Tomatocage wakes up, posts a ref link... be careful

[Quickseller]

TC has had a binance referral link in his signature for years. I don’t find it suspicious or unusual.

I find that claim quite suspicious given that binance was founded in July 2017, TC didn't have that link in his sig as of December 2017, and went offline in early 2018. So how many "years" is that?

At least 1.5 http://archive.is/PNG2P

The fact he has had a referral link in his signature for 1.5 years instead of “two” (or more) does not change the fact using a referral link is not unusual for him.

[1714894946]

1714894946

[minifrij]

The fact he has had a referral link in his signature for 1.5 years instead of “two” (or more) does not change the fact using a referral link is not unusual for him.

The use of a referral link isn't the issue, as I said previously.

A referral link in the signature is much different to ref spam on the forum. Ref spam on the forum is reminiscent of a newbie who hasn't been here very long and doesn't know the rules, not a long standing community veteran.

[suchmoon]

At least 1.5 http://archive.is/PNG2P

The fact he has had a referral link in his signature for 1.5 years instead of “two” (or more) does not change the fact using a referral link is not unusual for him.

"At least 1.5" would be on July 24 2019 or later. Anyway, it is still very unusual that the ref links were added right before the account went dark, then it woke up only to spam a new link and update the signature. Completely out of character compared to TC's YEARS of activity on Bitcointalk, no matter how you spin it.

Do you control the Tomatocage account?

I take your failure to answer a simple yes/no question 3 times as a "yes".

[Quickseller]

The fact he has had a referral link in his signature for 1.5 years instead of “two” (or more) does not change the fact using a referral link is not unusual for him.

The use of a referral link isn't the issue, as I said previously.

A referral link in the signature is much different to ref spam on the forum. Ref spam on the forum is reminiscent of a newbie who hasn't been here very long and doesn't know the rules, not a long standing community veteran.

Your attempt to twist the situation is duly noted.

This is a smear campaign, and you are both well aware of this and are an active participant.

[marlboroza]

Do you control the Tomatocage account?

I take your failure to answer a simple yes/no question 3 times as a "yes".

You mean 4 times.

[suchmoon]

Do you control the Tomatocage account?

I take your failure to answer a simple yes/no question 3 times as a "yes".

You mean 4 times.

Pleading the 5th LOL

I sent a PM to TC:

There are some doubts about the ownership of your account. Would you mind signing a dated message with your Bitcoin address?

Thanks.

--sm.

[Timelord2067]

@Suchmoon: Tomatocage went offline on the 20th of September 2015 after I posted this post and has rarely come back online since.  I have been archiving those occasions via archive.is and web.archive.org

[minifrij]

Your attempt to twist the situation is duly noted.

This is a smear campaign, and you are both well aware of this and are an active participant.

Whatever. I don't much understand why you're being like this, but I'll just leave you to it.

[Tomatocage]

There’s no way the original Tomatocage is in control of this account any more. Coming back after so long & posting a referral link is out of character.

Take precautions when interacting with the account.

It's me. I just drop by from time to time

Base64 sig:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN MESSAGE-----
Comment: Signed by Bitcoin Armory v0.93.3

Gw9FCrcotZOuynUO/BpKGjonhn2tQ2ABILUetpVmLZYbsD8AJo1RlnmcrtSSdvUw
eHaStzwt5pY2H2p58Qf64hlUb21hdG9jYWdlIEp1bmUgMTB0aCwgMjAxOQ==
=mO4H
-----END BITCOIN MESSAGE-----

Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg10820715#msg10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=

[suchmoon]

Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg10820715#msg10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=

Thanks. Verified ok.

I'm still puzzled by your affiliation with Quickseller but I can't really argue anymore after you signed the message.

[LoyceV]

Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg10820715#msg10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=

Verified.
Although accounts have been sold including staked address.

[Tomatocage]

Thanks. Verified ok.

I'm still puzzled by your affiliation with Quickseller but I can't really argue anymore after you signed the message.

Gotta make up for all those Tx fees somehow

Edit: And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.

[Tomatocage]

Verified.
Although accounts have been sold including staked address.

Theymos should be able to verify that this is the same IP I've always used, if you need an additional layer of assurance.

[Lauda]

And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.

Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time.

[Tomatocage]

Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time.

Your moms?

[suchmoon]

Gotta make up for all those Tx fees somehow

Edit: And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.

There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.

If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.

[Tomatocage]

There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.

If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.

What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct

Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.

[owlcatz]

There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.

If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.

What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct

Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.

You did not really answer the question in RED above.

You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?

[BharatDEX]

There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.

If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.

What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct

Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.

You did not really answer the question in RED above.

You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?

Why don't you ask that same question to LFC-Bitcoin ?

Do you have double standards when Lauda is doing it?

[TECSHARE]

You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?

Well trusted according to who? You? Now you get to decide who everyone else should be trusting? While I might trust you to not rob me, I certainly wouldn't ever trust you to not be full of shit.