through hacked emails.

For all we know the VIP member from 2011 retired and could care less about his old email/bitcointalk account.

[qwk]

A quick question that you should be able to answer:
Do you remember why you are in Bitcoin?
(I think I remember)

Yes, I was first introduced to it by Steve Gibson. Also I was working with IRC stuff at the initial stage.

Correct for the "Steve Gibson" part.
Reference (only visible to donators, vips and staff): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66601.msg805221#msg805221
Otoh, this is information that can be seen in your post history, so it doesn't necessarily prove much.
What it tells me is that you're either really BTC_Bear or someone who's quick at searching through his post history

The IRC stuff is nothing I can confirm or deny.
It might actually point to you misinterpreting the above post (IRL != IRC), which would make it seem more likely that you're an impostor.
Difficult.

Also, would it be possible for you to sign a message with a bitcoin address with some substantial amount of bitcoins in it?

I don't know what does substantial point here but yes I can transfer some small amount of Bitcoin to my currently signed BTC address some days back.

Again something that arouses my suspicion:
I've not asked for a transfer of bitcoins to one of your old addresses.
I've asked for a signed message.
I assume BTC_Bear should know the difference.
Difficult.

But go ahead, show us the money, it might be convincing, if it's a large enough stack


edit: can Steve Gibson vouch for you?

[JusticeForYou]

The IRC stuff is nothing I can confirm or deny.
It might actually point to you misinterpreting the above post (IRL != IRC), which would make it seem more likely that you're an impostor.
Difficult.

No. I was pointing to Internet Really Chat (IRC) not IRL.

I don't know what does substantial point here but yes I can transfer some small amount of Bitcoin to my currently signed BTC address some days back.

Again something that arouses my suspicion:
I've not asked for a transfer of bitcoins to one of your old addresses.
I've asked for a signed message.
I assume BTC_Bear should know the difference.
Difficult.

Yes, I was saying the same, you miss-understood it, I said I will send substantial amount of BTC to one of my address signed here some days back and then sign a message with it.

But go ahead, show us the money, it might be convincing, if it's a large enough stack

No it is not as I said I don't earn from crypto now.

edit: can Steve Gibson vouch for you?

No. LOL

[cryptohunter]

If he has the original email that is more than enough.

No.
It is actually highly likely that an account could have been hacked simply by acquiring access to the original email address.
So, proof of control of the email address doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Am I the only one noticing he is not spamming a sig ?  like every single other person in this thread. That would suggest he is not desperate for btc dust either like the rest here which further supports the fact he is likely a vip.

That's the reason why my "gut feeling" says "not hacked".
Then again, it might be considered wise to err on the side of caution.

Not only the fact there is no sig being spammed. There is no mention from the hacked person they lost control of the account. Is it not unlikely someone would not kick off if their vip account got hacked? also most hacks here are mostly due to the site being compromised are they not? my email was never hacked but they hacked my account. Lucky for me they missed the PM with the keys to several million dollars of an alt that were sitting there that I had no other record of that I could locate. That was a big relief to get control back.

I think for certain account swaps then perhaps it is debatable but for only "possible" account swaps or sales then neutral is sufficient warning surely.

[qwk]

The IRC stuff is nothing I can confirm or deny.
It might actually point to you misinterpreting the above post (IRL != IRC), which would make it seem more likely that you're an impostor.
Difficult.

No. I was pointing to Internet Really Chat (IRC) not IRL.

I know, but the referenced post said something about IRL (in real life) applications of Bitcoin, so I guessed that maybe a BTC_Bear-impostor might have misinterpreted it.
As I said, difficult, I'm just weighing possibilities here.

I don't know what does substantial point here but yes I can transfer some small amount of Bitcoin to my currently signed BTC address some days back.

I've not asked for a transfer of bitcoins to one of your old addresses.
I've asked for a signed message.

Yes, I was saying the same, you miss-understood it, I said I will send substantial amount of BTC to one of my address signed here some days back and then sign a message with it.

Okay, point for you
Again, juggling possibilities.

But go ahead, show us the money, it might be convincing, if it's a large enough stack

No it is not as I said I don't earn from crypto now.

Too sad. Signing with e.g. a hundred BTC would have made a good point for you.
Many (of course not all) VIPs should be able to do that.
Quite a few (again: not all) donators can.

edit: can Steve Gibson vouch for you?

No. LOL

That was just a wild guess, of course


Okay, moment of truth:
- you say you are BTC_Bear
- you no longer have more than a few BTC
- you no longer have private keys of known old addresses
- you have not (so far) given conclusive evidence that would point to you actually being who you are
It's not very far fetched to assume an impostor.

I personally have left negative trust in the past just based on the assumption that someone might not be trustworthy.
Really the only reason why I've not left a negative trust rating for you so far is that I know how "dear" a vip or donator account can be to the owner.
Otoh, unless you're trying to do any trades on bitcointalk, negative trust won't hurt too much.
I'm pretty much undecided, but under the given circumstances, I'd feel better hurting you feelings than running the risk of an impostor doing something bad with a vip account.

It was a tough decision, but I've come to the conclusion that I'll leave negative feedback for you. For the moment.
I promise to delete it once I'm somehow convinced otherwise (maybe your proposed transfer of a minor amount of BTC will do the trick, but we'll see how much it turns out to be).
Please try not to take it personally.

[qwk]

Dear fellow DT1 members,

if you think I'm being too harsh here, please exclude me from your trust lists (~qwk), effectively voting me out.
(Or at least speak up and tell me I'm wrong)

It was a tough decision, but I've come to the conclusion that I'll leave negative feedback for you. For the moment.
I promise to delete it once I'm somehow convinced otherwise (maybe your proposed transfer of a minor amount of BTC will do the trick, but we'll see how much it turns out to be).
Please try not to take it personally.

[Hhampuz]

I agree with the rating qwk. And I'll echo your sentiment that if they can provide substantial evidence to refute the accusations the negative should be removed.

[JusticeForYou]

It was a tough decision, but I've come to the conclusion that I'll leave negative feedback for you. For the moment.
I promise to delete it once I'm somehow convinced otherwise (maybe your proposed transfer of a minor amount of BTC will do the trick, but we'll see how much it turns out to be).
Please try not to take it personally.

This could be pointed as an trust abuse, you could make the tag neutral, until it is proved. Yes, negative trust would not effect me, but you know it shows bad repo of a person and I cannot bare it as I have not done anything scammy here.

[qwk]

It was a tough decision, but I've come to the conclusion that I'll leave negative feedback for you. For the moment.
I promise to delete it once I'm somehow convinced otherwise (maybe your proposed transfer of a minor amount of BTC will do the trick, but we'll see how much it turns out to be).
Please try not to take it personally.

This could be pointed as an trust abuse, you could make the tag neutral, until it is proved. Yes, negative trust would not effect me, but you know it shows bad repo of a person and I cannot bare it as I have not done anything scammy here.

I personally have left negative trust in the past just based on the assumption that someone might not be trustworthy.

I've been known to handle trust in my own peculiar way for quite some time now.
If the other DT1 members come to the conclusion that they don't like the way I deal with my responsibility, I trust (and urge) them to vote me out, thus rendering my negative feedback ineffective.

[actmyname]

This could be pointed as an trust abuse, you could make the tag neutral, until it is proved. Yes, negative trust would not effect me, but you know it shows bad repo of a person and I cannot bare it as I have not done anything scammy here.

What would you need the reputation for?

Like you said, it wouldn't [effect] you.

A negative rating stands out to those that would do trades with you. Given the possibility of a compromised account, it's better to guard against anything in the event that a new owner does scam.

[JusticeForYou]

I have sent a PM to theymos as @qwk was unable to confirm my identity and just personally tagged me without any evidence of my account being hacked.

What would you need the reputation for?

Like you said, it wouldn't [effect] you.

A negative rating stands out to those that would do trades with you. Given the possibility of a compromised account, it's better to guard against anything in the event that a new owner does scam.

Yes, it won't effect me but I see this as an abuse of power, which is clearly without any evidence and anyone would not bare a fake trust here.

[qwk]

I have sent a PM to theymos as @qwk was unable to confirm my identity and just personally tagged me without any evidence of my account being hacked.

I trust theymos to handle this in the way he designed his system to handle it: ~qwk

[TheNewAnon135246]

This could be pointed as an trust abuse, you could make the tag neutral, until it is proved. Yes, negative trust would not effect me, but you know it shows bad repo of a person and I cannot bare it as I have not done anything scammy here.

What would you need the reputation for?

Like you said, it wouldn't [effect] you.

A negative rating stands out to those that would do trades with you. Given the possibility of a compromised account, it's better to guard against anything in the event that a new owner does scam.

I agree, especially since it is a VIP account. A VIP account could do a lot of damage if it falls into the wrong hands. Looking at the earlier posts made by BTC_Bear I find it incredibly hard to believe that he/she would store their bitcoins on a HDD without backing up their private keys.

[Veleor]

I have sent a PM to theymos ~

Administrator can compare your current and old IP addresses, this probably may help you if they are coincide.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Though I hate to see a VIP account get tagged for something like this, my instinct--based on what I'm reading from JusticeForYou--tells me that the current owner of the account isn't the original one.  Every piece of evidence points to the current owner not being a member from 2011, from the inability to sign a message to not owning a significant amount of bitcoin.  Nothing really points toward the opposite that I can see.

It's a good thing that there was no scam attempt, and JusticeForYou seems like a decent person--but you never know what anyone's intentions are, not on the internet and especially not on this forum.  I'm still trying to figure out how many alt accounts VINSIN has and who these troll accounts actually belong to, and they're not anywhere near VIP members.  Ultimately it's better to be safe than sorry, because all the senior members here have seen high-ranked accounts turn out to be scammers (Master-P, for example).

I'm still hoping there's a way of JFY proving he's the original owner of the account, but it looks like he's going to go with being the victim of injustice option instead.  No offense, JFY.

[OgNasty]

This is what happens to established members who point out abuse.  Pretty typical.  You don't agree with those who are trying to corner the trust system, you must be cast out of the system.  Plain and simple.

[cryptohunter]

Seems like massive overkill.

Red trust on a "possibility" of account hack that seems unlikely given he has the original email, does not seem to need to spam a sig.

Neutral is more than sufficient.

Of course no "DT" will disagree you, already been mentioned in this thread in public "shown up again with STRONG views" ...  That seems a more realistic reason for this red trust.

[MadZ]

Not saying OP is or isn't the original owner, but I find it funny people keep asking to see a fat stack of coins.

The value in keeping your crypto holdings private on a profile linked to your identity is much higher than the value of proving that identity.