How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale?

[Foxpup]

That is a new precedent and I see no disagreement from DT's in this thread so far that seem to have vanished. Perhaps I will call for their view on this one by one.

I disagree, not for any specific reason, but just for the sake of reminding you that DTs are allowed to disagree on things and since non-vixens aren't willing to give enough of a fuck to read your threads.

I wonder how many that vile little vixen fox poop gets to slather all over Huge Black Woman and suchmoon each month.

It's only 50 per month per user, same as non-sources. I'm not the only one doing the slathering, you know.

I'm going to drastically reduce my posting from now on. I have tried to help this board expel these scammers infesting the systems of control but I will not spend more than 15 mins per day on here from now on. Except on special occasions. I feel it will all collapse into chaos eventually anyway. Selfish greedy people can only collude successfully for so long. I almost feel by creating a common enemy (my good self) that I am indeed helping them hold it together. It may be time for a change of tactics.  

youtube.com/watch?v=Svstp1CWuF0

[1715423869]

1715423869

[1715423869]

1715423869

[1715423869]

1715423869

[1715423869]

1715423869

[nutildah]

I feel like I should say something for the record that I can reference, as this issue will never go away.

CH: You're not exposing "double standards." There's no standard for how to tag an account put up for sale by its owner from 3 years ago. Has the situation ever happened before? If not, there's no standard. Also, I have already been tagged for it, albeit it was a neutral tag.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, lengths that somebody would have to go to in order to complete this sale and avoid detection are extremely complicated and without a clear purpose. Its not some slow, long con that began bungled years ago, all so I could be here to do this. Obviously I didn't know what I was doing, was stupid about it, and had a change of heart. As the great Homer once said,

They don't call him nutildah for nuttin' 

I began as an avid opponent of account selling, managed to rack up zero DT before my "incident," and zero since.

Look. If you can buy accounts, that means the trust system is meaningless, because it means you can buy trust. Within the bounds of the rules. Which is against the rules. Which makes the forum's current policies in contradiction with each other.

That's from a thread where I went off in a raging crusade about how account sellers should be not just red tagged but banned. After it was explained to me by hilariousandco and KWH (who were remarkably patient in retrospect) that wouldn't change anything, I sort of gave up caring at that point, that is until 2017 when crypto started to take off like a rocket and suddenly accounts on this forum were far more valuable than ever before.

And after being here long enough and witnessing the effects first hand, I can see the kind of deviousness that can be accomplished through buying an established account.

I would like to think the good I have contributed to the forum far outweighs the bad, but you know, this is a subjective measurement only determined by a greater consensus. For more dramatic fun and slamming on me personally, please visit my Reputation thread.

[Quickseller]

I also checked the archived secolgs between the initial post and the sale retraction post. There is no evidence of the password being changed in that time period.(I would think someone who acquired an account would at least do that, even if they got the e-mail and staked address. Why would someone leave the password the same after purchasing it, unless they want to get the account stolen back from them?)

In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future.

I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer.

[shasan]

1. You can check either password changed or not from seclog or from BPIP.
2. You can check writing style either changed or not.
3. You can check social media profiles or any other contact info changed or not.
4. Bitcoin wallet or ethereum wallet changed or not.
5. Check post on local board either changed the local board or not.
6. The longtime gap from the selling post.
If any of these happen between sell and not sell post then the account might have been sold. Yet you can't tell 100% perfectly the account has been sold or not. If you can find multiple ways then most probably the account has been sold.

If nothing match or there is no doubtful activity then why we will run behind the account who is now operating the account. And for more info we all the bitcointalk community want to keep it scam free so if there is no suspicious activity on the account we do not need to run behind the account.

[cryptohunter]

excuses

I am not sure if I am getting your meaning correctly.

2014 - you advocate banning account sellers because you recognise the trust of established accounts could be used to scam others.

2016/17 - accounts become valuable so you decide to sell own legend account for a pathetic sum of 0.3btc ? so it can be used to scam others?

this is a defense ? or you are agreeing you should be at least tagged.


The net value of the contributions by you can not really be a valid consideration , because we don't know if you are the original owner.
Not that I see any net value to your contributions (if it is you) except pushing a proven scam for years and now protecting and supporting other scammers, liars and other greedy sneaky slobs. (that just happened to have been pushing that same scam)

I usually would never snitch people who stay clear of me (if they are not scammers). It feels gross snitching anyone., but since you and your goon pals were bullying other people and then came after me and tried to ruin my great account even considering my illustrious past here. Well, now you pulled the dragons tail. I will show you, nor your goon pals any mercy until the systems here no longer crush peoples free speech.

Fox pup giving you 5 cycled merits for this bunch of excuses is an example of this shady gangs tactics. All supporting each other and trying to get them out of trouble when they are busted for doing shit they want to use against others to keep the jack boot on the neck of free speech here. If it was "other people" there would be " I'm an impostor bingo excuses" game and every DT and their feltchers laughing at them. That vile vermin can be probably be observed giving merits to those deriding people offering such excuses for their bans.

The supporters of devious greedy and bullying scum are scum themselves.. Simple as that.  Change your ways else be cast down with them.

I had said many times previously that I thought you were not the same nutildah, long before I saw the account had been up for sale.

The best bit about this is the REFUSAL of the DT's to red flag this account sale advertising by their pal. Just another nail in their coffin and another thing to bitch slap them ALL around with. It gets easier and easier to dominate/deride them all just using their own observable foul deeds and double standards. Dirty Turds.

I basically OWN DT now.  Every DT here has some greedy financially motivated dirt on them, condone, supports and sanction those that do, too scared to speak up against observable wrongdoing, or employ observable double standards. Crushing them all is like a turkey shoot. I mean I can crush you openly based on observable events and you can just double down on your red paint claiming telling the truth is blackmailing them haha

The thing I love the most is that every time I tell them to bring me just 1 incorrect thing I have said that they can demonstrate is wrong......they bring NOTHING. They just run off.

The only thing you can do now is try to get me banned (real motive because I am telling the truth about you all, which will be evident when this is historically analysed)  and that will actually just provide my friends opportunity to join and crow about my great deeds and your foul deeds in even more strong terms without looking like an egomaniac.

or

You could start living by your own standards, remove your trust abuse (for anything on everyone that is not a scammer or strongly likely to scam) , and realise you will never get to crush free speech here for your own personal financial motives.

I seek ONLY a transparent and fair environment where every person is treated equally. Show me the post where I am not pushing for this since I came to meta. Oppose me and you oppose that which I seek. You will lose eventually but already you have been squashed into hiding away in self moderated, local rules echo chambers begging mods to delete truthful on-topic posts haha .... roaches scurrying for the darkness when the light is shone on your devious stinky asses.

I guess this marks the end of the thread. Just another one to bookmark under bitch slap those snitchy bitches.  

Disappointed in mikeywith here. This was your chance to demonstrate that you did not bend to these bunch of jackals.

One need to be pro-stupid to advertise his account using his account, it will be tagged instantly and nobody would want to buy it.

this only applies to non gang goons I guess.

[bones261]

Hey look cryptohunter. I am only trying to follow one of the guidelines Theymos posted a little while back. I have put the particular principal in bold.  I also try to follow the other guidelines as well. I'm not going to give a negative rating to a transgression that happened 3 years ago. Especially when no convincing evidence has been brought forward that establishes the account was indeed transferred. I also noticed in another thread that something similar was brought up about another user. I'm not going to neg that account either.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

[Foxpup]

I basically OWN DT now.  Every DT here has some greedy financially motivated dirt on them, condone, supports and sanction those that do, too scared to speak up against observable wrongdoing, or employ observable double standards. Crushing them all is like a turkey shoot. I mean I can crush you openly based on observable events and you can just double down on your red paint claiming telling the truth is blackmailing them haha

Of course telling the truth can be blackmail. You obviously can't blackmail people with information that is provably false - but you're welcome to try.

[cryptohunter]

I basically OWN DT now.  Every DT here has some greedy financially motivated dirt on them, condone, supports and sanction those that do, too scared to speak up against observable wrongdoing, or employ observable double standards. Crushing them all is like a turkey shoot. I mean I can crush you openly based on observable events and you can just double down on your red paint claiming telling the truth is blackmailing them haha

Of course telling the truth can be blackmail. You obviously can't blackmail people with information that is provably false - but you're welcome to try.

Yep sorry for presenting observable events that demonstrate DT's prior wrongdoing. Blackmailer here everyone haha

Go see the explanation I gave yogg that sniveling trust abusing fool.

He thinks that

If you are on a bus and someone grabs your cell phone and starts to walk away saying it is now their cell phone ... that if you dare to say " give me back my phone or else I will tell the police about this"... that the thief can go to the cops first and report you for blackmail and you will be locked up for it.

You will be given your 1 call (from jail) to call up  the thief on their new shiny cell phone to apologise for trying to black mail them.

I give you meta board and our system controllers.

[yogg]

"give me back my phone or else I will tell the police about this"...

What you describe is indeed blackmail.
"If you do/don't do <thing>, I will <stuff>" is the blackmail formula.

The proper way to handle the bus issue in your example you gave, would be to ask for the phone back, and if not returned, go to the police with the facts, without making the situation worse.

"that the thief can go to the cops first and report you for blackmail and you will be locked up for it

Hah, so this is the kind of country you live in ? Rewarding thiefs by throwing victims in jail ?
Keep blackmailing.  
My personal opinion is that you could use some "how to behave in society for dummies" book.

[bones261]

I also checked the archived secolgs between the initial post and the sale retraction post. There is no evidence of the password being changed in that time period.(I would think someone who acquired an account would at least do that, even if they got the e-mail and staked address. Why would someone leave the password the same after purchasing it, unless they want to get the account stolen back from them?)

In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future.

I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer.

   We can come up with theories all day to explain why an account offered for sale in October 2016 and retracted from sale in July of 2017 didn't change their password until February 2018. I'm going to apply Occam's razor and state the most likely explanation is nutildah offered the account for sale and no one would touch it with a 10 foot pole since the account would permanently be under scrutiny for being a possible sold account.
   Furthermore, I happen to believe that acting as escrow for an alt account is rather shady behavior. However, I am not going to add a negative trust comment for you, either. Does this mean that I shouldn't ever give a negative comment to someone else attempting the same act in the future? If I do, would this mean I am applying a "double standard" since I haven't added a negative trust comment for you? Of course not.  

[cryptohunter]

"give me back my phone or else I will tell the police about this"...

What you describe is indeed blackmail.
"If you do/don't do <thing>, I will <stuff>" is the blackmail formula.

The proper way to handle the bus issue in your example you gave, would be to ask for the phone back, and if not returned, go to the police with the facts, without making the situation worse.

"that the thief can go to the cops first and report you for blackmail and you will be locked up for it

Hah, so this is the kind of country you live in ? Rewarding thiefs by throwing victims in jail ?
Keep blackmailing.  
My personal opinion is that you could use some "how to behave in society for dummies" book.

Stop sending me 1000btc every day -- or else --- I will do anything you ask me too ---- ooohhhhh there is a tough one for you.

Shut up you moron. This demonstrates what an imbecile you are. Just because "some words" in a sentence may be used by someone else to do something negative or immoral means nothing you cretin.

I can not believe you actually reason like this you drooling feltching scum bag.

Of course only a person dumber than yourself like fox poop would merit this kind of stupid reply.

You are too dumb to realise that you are the police throwing the victim in jail in this analogy... you poor deranged ass muncher.

Did you not understand the analogy ffs? please some take away his keyboard and get him off DT. Imagine the damage such an idiot can cause in a trust position.

Any other DT employing this fucked up reasoning needs removal at once. Anyone including these fools on DT need blacklisting too.

[yogg]

If you don't shut up

Shut up

Shut up you moron.

what an imbecile you are.

you drooling feltching scum bag.

dumber than yourself like fox poop would merit this kind of stupid reply.

You are too dumb

you poor deranged ass muncher.

Please keep going. This is entertaining.
Looking at this is like watching a Rembrandt to my eyes.
Coming from you, swears sound like compliments and admiration.

[cryptohunter]

If you don't shut up

Shut up

Shut up you moron.

what an imbecile you are.

you drooling feltching scum bag.

dumber than yourself like fox poop would merit this kind of stupid reply.

You are too dumb

you poor deranged ass muncher.

Please keep going. This is entertaining.
Looking at this is like watching a Rembrandt to my eyes.
Coming from you, swears sound like compliments and admiration.

Okay so now we notice you try to focus on some swearing and accurate descriptions of your mental state.
Also cutting out the context to mislead people into thinking it was just some ranting with no substance.

Place the entire sentences and a I will gladly substantiate every single one of the statements of observable truth.

This is called sidetracking and avoiding the central point.

Let's go back to the analogy.

Why do you not grasp you are the police rewarding the thief and punishing the victim??

Which parts of this cell phone theft on the bus analogy are you having trouble with??

[yogg]

This is called sidetracking and avoiding the central point.

Please let me remind you the topic of this thread then :

"How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale?"

What does it have to do with blackmailing ? You even sidetracked your own thread and now blaming others for your mistakes ?

you are the police

Wait, what ? I am the police now ?
I don't remember signing up for something like this.

Well, if this is a policeman mistake, take him to court and have a trial.

[cryptohunter]

This is called sidetracking and avoiding the central point.

Please let me remind you the topic of this thread then :

"How do you know if the account is sold or not after it was advertised for sale?"

What does it have to do with blackmailing ? You even sidetracked your own thread and now blaming others for your mistakes ?

you are the police

Wait, what ? I am the police now ?
I don't remember signing up for something like this.

Well, if this is a policeman mistake, take him to court and have a trial.

I think you will find it started to go off topic as a result of others also. I have just allowed it to run since the thread is under my own local rules since I find it interesting it has attracted the same "gang" that any criticism of one of their felchers does.

NOW

Back to the analogy stop side tracking and avoiding.

How do you NOT understand YOU are the police in this analogy? are you this stupid or you are just pretending to be stupid?

What is the point of commenting on the analogy if you do not understand it at all?

Let's confirm English is not your first language -- is that correct?

You do understand that "else I will" can be used in a way that does not mean you are implying something negative right?

" If you do not then I will" is not a case in isolation. You understand that right?

[suchmoon]

I am the police now ?

[r1s2g3]

Most DT tag the user who is selling the account. But if user is maintaining the deals discreetly then I guess there is no way.
But there are few things that point towards the account sales.

1. User passsword and email changed.
2. Account suddenly become active and start looking for sig campaigns.
3. Either there is no post history or post history is also deleted.
4. change of language

[tbct_mt2]

Most DT tag the user who is selling the account.

I am not sure what @theymos really implied there.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

Account tradings, cheats, scammed, trolled, all of those are potentially get red trust, so which kind of cases users will be given a second chance and their red tags lifted up?
No one knows, that seems to be arbitrary and personal decisions of each DT member.
Any ideas at this point, please raise it here.

[Quickseller]

I would be interested in hearing the basis for believing that he is “unlikely” to engage in similar behavior in the future for those that normally tag accounts in similar situations but declined to in this case.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

What you describe is indeed blackmail.
"If you do/don't do <thing>, I will <stuff>" is the blackmail formula.

I'm not an expert on blackmail, but I'm pretty sure the above in certain contexts could be considered a warning instead of blackmail.  If a police officer tells you to stop speeding, or else you're going to suffer the consequences, that's a warning.  He isn't looking to get something out of the transaction personally--and I think that's a key component of blackmail/extortion.

If someone sends a PM to a member on bitcointalk stating that if they don't stop spamming in a thread that they're going to get reported/negged, I would see that more as a chance to correct behavior before the offending party suffers some consequences.  It isn't threatening to expose someone in exchange for money/favors/whatever, which is usually what blackmail is.