Quickseller is a dangerous person to deal with - avoid

[TECSHARE]

~

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years .

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little. This whole pushing impending doom so you can step in to pretend to be the savior act is played out.

[1713964821]

1713964821

[1713964821]

1713964821

[1713964821]

1713964821

[Hhampuz]

~

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years .

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little.

You don't want to answer the question then? I really want to know as that would make things easier for me when making decisions in the future. Why you always have to resort to name-calling?

[TECSHARE]

~

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years .

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little.

You don't want to answer the question then? I really want to know as that would make things easier for me when making decisions in the future. Why you always have to resort to name-calling?

So you don't want to respond to any of the points I made but now I am some how obligated to reply to your distractions? That is not name calling, it is a descriptive term alluding to your behavior of calling out "THE SKY IS FALLING!" so you can rush in to save us from the imaginary doom you claim is impending.

[Hhampuz]

~

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years .

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little.

You don't want to answer the question then? I really want to know as that would make things easier for me when making decisions in the future. Why you always have to resort to name-calling?

So you don't want to respond to any of the points I made but now I am some how obligated to reply to your distractions? That is not name calling, it is a descriptive term alluding to your behavior of calling out "THE SKY IS FALLING!" so you can rush in to save us from the imaginary doom you claim is impending.

If you want to call me putting one flag on one confirmed scammer "calling upon the impending doom" that's on you. I've never made any such claims .

[nutildah]

So why is it then you aren't opening a flag against Vod? He has been responsible for all the same acts as listed above. I have proven he was lying about me using his own contradicting words to justify his abusive negative ratings. If lying is the metric then about half of this forum can go into a dumpster. Also who gets to decide what is a lie and not just a difference of opinion, or simply a mistaken conclusion? Lying necessitates intent, and you have no way to prove in this case what exists only in the mind of another.

First of all, we're not talking about Vod, we're talking about Quickseller, but since you brought it up, I would trust Vod 100 times before I trusted QS once.

Second of all, we're talking about inherent trustworthiness, which also has subjective metrics whose importance varies from individual to individual. I know you want to live in a world of black and white but the issue is more complex than that. QS is clearly motivated by personal grudges (as are you) so he fabricates malicious stories in order to get a kind of revenge on them.

You also didn't prove anything about QS - you rarely prove anything about anything - you just convince yourself that you do so that you can chalk another win in your imaginary "V" tally. Clearly not many other people around here see you as the infinite hot-streak victor that you see yourself as.

The purpose of this system is to protect people from fraud, not to put ointment on your inflamed butt holes.

You're a child and there's clearly no point in trying to reason with you. I'm putting you back on ignore.

[TECSHARE]

So how long should we wait from someone scamming to them not being held liable for that any longer? Just so that I know what guidelines to use. Some old time scammers could be getting a 2nd round of fun here soon if we base it off of a certain amount of years .

If you want to call me putting one flag on one confirmed scammer "calling upon the impending doom" that's on you. I've never made any such claims .

No, I am saying you are claiming you must put the flag down or else there will be impending doom, as demonstrated in bold above.

So why is it then you aren't opening a flag against Vod? He has been responsible for all the same acts as listed above. I have proven he was lying about me using his own contradicting words to justify his abusive negative ratings. If lying is the metric then about half of this forum can go into a dumpster. Also who gets to decide what is a lie and not just a difference of opinion, or simply a mistaken conclusion? Lying necessitates intent, and you have no way to prove in this case what exists only in the mind of another.

First of all, we're not talking about Vod, we're talking about Quickseller, but since you brought it up, I would trust Vod 100 times before I trusted QS once.

Second of all, we're talking about inherent trustworthiness, which also has subjective metrics whose importance varies from individual to individual. I know you want to live in a world of black and white but the issue is more complex than that. QS is clearly motivated by personal grudges (as are you) so he fabricates malicious stories in order to get a kind of revenge on them.

You also didn't prove anything about QS - you rarely prove anything about anything - you just convince yourself that you do so that you can chalk another win in your imaginary "V" tally. Clearly not many other people around here see you as the infinite hot-streak victor that you see yourself as.

The purpose of this system is to protect people from fraud, not to put ointment on your inflamed butt holes.

You're a child and there's clearly no point in trying to reason with you. I'm putting you back on ignore.

We aren't talking about Vod, we are talking about standards. I don't care who you decide to trust. I do care how you use the system designed to warn people of fraud as a tool of retribution, especially as demonstrated by your selectively applied standards. I brought up Vod to prove the point you are willing to apply this standard to your opponents but not your pals. Inherent trustworthiness is subjective. The trust system is not supposed to be a trustworthiness ranking system, it is meant to be a system of indicating users likely to defraud others. Useful systems don't use subjective metrics. You can make subjective conclusions, but they shouldn't be used systematically because they are by their very nature unfit to be part of any objective system. I don't have to prove anything about Quickseller, the burden of proof is on the accuser. What grudges am I motivated by? Am I abusing the trust system to fight my grudges? What exactly do I win here? More stalking from halfwits like you? Am I supposed to be disappointed you put me on ignore? All you are doing is saving me time rebutting your half baked arguments.

[Hhampuz]

~

Arguing with you reminds of trying to argue with a militant feminist. There's no moving forward, there's no meet in the middle. You've made up your mind already even before you type out what it is you want to type out.  It's sad, because sometimes I feel like you bring up valid points but then we turn the corner and you've done a 360 and act very militant. Ugh.

[TECSHARE]

~

Arguing with you reminds of trying to argue with a militant feminist. There's no moving forward, there's no meet in the middle. You've made up your mind already even before you type out what it is you want to type out.  It's sad, because sometimes I feel like you bring up valid points but then we turn the corner and you've done a 360 and act very militant. Ugh.

That is interesting since I have been a vocal critic of militant feminists as anyone who is active in Politics & Society will attest. I think you are confusing persistence with inflexibility and lack of logic. I absolutely am one of the most persistent people you will ever meet, but that does not make me automatically inflexible or illogical. You might want to consider for a moment as well that this is exactly what it would look like from a perspective of some one who is wrong but refuses to admit it for whatever reason...

[Hhampuz]

~

Arguing with you reminds of trying to argue with a militant feminist. There's no moving forward, there's no meet in the middle. You've made up your mind already even before you type out what it is you want to type out.  It's sad, because sometimes I feel like you bring up valid points but then we turn the corner and you've done a 360 and act very militant. Ugh.

That is interesting since I have been a vocal critic of militant feminists as anyone who is active in Politics & Society will attest. I think you are confusing persistence with inflexibility and lack of logic. You might want to consider for a moment as well that this is exactly what it would look like from a perspective of some one who is wrong but refuses to admit it for whatever reason...

Hey I'm just giving you my view. I never venture into Politics & Society so I would not know what you post about there. You take it as you will, I wish we could have more productive conversations though, that's all.

[TECSHARE]

~

Arguing with you reminds of trying to argue with a militant feminist. There's no moving forward, there's no meet in the middle. You've made up your mind already even before you type out what it is you want to type out.  It's sad, because sometimes I feel like you bring up valid points but then we turn the corner and you've done a 360 and act very militant. Ugh.

That is interesting since I have been a vocal critic of militant feminists as anyone who is active in Politics & Society will attest. I think you are confusing persistence with inflexibility and lack of logic. You might want to consider for a moment as well that this is exactly what it would look like from a perspective of some one who is wrong but refuses to admit it for whatever reason...

Hey I'm just giving you my view. I never venture into Politics & Society so I would not know what you post about there. You take it as you will, I wish we could have more productive conversations though, that's all.

And I the same. I am sorry you feel this discussion is not productive. I feel as if it is very productive from my view point. I am forcing you to either explain your chain of logic or continue to dance around and find new distractions to avoid doing so. Either way we get to the core of your motivations by either working out the logic or demonstrating that you refuse to.

[Quickseller]

The real reason why QS is far from trustworthy and quite the opposite is because he has a long, established history of flat out lying about things. For years he's been taking personal grudges and turning them into baseless accusations, posting hundreds of times in accusatory threads even after it has been explained to him repeatedly why he is mistaken.

Let's go through some of them:

Hhampuz embezzling signature campaign funds from BestMixer - completely fabricated allegation based 100% on conjecturing and without real, substantiating evidence of claims

Is theymos okay with Blazed being on DT1 when he refuses to account for x00 btc - another series of unsubstantiated allegations in an attempt to damage the standing of Blazed, lauda, and minerjones

owlcatz dox information - doxing attempt on a user who did not scam anybody, not much more needs to be said

Former Staff member Lauda has a pill addiction - not a single shred of evidence produced by QS in 9 pages of discussion

Scammer TMAN - vindictive nonsense demonstrated to be wholly inaccurate

minerjones backing out of multiple auctions - posted in Scam Accusations even though no one had been scammed, clearly a smear attempt on MJ's reputation

Requesting proof of trade between Zepher and TMAN[Zepher engaging in fake trades - QS believes the lack of blockchain evidence on the forum of a trade between 2 highly trusted members warrants a thread claiming they are engaging in "fake trades"

Dooglus is supporting ponzis - Scam Accusation against dooglus for fixing bugs in a script known to be used by Ponzis (he never scammed anyone, nor said he "supported ponzis")

He does have some insightful threads and posts from time to time, but based on the whole of his behavior over the years, I wouldn't trust QS with a wooden nickel.

This is utter and complete ridiculousness. It looks to me like you do not want certain people to get criticized, regardless of any harm these people cause to others, and regardless of their behavior or violation of generally accepted community standards.

Perhaps you could point out where anyone had said I was "mistaken" when minerjones backed out of multiple auctions. For reference, here is a 24 page thread in which everyone except the OP agreed it is unacceptable to back out of auctions.

If you believe the allegation that money was missing from what was being entrusted to lauda, minerjones and blazed, I would refer you to this, this, and this post.

It was very clearly explained that TMAN was misrepresenting the relationship between the current high bid at the time on his auction and the retail cost of what he was selling. TMAN was also part of an extortion attempt in which he placed harassing phone calls to his victims family. Owlcatz was also an accomplice to this extortion attempt.

I was very clear as to the evidence I had regarding lauda's pill addiction from the start of the thread.

Helping ponzis with their code is in fact supporting the ponzi. Other types of support for ponzis is frowned upon around here. Others have received negative trust for even participating in ponzis, which is less of giving support than helping fix its code.

[Vod]

Let's go through some of them:

You forgot all about me.  

1) Quicksy called me a pedophile, but didn't care enough to report it then or now.

2) Quicksy claimed I was violent because I had a wonderful wish he would kill himself.

3) Quicksy claimed I was trying to pass myself off as a god.

4) Quicksy scammed a user for 20 bitcoin, saying he would use the money to dox and sue me.

I'm sure there are many more I have forgotten.

[nutildah]

Perhaps you could point out where anyone had said I was "mistaken" when minerjones backed out of multiple auctions. For reference, here is a 24 page thread in which everyone except the OP agreed it is unacceptable to back out of auctions.

You posted it as a Scam Accusation. What's the scam?

If you believe the allegation that money was missing from what was being entrusted to lauda, minerjones and blazed, I would refer you to this, this, and this post.

This isn't the thread I linked, though there's a good chance you also started that one too... YOUR thread was clearly born out of vindictiveness and the issue at hand doesn't seem to be a problem to anybody but you.

I got my 45% refund in case anyone was questioning whether refund were done properly or not.

It was very clearly explained that TMAN was misrepresenting the relationship between the current high bid at the time on his auction and the retail cost of what he was selling.

This post by TheNewAnon put it best:

You must be a really miserable bittered individual OP, always trying to attack people like this.

I don't even see how this would make anyone a scammer.

1. It is an auction. People are free to bid whatever they want.
2. He is selling 2 coins, of which 1 is graded MS-69. Graded coins always have a premium attached to them, especially MS-69 or MS-70.
3. He is including a COA, adding a little value to the package.

So I think it's safe to say that your claim that TMAN is misrepresenting the cost/value of what he is selling is nonsense. Try harder.

I was very clear as to the evidence I had regarding lauda's pill addiction from the start of the thread.

Yes. It was none. Bumpkiss. You presented no evidence, you just said you "had evidence," which in your mind was because somebody told you so. Then you continued to bump the thread over a year after you created it with nothing new to substantiate your claims.

Helping ponzis with their code is in fact supporting the ponzi. Other types of support for ponzis is frowned upon around here. Others have received negative trust for even participating in ponzis, which is less of giving support than helping fix its code.

I'm not a big fan of ponzis either but the way you wrote up your thread title and OP makes it seem like dooglus was encouraging people to invest in it. He was not. Again, nobody cared about this issue but you.

The threads from my list you chose not to defend are horseshit, and you know it. If you just stuck to trying to do good instead of dig up meaningless dirt on others, you'd be a bit more respected around here. Your most recent battle against Hhampuz is purely vindictive and utterly unfounded, and it just helps cement your reputation for being habitually untrustworthy.

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's go through some of them:

You forgot all about me.  

1) Quicksy called me a pedophile, but didn't care enough to report it then or now.

2) Quicksy claimed I was violent because I had a wonderful wish he would kill himself.

3) Quicksy claimed I was trying to pass myself off as a god.

4) Quicksy scammed a user for 20 bitcoin, saying he would use the money to dox and sue me.

I'm sure there are many more I have forgotten.

From our own research on the internet under your name there does seem to be quite a lot of credibility to several instances within those claims about you. Which is far more worrying in your case than in QS's.

@nutildah most of your post is presenting one sided KNOWN associates and supporters of those the observable instances of clear undeniable wrong doing reference. That along with the FACT you are willing to facilitate scamming for 0.3BTC means the reader should totally strike or investigate VERY THOROUGHLY the misleading information you are trying to present here.

I would certainly trust QS in a financial transaction over these other 2 members.

Vod would perhaps dox you, and depending on who you are you could have far far more to worry about.

Nutildah is broke and begging for 0.02btc loans and has previously BY HIS OWN WORDS demonstrated he will certainly not mind to facilitating scams for 0.3BTC.

Imagine sending him 0.3BTC  upfront............BOOM that is likely to be the last you see of him. He may throw in a free account? if you want the account of someone like that.

If he didn't keep poking his scam facilitating nose into other peoples business, then we would not have to keep informing the reader of this background to give them opportunity to reach the optimal opinion of these matters.

As we have said before laudas own probable extortion and shady looking escrow is NOTHING TO THE PROVEN scamming we have demonstrated he is capable of before. That is iron clad evidence of the danger he represents the other instances are just what you would expect from this scum bag.

Nutildah trying to discredit this kind of warning about proven scammers is WORRYING.

Why would you not want a valid warning for newbies regarding these types of members that are directly related to financial wrongdoing nutildah?

We strongly believe the is credible and verifiable evidence to warrant a warning on most persons NUTILDAH is trying to get off the hook here.

[suchmoon]

~

I mentioned a couple of these in the OP, Exhibit B.


Added Exhibit D to the OP.

[nutildah]

We strongly believe the is credible and verifiable evidence to warrant a warning on most persons NUTILDAH is trying to get off the hook here.

K Jr Member. If you want to leave a flag for me feel free. The only reason you quoted Vod was because you know if you didnt your post about me might be deleted for being off-topic.

Really Jr Member, if the best dirt you have on me is taking loans and a non-event from 3 years ago then you have nothing. Publish it every day. Rent out an opinion piece in Forbes. I don't give a fuck.

Have anything to say that countermands my arguments against Quickseller being trustworthy or do you want to just continue your epically tragic, attention-seeking trolling saga?

[The-One-Above-All]

We strongly believe the is credible and verifiable evidence to warrant a warning on most persons NUTILDAH is trying to get off the hook here.

K Jr Member. If you want to leave a flag for me feel free. The only reason you quoted Vod was because you know if you didnt your post about me might be deleted for being off-topic.

Really Jr Member, if the best dirt you have on me is taking loans and a non-event from 3 years ago then you have nothing. Publish it every day I don't give a fuck.

Have anything to say that countermands my arguments against Quickseller being trustworthy or do you want to just continue your epically tragic, attention-seeking trolling saga?

Are you blind and EVIL

the strongest observable instances we have on you are BY YOUR OWN WORDS  knowingly and willingly open to facilitating scams and acting in an EVIL manner for 0.3 btc

Now stop going off topic  

Quicksellers observable instances that demonstrate credible and verifiable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by your pals should not be cast in doubt by a PROVEN WILLING SCAM FACILITATOR like nutildah.

That is NOT A NON EVENT.   Let people make up their own minds
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

[The-One-Above-All]

Quicksellers observable instances that demonstrate credible and verifiable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by your pals should not be cast in doubt by a PROVEN WILLING SCAM FACILITATOR like nutildah.

Irony isn't your strong suit is it.

You are claiming you were being ironic about saying it was evil and facilitated scamming?  is this the lauda secret agents really play?

Stop derailing. QS has legitimate concerns and has voiced them. They are very strong cases that are independently verifiable. People can make their own minds up. They don't need someone who can be demonstrated willing to allow others to be scammed for 0.3btc making up nonsense to leave them MORE open to being scammed.

STFU and stay out of debates on scamming. You are woefully open criticism based on observable instances that are independently verifiable. You wonder why you keep getting blasted by us... stop wondering!! just shut up and stop trying to protect other scammers and those that can be demonstrated to be financially REALLY HIGH RISK. You are misleading the reader and could very well be facilitating and increasing the probability of them being scammed here.

[nutildah]

Quicksellers observable instances that demonstrate credible and verifiable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by your pals should not be cast in doubt by a PROVEN WILLING SCAM FACILITATOR like nutildah.

Irony isn't your strong suit is it.

You are claiming you were being ironic about saying it was evil and facilitated scamming?  is this the lauda secret agents really play?

Stop derailing. QS has legitimate concerns and has voiced them. They are very strong cases that are independently verifiable. People can make their own minds up. They don't need someone who can be demonstrated willing to allow others to be scammed for 0.3btc making up nonsense to leave them MORE open to being scammed.

STFU and stay out of debates on scamming. You are woefully open criticism based on observable instances that are independently verifiable. You wonder why you keep getting blasted by us... stop wondering!! just shut up and stop trying to protect other scammers and those that can be demonstrated to be financially REALLY HIGH RISK.

What am I derailing? You weird obsession with me? I don't wonder about anything other than where your hatred for the world stems from. Something is seriously wrong in your life or your chemical balance. I know you're a certifiable troll who won't let go of grudges. That's what you and QS have in common. QS sold dozens or hundreds of accounts. I sold zero. Do you begin to see the irony of your whole cause now?

You are misleading the reader and could very well be facilitating and increasing the probability of them being scammed here.

Weewie. This is... I dunno what else to say... Should I bother? Something tells me the answer is "no."

I got caught up thinking I needed to defend myself but all I was really doing was feeding your trollery. Now that I realize that I won't be responding to you any further. Have a terrific day Not Cryptohunter.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps you could point out where anyone had said I was "mistaken" when minerjones backed out of multiple auctions.

I get it, you don't like that I am calling out Hhampuz for stealing from BestMixer. If Hhampuz were to be labeled a scammer (rightfully so), your earnings from your signature campaign would likely stop. I am sure you don't like actual scammers, but when calling out a scammer means you lose out on income, you are more than willing to put pressure on the person to stop calling out the scammer.

This is not unlike how you described as selling an account as "borderline evil" and subsequently tried to sell your account for money.