Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information

[SeW900]

Flagging: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628 (Bob123)
Flag Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292
Topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0

Bob123 user contacted me through telegram: @alice_Bob

he asked that he might want to buy a Full member account, he asked for the information of the accounts (name of the account and the bpip.org to check the statistics of the account) after some conversation I managed to send the full members account name after that I asked him if he would buy it at a certain amount and he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it and I asked him if we should use an escrow

He agreed to it and we choose SebastianJu to escrow us but I warn him that the account might be tagged red trust because the escrow might be connected to DT and the account would be compromised but he said it's accounts sale are allowed and so he said he wanted to prove ownership first after checking the account I noticed that I can't open it and so I referred him to trustedseller account which he made another negotiation and after saying he will buy it if he proves ownership after sending a message this happened (according to trustedseller)


He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

Should the DT also make a move about this kind of behavior? Selling is allowed but discouraged and we also prove that we own the account and we won't scam him but his goal was to make harm to the accounts and breaking our agreements.

[1715277002]

1715277002

[1715277002]

1715277002

[1715277002]

1715277002

[Avirunes]

Any chat screenshots to prove that this really happened? You know how hollow this accusation sounds without a proper screenshot. Also I find this matter better suited in "Reputation" since there is no scam accusation and is a matter about breaking an agreement.

[LoyceMobile]

Anyone can create a flag, but I don't think you'll find support for it.
Besides, bob didn't use his account for this, so the "warning" wouldn't help other account sellers. Just like account sellers who hide behind a Newbie account.

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

Any chat screenshots to prove that this really happened? You know how hollow this accusation sounds without a proper screenshot. Also I find this matter better suited in "Reputation" since there is no scam accusation and is a matter about breaking an agreement.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0

[Quickseller]

Besides, bob didn't use his account for this, so the "warning" wouldn't help other account sellers. Just like account sellers who hide behind a Newbie account.

The flag (once created) would warn anyone considering to trade with Bob that he previously broke an agreement, and has not made the other person whole.

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190619113422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 <-- OP's sales thread
http://archive.is/rlBTD <-- telegram conversation.

Anyone can create a flag, but I don't think you'll find support for it.

Unless you can explain why there was not a broken agreement (you say the accounts didn't make high quality posts, but this was not a term of the deal, implied or otherwise), if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it, and if you don't, you should be held accountable. There are no ifs, thans, or buts to this concept.

[LoyceV]

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.

OP confirmed it:

he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it

I'd say that was part of the agreement.
(archived)

The "he agree to it" is might be lost in translation a bit, but many posts are like this:

time to grab some Litecoins...

if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

First: there is no flag
Second: I am under no obligation to support any flag, and I've been very conservative in supporting flags.

[SeW900]

http://archive.is/rlBTD

You can clearly see this statement:

"Bob: Yes, 280 is good" - in which bob already checked the account and agreed to this  kind of amount
"Accountseller: Okay
Do you pay me after PM
?!"
"Bob: Yes with escrow"

You can take a look at the conversation and he would insist to look the other accounts and agreed to buy it he also insisted to use SebastianJu as the escrow.

[Quickseller]

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.

OP confirmed it:

he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it

I'd say that was part of the agreement.
(archived)

The OP did say this in this thread, however this was not actually mentioned in the OPs conversation with Bob. In the telegram chat, Bob stated that he wanted to be sure the OP actually owned the accounts he was selling. There was no mention of post quality prior to when Bob agreed to buy the "green trusted" account upon receiving a PM from it to confirm the OP actually owned it.

Also, the specific account in question was actually Ntrain2k[/quote], who has not been active very much after the merit system was implemented, however it does not appear to be farmed, and doesn't appear to have ever participated in any kind of signature (or similar) campaign.

if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

First: there is no flag
Second: I am under no obligation to support any flag, and [url=http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/459836.html]I've been very conservative in supporting flags[/url].

Fair enough regarding being conservative as to which flags you support. However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless (you can read my comments in this thread).

[bob123]

For anyone wondering what this is referring to: I pretended to be a customer to get untrustworthy accounts - which are up for sale - tagged.

Creating a flag requires the following:

• Must be created by the user who has been damaged
• Must have violated a written contract
• The violation must result in damage

There are multiple reasons why a flag is not appropriate:

1) There was no written contract.

2) IF you want to call that chat a 'contract', the terms were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

3) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation and did not result in any damage (Both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

4) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. Why are you speaking for 'your friend' ?



If you are talking about a negative trust rating instead, this also is not appropriate.
Simply because the fact that i called your accounts out for being untrustworthy does not mean that i am untrustworthy in monetary terms.

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership [...]

I never explicitly said that i WILL buy an account - as it is - after the proof.
Once it was bound to the account having a good post history - which it didn't have.
Once it was after a promised +240 trust acc (which was a +6 trust acc).

There was no explicit agreement.

Even IF it was (which is not the case), a flag would still not be appropriate because simply rescinding from it is not a violation AND did NOT result in damage.

He agreed to it and we choose SebastianJu to escrow us

And both of you INSISTED on not using an escrow.
And insisting in terms of trying everything you can to not use an escrow.

This alone makes you extremely untrustworthy already.

[...] he [..] compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

We had no transaction. We were speaking about a potential transaction.

What confidential information are you talking about ? There was no confidential information.

Usernames are public. PM's which i receive can be shared by me without any consent of the sender.
You didn't even mention that you want to keep that confidential, which could have changed something.

[LoyceV]

However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless

I wrote this a while ago:

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.

[suchmoon]

Flagging: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628 (Bob123)

I don't see the flag. You're breaking a written contract by not creating it.

[Quickseller]

However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless

I wrote this a while ago:

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.

I can’t imagine how anyone could argue that holding someone accountable for their promises would not make the forum a better place.

The argument I am hearing from you is that bob is a good poster therefore him breaking a promise should be excused. This will make the forum a much worse place because it sends a clear message that you have a license to scam others if you steal from an unpopular person.

[SaltySpitoon]

It appears to me that a flag is very clearly valid should SeW900 decide to create one.

Creating a flag requires the following:

• Must be created by the user who has been damaged
• Must have violated a written contract
• The violation must result in damage

There are multiple reasons why a flag is not appropriate:

1) There was no written contract.

2) IF you want to call that chat a 'contract', the terms were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

3) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation and did not result in any damage (Both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

4) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. Why are you speaking for 'your friend' ?

I don't see anywhere that says flags require a written contract. I think its fairly reasonable to say that when you enter into a purchase agreement with someone, thats a contract be it verbally or not. The forum operates on reason, not legalese.

The damages were the loss of value of the accounts that you intentionally damaged.

Rescinding from a trade is not a violation, but purposefully destroying the value of the accounts as you publicly and intentionally did is.

Your own thread explains the whole process of how you first contacted SeW900.

Quoting for Reference:

I decided to use some spare time to get some accounts - which are up to sale - flagged.


I found 2 threads claiming to sell forum accounts:

1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 (archived link): User 'SeW900'
2) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139800.0 (archived link): User 'Rueduciel'

Both of them contained their telegram ID, so i just went ahead and contacted both of them.


1)
The accounts provided by 'SeW900'  (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were:

• cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809)
• TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919)
• zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046
• narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430

According to him, some of them (the first and/or the second one) are already banned.
However, the remaining ones - which he wanted to sell - are not banned yet.


2)
The accounts provided by Rueduciel were:

• J Gambler (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=821674)
• fitty (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25298) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]

I asked both of them to send me (user: alice321, just created today to receive those messages) a proof that they indeed own that account.


1)
After requesting proof of ownership of cicizhang and TanClan98 from SeW900, he told me that 'the account' already is banned.
Therefore he proposed me 2 other accounts, which i can buy (zackie and Zedster).

He told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller (via telegram), which i did.


After a long conversation with him and multiple excuses i brought up to not buy an account which he had proven the ownership of (because i wanted to tag as much accounts as possible), i finally got the proof of ownership of multiple accounts and names of a few accounts without proof of ownership.

The accounts proven to be for sale and owned by him (zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k and narousberg) should definitely receive a negative trust rating.
I am not sure about the accounts without proof (cicizhang, TanClan98, nonnakip and pant-79). I'll let some DT member decide how to handle this.




2)
Rueduciel offered me J Gambler.But he did not send me a proof for ownership because he noticed that this account already is reserved for some other buyer.
Therefore he proposed me the account fitty, which he proved that he indeed has control over this account via a PM.

But now i really wanted to also have his first account (J Gambler) to be flagged too. I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already).
He agreed.

Unfortunately i made a big mistake by leaving him a negative trust rating BEFORE contacting, paired with my sense of humor regarding the chosen username, which interfered my plan. He came to the conclusion that my alt (alice321) is related to me (bob123).


While it is not proven that J Gambler is really under control of him, i still believe that he indeed wants to sell this account.
I am not sure about leaving a negative trust rating on this account, therefore i will let the DT members decide how to handle this.

fitty definitely should receive a negative trust rating.


Screenshots of the chat history:

• 1) with SeW900 ('Walter' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg
  
  • with @TrustedAccSeller (telegram):
  • • part 1
    • part 2
• 2) with Rueduciel ('Mara Mae' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/dt4l4KX.jpg

Screenshot of my received PMs: here and here.



I have sent a negative trust rating to fitty, zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k and narousberg.
Now i need a few (at least 1) DT member to also leave a negative trust rating.

Especially for Ntrain2k, since he has 6 positive trust feedbacks.

No one should trust an account which is up to sale. Especially not Hero / Legendary ones and some with a positive trust rating.

[marlboroza]

It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account:

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox,  I haven't even used this account for weeks...

Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true.

[SaltySpitoon]

It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account:

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox,  I haven't even used this account for weeks...

Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true.

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox,  I haven't even used this account for weeks...

What a coincidence  

I hope you understand that this is hard to believe.. especially since you didn't post in the last ~8 months and coincidentally came online yesterday  

I don't see a way you can proof this certainly wasn't you or someone you tasked with selling your account.

A signed message only shows that this is really you at the moment.
And IP logs only show whether you used the same IP to log in. This doesn't say anything about someone you tasked with selling your account or a VPN / proxy you might have used.

[marlboroza]

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

Excuse me, but which account OP proved that they own?

I am looking at screenshots and for first two accounts I don't see proof of ownership and for other 2 accounts owner (zackie) said account is not for sale - maybe compromised.

Am I missing something in OP's accusation? Based on what OP will create flag?


Second quotation you have posted is bob's assumption based on coincidence.

[SaltySpitoon]

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

Excuse me, but which account OP proved that they own?

I am looking at screenshots and for first two accounts I don't see proof of ownership and for other 2 accounts owner (zackie) said account is not for sale - maybe compromised.

Am I missing something in OP's accusation? Based on what OP will create flag?


Second quotation you have posted is bob's assumption based on coincidence.

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission, as well as others probably owned by OP. I'm not sure why the accuser would have to prove something that the defendant has confirmed themself? Zackie may be hacked, or by bob's assumption they just don't want to admit that they were caught selling their account. Regardless of if Zackie was hacked or not, that wasn't brought up until two days after this claim. That doesn't mean that SeW900 is innocent, that means that it was absolutely not a factor in this case, and deserves its own case if anything.

If Bob started communications with SeW under false pretenses, and as a result did financial damage to SeW, does that not deserve a flag?

[marlboroza]

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission, as well as others probably owned by OP. I'm not sure why the accuser would have to prove something that the defendant has confirmed themself? Zackie may be hacked, or by bob's assumption they just don't want to admit that they were caught selling their account. Regardless of if Zackie was hacked or not, that wasn't brought up until two days after this claim. That doesn't mean that SeW900 is innocent, that means that it was absolutely not a factor in this case, and deserves its own case if anything.

If Bob started communications with SeW under false pretenses, and as a result did financial damage to SeW, does that not deserve a flag?

It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.

Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:

1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts

So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.

So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.

Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.

[SaltySpitoon]

It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.

Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:

1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts

So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.

So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.

Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob, the main point is that Bob never had any intention of purchasing anything, and their information seeking was solely to do damage. The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.

This isn't a matter of accidentally leaking details which could be attributed to unexpected results, this is a case of a deliberate action doing its intended purpose, and the result to be expected. Can you deny that SeW is out money due to Bob's deception?

I personally think #1,2, and 3 apply, but #2 is probably the safer bet

[Quickseller]

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.

[yahoo62278]

Don't engage in buying/selling accounts and this thread wouldn't even be here to be read.

[marlboroza]

It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.

Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:

1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts

So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.

So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.

Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob, the main point is that Bob never had any intention of purchasing anything, and their information seeking was solely to do damage. The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.

This isn't a matter of accidentally leaking details which could be attributed to unexpected results, this is a case of a deliberate action doing its intended purpose, and the result to be expected. Can you deny that SeW is out money due to Bob's deception?

I personally think #1,2, and 3 apply, but #2 is probably the safer bet

How that does not matter?

OP didn't provide proof of ownership for accounts which he was trying to sell.

In this thread, we are talking about ownership of accounts 1 and 2

All other accounts are from different sellers and they are irrelevant for OP's flag.

So what loss Bob caused to OP who failed to provide proof that he owns accounts 1 and 2??

If seller number 2 wants to flag bob - they claimed they are owner of account which turned out not to be for sale and supposedly hacked they broke their own contract then (I didn't check for other accounts)

If seller number 3 wants to flag bob - as it is shown in pictures there was no deal.

Also, nothing here is confidential information. For information to become confidential, you have to make it confidential https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/confidential-information

You can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately.

Here:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

Again, SeW900 didn't prove ownership of accounts 1 and 2 which we can only assume he owns.

Each flag type 2 or 3 requires thread and you can't create flag on someone else's behalf.

[SaltySpitoon]

How that does not matter?

OP didn't provide proof of ownership for accounts which he was trying to sell.

In this thread, we are talking about ownership of accounts 1 and 2

All other accounts are from different sellers and they are irrelevant for OP's flag.

So what loss Bob caused to OP who failed to provide proof that he owns accounts 1 and 2??

If seller number 2 wants to flag bob - they claimed they are owner of account which turned out not to be for sale and supposedly hacked they broke their own contract then (I didn't check for other accounts)

If seller number 3 wants to flag bob - as it is shown in pictures there was no deal.

Also, nothing here is confidential information. For information to become confidential, you have to make it confidential https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/confidential-information

You can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately.

Here:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

Again, SeW900 didn't prove ownership of accounts 1 and 2 which we can only assume he owns.

Each flag type 2 or 3 requires thread and you can't create flag on someone else's behalf.

This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. Bob assumes OP and @TrustedAccountSeller to be the same person, even if they are not, if you really want to get picky about it, could you not claim that OP is an agent of @TrustedAccountSeller for facilitating the trade? I expect OP would have some financial reason for passing Bob onto @TrustedAccountSeller rather than just out of the goodness of his heart to make sure Bob got an account. That is, if they aren't the same person. Therefor, if a flag is valid, its fine for OP to leave it.

Onto whether the flag is valid or not. Its pretty clear to follow the chain of events and the money here. Then you apply whether or not it was intentional and whether Bob can be held responsible for it. Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things. Unless you are suggesting that everyone should get NDAs drafted up before they do any business here, based on their prior communication with regards to escrow agents and warnings about negative trust, Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like. SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions. All of the excuses I'm seeing are technicalities that are trying to weasel not out of the fact that Bob scammed SeW, but why they aren't allowed to leave a flag based on perceived loopholes in the warning flags.

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...

[bones261]

This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. Bob assumes OP and @TrustedAccountSeller to be the same person, even if they are not, if you really want to get picky about it, could you not claim that OP is an agent of @TrustedAccountSeller for facilitating the trade? I expect OP would have some financial reason for passing Bob onto @TrustedAccountSeller rather than just out of the goodness of his heart to make sure Bob got an account. That is, if they aren't the same person. Therefor, if a flag is valid, its fine for OP to leave it.

Onto whether the flag is valid or not. Its pretty clear to follow the chain of events and the money here. Then you apply whether or not it was intentional and whether Bob can be held responsible for it. Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things. Unless you are suggesting that everyone should get NDAs drafted up before they do any business here, based on their prior communication with regards to escrow agents and warnings about negative trust, Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like. SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions. All of the excuses I'm seeing are technicalities that are trying to weasel not out of the fact that Bob scammed SeW, but why they aren't allowed to leave a flag based on perceived loopholes in the warning flags.

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...

    Sometimes, a person has to break the rules to stand up for what they believe in. The OP is certainly welcome to open up a flag on this. However, I am not going to support it, just like I do not support the US Government prosecuting Snowden.

[mindrust]

    Sometimes, a person has to break the rules to stand up for what they believe in. The OP is certainly welcome to open up a flag on this. However, I am not going to support it, just like I do not support the US Government prosecuting Snowden.

Bob's biggest mistake was revealing his real identity.

If he had created the thread with the newbie account which he used to talk to the acc sellers, It wouldn't have come to this.

Sometimes it is better to be the hero with no name.

If the acc sellers are smart enough to use throwaway accounts to scam people by selling hacked accounts,

You should counter intelligence them with throwaway accounts. Not with your main.

[marlboroza]

This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense.

That is not twisted logic and it is pretty much how every justice system works, like it or not. There are many assumptions in your post which I won't comment.

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

More facts:

4) OP didn't prove that he owns accounts which was part of agreement which makes agreement not valid.

[SaltySpitoon]

This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense.

That is not twisted logic and it is pretty much how every justice system works, like it or not. There are many assumptions in your post which I won't comment.

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

More facts:

4) OP didn't prove that he owns accounts which was part of agreement which makes agreement not valid.

Again, the agreement does not matter in the slightest. If OP had offered the accounts for 1 satoshi each and provided all of the details in the world, Bob was still not a buyer, there was never any agreement. The problem isn't with the deal, its the consequent intentional financial damage. People don't get to scam each other and have it justified based on the other person's decisions. If I stole hundreds of dollars from you because you did something that I didn't approve of, I'd still be a scammer.

If you scam an evil person, you are still a scammer.

[Quickseller]

I this thread says a lot about those who are defending bob effectively scamming the OP. I would not consider trusting any of these people with my own money, and none of these people belong anywhere near DT, or any other position of authority.

TBH, it is shameful.

OP created a flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292

[bob123]

Alright, so OP crated the flag 

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission

No. I never said that.

I contacted OP and he told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller ('his friend'). So no deal or anything was made with OP at all.

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob
[...]
The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.

1) OP is not able to suffer from anything because he forwarded me to 'his friend'

2) OP did not suffer any loss. He still has his account. I did not steal anything, neither did i refuse to pay. If the agreement is BTC for account, there is no damage done if someone rescinds from a trade.

3) I did not cause any damage to OP (or his friend)
He still has his account. The fact that he wanted to sell an account already makes the account worthless because the person who will be owning it won't have put any effort into it.
Therefore he now can't scam other people by demanding an unrealistic high price, because it is publicly known that the (future) owner of this account put zero effort into this account and therefore is highly untrustworthy.

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM.

The agreement (if at all) would be money against account.
No account, no money. As simple as that.

Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.

Flags type 2 and 3 are for breaking agreements / contracts ONLY.
So this exactly is what matters.

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things.

Excuse me?
Just because YOU believe some information has to be confidential, i don't have to think the same.

It is not hard at all to ask for it to stay confidential. But not mentioning it and later claiming '... expectedly confidential.. ' is just a joke.

Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

It did NO financial harm at all. I did not scam anybody or steal anything. Neither did i damage anything.
The accounts are worth close to nothing.

Just because OP's friend is selling them for a unreasonable high amount of money, it doesn't mean that he can not still continue to do so.

The value of the account is close to nothing. And already was before, since sold accounts have zero effort in them from the (future) owner/buyer.

I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like.

I think you should really revise your definition of a scam.

SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions.

The value of the account is still the same.
Now, just everyone is knowing that they are up to sale and the owner is not to be trusted (instead of only the seller and buyer knowing it).

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

As previously mentioned, no financial loss and no monetary value has been destroyed/decreased/etc.

Your 'facts' are simply wrong (except for fact #2).

We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...

What kind of a comparison is that ?
Smashing window is directly destroying objects. I did not do that

I rescinded from a trade and made the (non confidential) information publicly available.

That's like walking into a window store, taking a look at few windows, leave before signing and tell others that the windows have a white frame. No financial damage.

I this thread says a lot about those who are defending bob effectively scamming the OP.

Oh quicksy.. if THAT is already a scam in your eyes.. what have you done in 95% of the time on this forum then ?




Short summary why this flag absolutely is inappropriate:

Creating a flag requires ALL of the following:

• 1) Must have violated an agreement
• 2) The violation must result in damage
• 3) Must be created by the user who has been damaged

1) The terms of the 'agreement' were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

2) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation. And the resignation did not result in any damage (both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

3) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. OP (which is his friend, according to him) is the wrong person to create it.



Since all of the 3 points are necessary for the flag to be appropriate, and none of them is actually the case, that's more than enough to comprehend that the flag is inappropriate.

[suchmoon]

I'm opposing the flag for the reasons bob123 stated here and elsewhere, and in my own opinion in a nutshell is this:

Bob123's stated intent was not to damage someone's business or to steal something but to expose untrustworthy accounts (hacked/sold, unearned green trust etc) and he did exactly that. The fact that someone built a "business" out of this doesn't make bob123 a scammer. Nor is there any written or implied contract that says such accounts can't be exposed.

I decided to use some spare time to get some accounts - which are up to sale - flagged.

[Quickseller]

Bob explicitly said he would buy the accounts upon receiving PMs from said accounts. He did not buy the accounts. The value of the accounts subsequently declined. As a result of bobs misrepresentation, the OP was unable to offer the accounts to anyone else. The value of what he was selling has subsequently declined.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

The Zackie account was included in a package deal, during "negotiations" with the OP. I oppose this flag since there is credible evidence that the OP was perpetrating fraud by offering an account for sale that he was not authorized to do by the account owner.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

1st off Bob would be considered the defendant. The accuser has to establish that the contract was a valid contract. I think Zackie's allegation is substantiated enough to bring in doubt that this sale was authorized by the owner. Furthermore, since I have doubts that Zackie's sales attempt was valid, it brings into question the legitimacy of "trustedseller's" entire inventory.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

1st off Bob would be considered the defendant. The accuser has to establish that the contract was a valid contract. I think Zackie's allegation is substantiated enough to bring in doubt that this sale was authorized by the owner. Furthermore, since I have doubts that Zackie's sales attempt was valid, it brings into question the legitimacy of "trustedseller's" entire inventory.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable.

See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

If there is a valid defense to a contract, it may be voidable, meaning the party to the contract who was the victim of the unfairness may be able to cancel or revoke the contract. In some instances, the unfairness is so extreme that the contract is considered void, in other words, a court will declare that no contract was ever formed

[bones261]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable.

See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

If there is a valid defense to a contract, it may be voidable, meaning the party to the contract who was the victim of the unfairness may be able to cancel or revoke the contract. In some instances, the unfairness is so extreme that the contract is considered void, in other words, a court will declare that no contract was ever formed

First of all, when a flag is being raised, aren't we all being called to be jurors/judges? I have already presented my questions regarding this flag and will oppose at this time. I am suspicious that "trustedseller" may be selling hacked accounts, and therefore, I don't think any action to attempt to enforce his contracts are valid.

There is also this to consider.

In Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises (1988),[1] the California Court of Appeal for the Third District refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for public policy concerns.

Sounds similar to "account sales are allowed, but discouraged."

[bob123]

The value of the accounts subsequently declined.

Not really.

Information which should be publicly available were made public. Nothing else has been done.

The account is still under possession of OP's friend and still has the same value (which is close to 0).
Just because OP's friend wanted to have an unrealistic high amount of money, this doesn't mean that he can't still demand that amount.

As a result of bobs misrepresentation, the OP was unable to offer the accounts to anyone else.

Why? Did i steal the account? No.
OP's friend (not OP) still has this account and still can sell it to anyone else.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

Oh Quicksy.. please explain how backing out of the agreement (lets call it agreement, just for you) lead to damage.

Hint: You can't.. because it didn't.


Me making public that the accounts aren't trustworthy (information which everyone should have access to) didn't even lead to any damage.
OP can still sell his accounts for any amount he wishes.

But the public deserves to know which accounts are to be trusted and which not.


I know.. you, as an extremely shady and account farming person, try everything you can to protect account seller and farmer.

But your opinion is simply wrong.

[SaltySpitoon]

Alright, so OP crated the flag  

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission

No. I never said that.

I contacted OP and he told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller ('his friend'). So no deal or anything was made with OP at all.

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob
[...]
The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.

1) OP is not able to suffer from anything because he forwarded me to 'his friend'

2) OP did not suffer any loss. He still has his account. I did not steal anything, neither did i refuse to pay. If the agreement is BTC for account, there is no damage done if someone rescinds from a trade.

3) I did not cause any damage to OP (or his friend)
He still has his account. The fact that he wanted to sell an account already makes the account worthless because the person who will be owning it won't have put any effort into it.
Therefore he now can't scam other people by demanding an unrealistic high price, because it is publicly known that the (future) owner of this account put zero effort into this account and therefore is highly untrustworthy.

1) Again, in the highlighted quote above, you claim that his friend and him are the same person. Even if they aren't, by referring you to a friend for financial gain, SeW was acting as an agent.

2) You made the thread in question in order to expose the accounts knowing that it'd decrease their value from the asking price to nothing. You've posted the intent yourself. It is absolutely undeniable that as a direct cause of your actions, the OP lost money. Hence, the flag is appropriate.

3) There is screenshots of you negotiating the price, so obviously you are aware of the money at stake. Your opinion on whether their asking price is too high or not isn't really that important unless you want to start attempting to quantify how much money you scammed.

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM.

The agreement (if at all) would be money against account.
No account, no money. As simple as that.

Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.

Flags type 2 and 3 are for breaking agreements / contracts ONLY.
So this exactly is what matters.

The agreement doesn't matter because you had no intent to purchase the accounts. Again, if you are arguing semantics over the language that Flags 2/3 are written for, I'd be happy to have the language clarified or see about getting new flag types made for this very specific case.

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things.

Excuse me?
Just because YOU believe some information has to be confidential, i don't have to think the same.

It is not hard at all to ask for it to stay confidential. But not mentioning it and later claiming '... expectedly confidential.. ' is just a joke.

Again, I refer to the screen shots where you two discussed the risks of exposing the information. If I do business with you, its expected that our addresses are confidential. It is expected that you won't share any personal information we provide each other for grins. Not only were you aware that sharing the personal information was damaging, but that was your goal. I'm just citing information publicly posted in your thread, I'm not misunderstanding any cross talk or anything.

Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

It did NO financial harm at all. I did not scam anybody or steal anything. Neither did i damage anything.
The accounts are worth close to nothing.

Just because OP's friend is selling them for a unreasonable high amount of money, it doesn't mean that he can not still continue to do so.

The value of the account is close to nothing. And already was before, since sold accounts have zero effort in them from the (future) owner/buyer.

If the accounts were worth $280 and now $5, you did $275 in damages. If you go into a Lamborghini dealership and crash a $500k Lamborghini, you don't get to say that the car is overpriced, therefore instead of $300k in damages, you only did $20. There is proof that you negotiated a price with the OP, you acknowledged the value of the accounts, and you were completely aware of what would happen to the value of the accounts when you posted your thread.

I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like.

I think you should really revise your definition of a scam.

Deceit, financial damage, malice? I'm not sure what I should add that doesn't tick the boxes here.

SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions.

The value of the account is still the same.
Now, just everyone is knowing that they are up to sale and the owner is not to be trusted (instead of only the seller and buyer knowing it).

If I can prove that you knew otherwise, would you be fine with being called a scammer?

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

As previously mentioned, no financial loss and no monetary value has been destroyed/decreased/etc.

Your 'facts' are simply wrong (except for fact #2).

1) Your thread
2) We agree on
3) You are saying that financially harming people is fine?

We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...

What kind of a comparison is that ?
Smashing window is directly destroying objects. I did not do that

I rescinded from a trade and made the (non confidential) information publicly available.

That's like walking into a window store, taking a look at few windows, leave before signing and tell others that the windows have a white frame. No financial damage.

Fine, you didn't delete the accounts from existed, you just drew all over them with sharpie. Now they are in the discount bin, and the window company is out $X. You never had any intention to do the trade, so again the details don't really matter.

You are quite literally a scammer my friend. I supported the flag, and hope that people will not start the prescient that its ok to scam if you think you have a good reason.

[bob123]

2) You made the thread in question in order to expose the accounts knowing that it'd decrease their value from the asking price to nothing. You've posted the intent yourself. It is absolutely undeniable that as a direct cause of your actions, the OP lost money. Hence, the flag is appropriate.

The reason was to inform the public about untrustworthy accounts.

Their value was close to nothing. If the owner didn't put any effort into an account and just bought it, the value of the account is close to nothing.
No decrease of value. And OP didn't lose any money.

By 'direct cause of your actions'.. what are you referring to? Publicly posting non-private information ? This does NOT fall under the category of 'breaking an agreement'
And this alone is enough to proof that the flag is inappropriate.

Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted.

The reason was not to do any harm. It was to protect people from these accounts.

Again, I refer to the screen shots where you two discussed the risks of exposing the information. If I do business with you, its expected that our addresses are confidential. It is expected that you won't share any personal information we provide each other for grins. Not only were you aware that sharing the personal information was damaging, but that was your goal.

Addresses are confidential information.
Your username.. is not. No publicly viewable username counts to confidential information.

And again.. the goal was to protect others. No damage has been done. And especially not by 'breaking an agreement' (which again.. is required for a flag).

If the accounts were worth $280 and now $5, you did $275 in damages. If you go into a Lamborghini dealership and crash a $500k Lamborghini, you don't get to say that the car is overpriced, therefore instead of $300k in damages, you only did $20. There is proof that you negotiated a price with the OP, you acknowledged the value of the accounts, and you were completely aware of what would happen to the value of the accounts when you posted your thread.

I never acknowledged the value. As you said.. i didn't plan to buy them.

To speak in your language:
I didn't 'crash the lamborghini'. What i did was rescinding from an 'agreement' and informed everyone about the color of the leather seats.
Just because pink leather is not very popular among people, this doesn't mean i did any damage.

Fine, you didn't delete the accounts from existed, you just drew all over them with sharpie. Now they are in the discount bin, and the window company is out $X.

Again, no. I shared non-confidential information.

You are quite literally a scammer my friend.

Your definition of a scammer is way off 



I'd also like to remind you (SaltySpitoon) of the following:


1)

Short summary why this flag absolutely is inappropriate:

Creating a flag requires ALL of the following:

• 1) Must have violated an agreement
• 2) The violation must result in damage
• 3) Must be created by the user who has been damaged

1) The terms of the 'agreement' were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

2) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation. And the resignation did not result in any damage (both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

3) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. OP (which is his friend, according to him) is the wrong person to create it.



Since all of the 3 points are necessary for the flag to be appropriate, and none of them is actually the case, that's more than enough to comprehend that the flag is inappropriate.

and

2)

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[TECSHARE]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

[mindrust]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

[TECSHARE]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior.

[eddie13]

Some people still think amateur vigilante sting operations are a good idea?

Bob most definitely engaged in deception with the intent to damage other users business dealings and property value.
Maybe I don't like stores that sell lotto tickets and alcohol due to my religion but that doesn't make it right for me to go destroy their products..

Not sure about it fitting a flag yet though.. I'll watch some more..

[marlboroza]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior.

So you supported flag without reading thread?

[TECSHARE]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior.

So you supported flag without reading thread?

It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account:

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox,  I haven't even used this account for weeks...

Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true.

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

This ^

[marlboroza]

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior.

So you supported flag without reading thread?

It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account:

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox,  I haven't even used this account for weeks...

Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true.

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

This ^

So you supported flag based on SaltySpitoon's opinion?

You didn't read thread which is linked in OP, you wouldn't say what you said if you did  


Can you post which accounts SeW900 tried to sell?

[TECSHARE]

So you supported flag based on SaltySpitoon's opinion?

You didn't read thread which is linked in OP, you wouldn't say what you said if you did  


Can you post which accounts SeW900 tried to sell?

Salty will be the first to tell you I don't agree with his opinions just because he is the one to state them. I do however agree with his logical conclusion that these are separate issues, and one act does not justify the other. I don't need to post anything because that is irrelevant to this thread.

[suchmoon]

Some people still think amateur vigilante sting operations are a good idea?

Bob most definitely engaged in deception with the intent to damage other users business dealings and property value.
Maybe I don't like stores that sell lotto tickets and alcohol due to my religion but that doesn't make it right for me to go destroy their products..

Not sure about it fitting a flag yet though.. I'll watch some more..

It's more like finding out that someone is selling a stolen bicycle and reporting them to police.

Sold accounts are being exposed all the time, often after the sale. Is is any better if the buyer ends up screwed? The whole "business" is based on deception and the seller basically shifts the risk to the buyer.

FWIW I don't agree with some of what bob123 did or said but there is no doubt to me that the account farmer's flag is bogus and frivolous.

[TECSHARE]

Some people still think amateur vigilante sting operations are a good idea?

Bob most definitely engaged in deception with the intent to damage other users business dealings and property value.
Maybe I don't like stores that sell lotto tickets and alcohol due to my religion but that doesn't make it right for me to go destroy their products..

Not sure about it fitting a flag yet though.. I'll watch some more..

It's more like finding out that someone is selling a stolen bicycle and reporting them to police.

Sold accounts are being exposed all the time, often after the sale. Is is any better if the buyer ends up screwed? The whole "business" is based on deception and the seller basically shifts the risk to the buyer.

FWIW I don't agree with some of what bob123 did or said but there is no doubt to me that the account farmer's flag is bogus and frivolous.

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can't sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

[suchmoon]

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam.

[Quickseller]

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam.

In other words, you are okay with the OP getting scammed and are willing to protect the person who scammed the OP because you don’t like him.

[bones261]

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam.

In other words, you are okay with the OP getting scammed and are willing to protect the person who scammed the OP because you don’t like him.

   It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

[suchmoon]

In other words, you are okay with the OP getting scammed and are willing to protect the person who scammed the OP because you don’t like him.

I can say my own words, I don't need you to make shit up. The OP was not scammed. I don't know him so I can't say whether I like him or not.


So what's next - should we also support selling green trust? I mean it's a "business" just like account trading. IIRC one of the accounts bob123 exposed did have green trust.

[TECSHARE]

It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with.

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam.

You are the one who started with the stupid analogies. I don't have to agree it is a legitimate business in order to agree that the user still has property rights which were violated through deception. If the user is scamming then produce evidence of it and open a flag and I will support it. These are two separate issues and one does not justify the other.

[mindrust]

It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with.

There is one big flaw here.

SeW900 is not a fucking newspaper salesman. He is not selling cars, he is not selling bitcoins, he is not selling GPU's. He is selling accounts.

And account sellers are not to be trusted.

[bones261]

It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with.

You analogy is flawed. There is no evidence that bob123 is a rival account seller. Therefore, he had absolutely nothing to financial gain from eliminating competition. Second, regarding the other situation that you elude to, I have not supported or opposed that particular flag. However, I do believe that particular user's posts fall rather close to threats of violence against a particular ethnicity. It goes farther than mere "naughty words." However, it appears it falls just under what is considered an offense worthy of a ban.
Also, bob123's act is not equivalent to burning the particular product. All he did was reveal which products are for sale. It's rather dubious that we have market where it is detrimental to reveal that the product is for sale. Most legitimate businesses would welcome someone informing others exactly which products they have for sale. I'm sure that you don't mind if i post the links to these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127280
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120800

Then reveal to everyone that you are selling gold coins and your sole.

[TECSHARE]

It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with.

You analogy is flawed. There is no evidence that bob123 is a rival account seller. Therefore, he had absolutely nothing to financial gain from eliminating competition. Second, regarding the other situation that you elude to, I have not supported or opposed that particular flag. However, I do believe that particular user's posts fall rather close to threats of violence against a particular ethnicity. It goes farther than mere "naughty words." However, it appears it falls just under what is considered an offense worthy of a ban.
Also, bob123's act is not equivalent to burning the particular product. All he did was reveal which products are for sale. It's rather dubious that we have market where it is detrimental to reveal that the product is for sale. Most legitimate businesses would welcome someone informing others exactly which products they have for sale. I'm sure that you don't mind if i post the links to these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127280
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120800

Then reveal to everyone that you are selling gold coins and your sole.

It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products.

[bones261]

It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products.

No, they need to keep the exact product a secret or it loses it's value to sport a reputation and credentials that were not properly earned by the buyer. Whether that be a rank, post history, merit history, or trust ratings. Most people buy them so that they can get into a signature campaign that they would otherwise not qualify for. There is the potential someone could use the bought account to do a whole lot worse. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if either you or I sold our account in secret?

Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one. Suppose it came to my attention that a particular individual was selling birth certificates and social security cards. This individual acquired them from the rightful owner's, willingly, by purchasing it from them. I decide to take it upon myself to pose as an illegal alien and pretend that I am interested in buying one of these documents. I request that the individual let me see one of the documents and I memorize some of the details. I then make some kind of excuse to back out of the deal and then promptly report what I know to everyone that I can think of as well as the authorities. By this act, I have not only destroyed the value of the product in question, but I have likely destroyed the person's entire enterprise as well. Would that make me a "scammer?" I think not.

[suchmoon]

The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.

Scams are not against the rules either. Actually most if not all use cases for the trust system don't have anything to do with forum rules, which are enforced by moderators. Untrustworthy actions are often done in secret or otherwise obfuscated. Exposing them is not a red-flag offence.

Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one.

Don't even need to go that far... as I mentioned above, just selling green trust appears to be fine in this newfangled interpretation of what is considered a legitimate "business" or "property".

[TECSHARE]

It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products.

No, they need to keep the exact product a secret or it loses it's value to sport a reputation and credentials that were not properly earned by the buyer. Whether that be a rank, post history, merit history, or trust ratings. Most people buy them so that they can get into a signature campaign that they would otherwise not qualify for. There is the potential someone could use the bought account to do a whole lot worse. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if either you or I sold our account in secret?

Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one. Suppose it came to my attention that a particular individual was selling birth certificates and social security cards. This individual acquired them from the rightful owner's, willingly, by purchasing it from them. I decide to take it upon myself to pose as an illegal alien and pretend that I am interested in buying one of these documents. I request that the individual let me see one of the documents and I memorize some of the details. I then make some kind of excuse to back out of the deal and then promptly report what I know to everyone that I can think of as well as the authorities. By this act, I have not only destroyed the value of the product in question, but I have likely destroyed the person's entire enterprise as well. Would that make me a "scammer?" I think not.

So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable? There is by far no universal agreement on account sales, and the need to keep the sales secret is a direct result of this arbitrary enforcement done by vigilantes seeking people to point fingers at preemptively. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it. The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other. Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.

The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.

Scams are not against the rules either. Actually most if not all use cases for the trust system don't have anything to do with forum rules, which are enforced by moderators. Untrustworthy actions are often done in secret or otherwise obfuscated. Exposing them is not a red-flag offence.

Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one.

Don't even need to go that far... as I mentioned above, just selling green trust appears to be fine in this newfangled interpretation of what is considered a legitimate "business" or "property".

No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules. Furthermore the trust system LITERALLY EXISTS to help prevent fraud, not this subversion of its original intent you prefer to push where it exists to enforce pre-crime or to punish people for doing things you do not personally endorse. The entire purpose of the flag system being put in place was to offer some semblance of due process so that people can't just arbitrarily negative rate people for anything they please. Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok, the trust system shouldn't be used to punish it, and you should have the ability to meter out arbitrary preventative enforcement of personally held beliefs using fraud.

[suchmoon]

No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules.

Now you're just making shit up. Which rule is that?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

It literally says that scams are not moderated.

Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok

Then stop arguing that. Fraudulent (farmed, hacked, etc) accounts are not ok.

[bones261]

So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable?

Hmm, maybe those parents can use that as a defense when they basically bought their children the right to get into a particular college. Clearly their children didn't deserve it otherwise.  

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.

I think the more appropriate word to describe the amount of legitimate reasons is "few" not "plenty'"

The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in.

"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Also with the new trust system implemented, Theymos has rightfully made the preventative measures less punitive and the provable offenses more punitive. It truly is an "ounce" when our intention is to only warn, and a "pound" when damage has already been done.

If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud) to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other.

I really don't think bob123's actions warrants a red flag. It is very heavy handed. Unless we want to convey to the community that when is comes to account sales, "snitches get stiches." Perhaps exclusion from DT by his peers.

Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.

Everyone knows that analogies are never a perfect fit. However, account sales are somewhat equivalent to selling identity documents. Granted, someone buying an account on Bitcointalk is not going to allow them to get much of value in the meat world. However, in our forum, it gives them the opportunity to participate in signature campaigns that they would otherwise be excluded from, not to mention other benefits the established account history may bring.

[TECSHARE]

No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules.

Now you're just making shit up. Which rule is that?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

It literally says that scams are not moderated.

Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok

Then stop arguing that. Fraudulent (farmed, hacked, etc) accounts are not ok.

Ask any moderator or Theymos here if they tolerate openly illegal activity. Its the rule that people with common sense know, because knowingly allowing illegal activity here is a liability for Theymos and the forum. They say scams are not moderated not because they would tolerate it if it were proven, but because they couldn't possibly prevent all of it, they don't care to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in ambiguous scenarios, and as a result want the user base to know this and be on the defensive and do due diligence.

I literally never said hacked accounts are ok. Ever. "farmed" accounts is a totally ambiguous and arbitrary term defined by nothing, and even if you could define it, you still have no way of proving an account was "farmed" from the outside.

So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable?

Hmm, maybe those parents can use that as a defense when they basically bought their children the right to get into a particular college. Clearly their children didn't deserve it otherwise.  

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.

I think the more appropriate word to describe the amount of legitimate reasons is "few" not "plenty'"

The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in.

"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Also with the new trust system implemented, Theymos has rightfully made the preventative measures less punitive and the provable offenses more punitive. It truly is an "ounce" when our intention is to only warn, and a "pound" when damage has already been done.

If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud) to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other.

I really don't think bob123's actions warrants a red flag. It is very heavy handed. Unless we want to convey to the community that when is comes to account sales, "snitches get stiches." Perhaps exclusion from DT by his peers.

Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.

Everyone knows that analogies are never a perfect fit. However, account sales are somewhat equivalent to selling identity documents. Granted, someone buying an account on Bitcointalk is not going to allow them to get much of value in the meat world. However, in our forum, it gives them the opportunity to participate in signature campaigns that they would otherwise be excluded from, not to mention other benefits the established account history may bring.

Once again, you are talking about criminal activity, making your comparison useless. Everyone knows spouting off cliche sayings is the highest form of truth possible. Can you imagine the hell that the USA would be in if that is the logic all of the police followed? Police are human beings. Wanna be internet police are human beings. Human beings are flawed and make mistakes and have biases, that is why systems of due process exist.

Oh now you care about heavy hands when you agree with some one's goals? The ends do not justify the means. That is the whole point. This is a precedent that will lead to even more abuse and should be checked. There is no danger of universal approval of account sales, and you know this. OH NOES! Some one might get paid for a signature they didn't "earn"! The sky is falling! I guess we should just round up anyone we suspect and just destroy all their property to make sure that never happens, if people who aren't doing that are wrapped up in that, oh well fuck them, I don't personally like account sales! Again, the ends do not justify the means. You people are just falling all over each other to ameliorate protections for individual rights just to get even with people you don't like or agree with. This is not a scenario where any one wins.

[actmyname]

This is kind of rough, innit?

A third-party user Bob must give tier-1 flags to shady user Craig lest they risk entering a contract with Craig to which any violation results in a tier-2 or tier-3 flag against Bob. It doesn't matter if Craig is a scumbag: Bob violated the contract.

On the other hand, this prevents abusive flags and negative ratings if we establish concrete regulations to fall under.Two birds, one bush.

I do hate account sales, but TECSHARE has a point here.

[bob123]

He still used deception to destroy the property of another.

No. I didn't destroy or damage anything.

Just because other people don't want to buy this account anymore because i shared non-confidential information, this doesn't mean that i did any damage.

It is the right of everybody to know which account has a trustworthy owner who has put a lot of effort and time into his account, and which accounts are simply bought and basically completely untrustworthy.

It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.

So.. because THEY 'need' to keep it secret, I am no longer allowed to share that (non-confidential) information? Uhm.. no.. Definitely not.
I can share any non-private information as i wish. If someone is doing an extremely shady business which needs to have this information not shared at all.. that is completely their problem. I won't support a shady business.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.

Tell me three..

If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue.

Account selling is fraud.

They are helping other people (the buyer) to deceive the whole forum to believe the person is 'trustworthy' and 'reputable'.

The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen.

Unethically? Maybe.
Fraud? No.

Rescinding from a trade and sharing non-confidential information is not a fraud.
Even if that is the reason that other people won't buy those accounts anymore, this doesn't make it fraud or scam.



And everyone still seems to forget.
The flag is inappropriate.. simply because no violation of the contract lead to damage.
There wasn't even a violation at all. I did not get an account, so i don't have to pay for it. Simple as that.

Rescinding is not a violation. I never agreed to any terms which stated that rescinding is not applicable.

The accounts are not banned. Nothing happened to them. They are neither damaged nor stolen. I just shared non-confidential information.
Just because the majority of account-buyer don't want to buy them anymore.. this doesn't make me scammer.

I warned the whole forum about untrustworthy accounts. The fact that people don't want to buy them anymore just confirms that they mostly try to do shady stuff with them.
Except from that.. those accounts are still as before. No damage or anything.

[TECSHARE]

He still used deception to destroy the property of another.

No. I didn't destroy or damage anything.

Just because other people don't want to buy this account anymore because i shared non-confidential information, this doesn't mean that i did any damage.

It is the right of everybody to know which account has a trustworthy owner who has put a lot of effort and time into his account, and which accounts are simply bought and basically completely untrustworthy.

It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.

So.. because THEY 'need' to keep it secret, I am no longer allowed to share that (non-confidential) information? Uhm.. no.. Definitely not.
I can share any non-private information as i wish. If someone is doing an extremely shady business which needs to have this information not shared at all.. that is completely their problem. I won't support a shady business.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.

Tell me three..

If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue.

Account selling is fraud.

They are helping other people (the buyer) to deceive the whole forum to believe the person is 'trustworthy' and 'reputable'.

The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen.

Unethically? Maybe.
Fraud? No.

Rescinding from a trade and sharing non-confidential information is not a fraud.
Even if that is the reason that other people won't buy those accounts anymore, this doesn't make it fraud or scam.



And everyone still seems to forget.
The flag is inappropriate.. simply because no violation of the contract lead to damage.
There wasn't even a violation at all. I did not get an account, so i don't have to pay for it. Simple as that.

Rescinding is not a violation. I never agreed to any terms which stated that rescinding is not applicable.

The accounts are not banned. Nothing happened to them. They are neither damaged nor stolen. I just shared non-confidential information.
Just because the majority of account-buyer don't want to buy them anymore.. this doesn't make me scammer.

I warned the whole forum about untrustworthy accounts. The fact that people don't want to buy them anymore just confirms that they mostly try to do shady stuff with them.
Except from that.. those accounts are still as before. No damage or anything.

You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so.

Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

"fraud noun
Definition of fraud

1a : deceit, trickery specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right "

Deceit + damage = fraud
Deceit /= fraud

You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.

You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.

The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.

All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.

[Quickseller]

And account sellers are not to be trusted.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that it is okay to defraud account sellers in order to discredit them?

It is not necessary to believe anything the OP says in order to believe the flag is valid. All of the necessary information to conclude bob scammed the OP is available by reviewing what bob has posted and evidence bob has presented. 

[xtraelv]

You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so.

I agree with Techshare that value was destroyed.

It is a bit like someone selling cocaine and it getting seized because they get busted. Or someone blackmailing someone and publishing the details so they have nothing to blackmail with anymore.

Not something that I particularly sympathize with.

Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.

I also agree with Techshare on this.

Account sales (unless the account is stolen) are "deception" but not necessarily a fraud using the definition provided by TECHSHARE

However - if you use the alternative definition in the dictionary:

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Then it is "fraud".

You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.

This is where I disagree with TECSHARE

Deception was used but it was not fraud (Using TECHSHARES definition of fraud) . I do not believe a contract was made. The evidence that I have seen is where there was an attempt by an account seller to sell an account that he didn't own / no longer owned (potential fraud).

However if you use the alternative definitions there was fraudulent representation.

There was an invitation to treat / inquiry by the buyer. There was an offer on occasions but there was no acceptance of terms agreed by both parties - so no contract.
I covered that in more detail here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.msg51571002#msg51571002

You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.

In order for there to be a contract to keep it confidential there has to be consideration and mutually accepted terms. There was no consideration or mutually accepted terms so it cannot be considered to be a contract. By the seller providing clearly false information in some of the cases it can also be argued that the seller was in breach of any contract if there was one.

The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.

All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.

I do agree that private sting operations are not a good idea. Police sting operations often have stringent rules and can be inadmissible under certain circumstances.

[TECSHARE]

You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so.

I agree with Techshare that value was destroyed.

It is a bit like someone selling cocaine and it getting seized because they get busted. Or someone blackmailing someone and publishing the details so they have nothing to blackmail with anymore.

Not something that I particularly sympathize with.

Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.

I also agree with Techshare on this.

Account sales (unless the account is stolen) are "deception" but not necessarily a fraud using the definition provided by TECHSHARE

However - if you use the alternative definition in the dictionary:

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

https://i.imgur.com/SoZuuCh.png

https://i.imgur.com/Zv9oY8L.png
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Then it is "fraud".

You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.

This is where I disagree with TECSHARE

Deception was used but it was not fraud (Using TECHSHARES definition of fraud) . I do not believe a contract was made. The evidence that I have seen is where there was an attempt by an account seller to sell an account that he didn't own / no longer owned (potential fraud).

However if you use the alternative definitions there was fraudulent representation.

There was an invitation to treat / inquiry by the buyer. There was an offer on occasions but there was no acceptance of terms agreed by both parties - so no contract.
I covered that in more detail here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.msg51571002#msg51571002

You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.

In order for there to be a contract to keep it confidential there has to be consideration and mutually accepted terms. There was no consideration or mutually accepted terms so it cannot be considered to be a contract. By the seller providing clearly false information in some of the cases it can also be argued that the seller was in breach of any contract if there was one.

The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.

All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.

I do agree that private sting operations are not a good idea. Police sting operations often have stringent rules and can be inadmissible under certain circumstances.

A more proper analogy would be that some one who sells the precursor chemicals to manufacture cocaine getting their lab burned down by a vigilante after he gains access by pretending to be a customer. Selling accounts is not criminal, and even if it was burning down his property using a fraudulent agreement is still not acceptable.

There are plenty of words that have alternative common use meanings which do not hold to the technical and originally intended definition of the word. Fraud is a legal term and as such it has very structured metrics by which an act of fraud is determined. Let us look at the legal definition of fraud.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Clearly what bob123 did falls under this definition. Just because account sales fall under the more loose, casual, and colloquial use of the word is meaningless. One falls under the technical legal definition, one doesn't.

Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

Offer - The seller made an offer at a specific price point.

Acceptance of identical terms of the offer - Bob123 agreed to the price point on the stipulation his consideration of revealing the name/ownership of the account and they both agreed to identical terms.

Consideration - The seller provided consideration under this contract by providing the confirmation stipulated, bringing it into effect.

I appreciate your genuine and civil discussion of the issues, but you are incorrect by your own metrics.


EDIT: I am sure most of you who oppose this flag do so mostly because you disagree with account sales. I do not agree the ends justify the means, but consider this. Theymos has the ability to outright ban account sales if he wishes, but he doesn't. Why? Because he knows all it will do is push the sellers further underground and make it harder to keep track of them. All you are doing is not only making accounts more valuable by making selling them difficult and more rare, you are also teaching the sellers how to go further underground out of the eyes of those monitoring their activity. What you are doing is not just destroying the fidelity of the trust system by allowing its abuse by exception, but you are literally having a counterproductive effect than the one you intended just so you can feel like you did some thing.

[xtraelv]

A more proper analogy would be that some one who sells the precursor chemicals to manufacture cocaine getting their lab burned down by a vigilante after he gains access by pretending to be a customer. Selling accounts is not criminal, and even if it was burning down his property using a fraudulent agreement is still not acceptable.

There are plenty of words that have alternative common use meanings which do not hold to the technical and originally intended definition of the word. Fraud is a legal term and as such it has very structured metrics by which an act of fraud is determined. Let us look at the legal definition of fraud.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Clearly what bob123 did falls under this definition. Just because account sales fall under the more loose, casual, and colloquial use of the word is meaningless. One falls under the technical legal definition, one doesn't.

Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

Offer - The seller made an offer at a specific price point.

Acceptance of identical terms of the offer - Bob123 agreed to the price point on the stipulation his consideration of revealing the name/ownership of the account and they both agreed to identical terms.

Consideration - The seller provided consideration under this contract bringing it into effect.

I appreciate your genuine and civil discussion of the issues, but you are incorrect by your own metrics.

The conversation as posted by the OP https://i.imgur.com/HGZCFtT.jpg

The quoted part is before the rest of the conversation which clearly shows that there was no acceptance yet of mutually agreed terms.



Shows the seller accepts taking the risk.



Asking for proof. No acceptance has been made.



Shows the seller is not convinced there has been acceptance.



No  proof of ownership - terms not met - no acceptance yet.



Quality not accepted - no acceptance yet.



End of conversation that was posted - where seller asks to "wait". No acceptance yet of mutually accepted terms.

I do not agree the ends justify the means

I agree ends do not justify the means.

The reason I oppose the flag is because I do not believe there to be a valid contract. I disagree with the methods used.

[TECSHARE]

The conversation as posted by the OP https://i.imgur.com/HGZCFtT.jpg

The quoted part is before the rest of the conversation which clearly shows that there was no acceptance yet of mutually agreed terms.

https://i.imgur.com/rBGZBdB.png

Shows the seller accepts taking the risk.

https://i.imgur.com/0hD2FrX.png

Asking for proof. No acceptance has been made.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows the seller is not convinced there has been acceptance.

https://i.imgur.com/bMy0NvD.png

No  proof of ownership - terms not met - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/gSpI4l2.png

Quality not accepted - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/jANNM66.png

End of conversation that was posted - where seller asks to "wait". No acceptance yet of mutually accepted terms.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

[bob123]

[...]
Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that.

The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.
This did no damage to anyone at all.


So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate.


P.s. Rescinding from a trade isn't even considered breaking it. But whatever, you have already proved that the flag is inappropriate. Thanks for that, the discussion should be over then i guess.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had.

I can't even try to take you seriously anymore 
Too much trolling for me.

[xtraelv]

The conversation as posted by the OP https://i.imgur.com/HGZCFtT.jpg

The quoted part is before the rest of the conversation which clearly shows that there was no acceptance yet of mutually agreed terms.

https://i.imgur.com/rBGZBdB.png

Shows the seller accepts taking the risk.

https://i.imgur.com/0hD2FrX.png

Asking for proof. No acceptance has been made.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows the seller is not convinced there has been acceptance.

https://i.imgur.com/bMy0NvD.png

No  proof of ownership - terms not met - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/gSpI4l2.png

Quality not accepted - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/jANNM66.png

End of conversation that was posted - where seller asks to "wait". No acceptance yet of mutually accepted terms.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

What comes before is part of the conditions which is relevant.



He makes it clear he needs proof and escrow.





Also what came after shows the seller making a counter-offer with a variation of the terms - no escrow. If there is an offer and then a counter-offer the counter-offer automatically cancels the initial offer. A counter-offer is considered a rejection of the initial offer.

"But I need a direct deal" is a rejection of the condition of escrow.


Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-rejection-law-essay.php

The whole conversation shows they are still haggling over the terms and which accounts to buy. In order for a contract to exist there has to be agreement on the terms (escrow and proof of ownership) , which products and what price.



Shows that the seller is aware that no deal has been struck. He said "I don't know that you will buy at all". He didn't say "I'm not sure whether you will pay me for the agreed contract".  This is because they had not agreed on the terms or which accounts would be bought.

[TECSHARE]

[...]
Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that.

The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.
This did no damage to anyone at all.


So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate.


P.s. Rescinding from a trade isn't even considered breaking it. But whatever, you have already proved that the flag is inappropriate. Thanks for that, the discussion should be over then i guess.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had.

I can't even try to take you seriously anymore  
Too much trolling for me.

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided. Just because you don't like being held accountable to the same standards you hold others too doesn't make me a troll.

The conversation as posted by the OP https://i.imgur.com/HGZCFtT.jpg

The quoted part is before the rest of the conversation which clearly shows that there was no acceptance yet of mutually agreed terms.

https://i.imgur.com/rBGZBdB.png

Shows the seller accepts taking the risk.

https://i.imgur.com/0hD2FrX.png

Asking for proof. No acceptance has been made.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows the seller is not convinced there has been acceptance.

https://i.imgur.com/bMy0NvD.png

No  proof of ownership - terms not met - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/gSpI4l2.png

Quality not accepted - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/jANNM66.png

End of conversation that was posted - where seller asks to "wait". No acceptance yet of mutually accepted terms.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

What comes before is part of the conditions which is relevant.

https://i.imgur.com/wrMj9ge.png

He makes it clear he needs proof and escrow.



https://i.imgur.com/zR1ffz8.png

Also what came after shows the seller making a counter-offer with a variation of the terms - no escrow. If there is an offer and then a counter-offer the counter-offer automatically cancels the initial offer. A counter-offer is considered a rejection of the initial offer.

"But I need a direct deal" is a rejection of the condition of escrow.

https://i.imgur.com/kscOQi4.png
Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-rejection-law-essay.php

The whole conversation shows they are still haggling over the terms and which accounts to buy. In order for a contract to exist there has to be agreement on the terms (escrow and proof of ownership) , which products and what price.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows that the seller is aware that no deal has been struck.

What comes before is irrelevant because they both later agreed on $280. bob123 accepted consideration after the contract was formed. They both also agreed to use escrow. The seller made the consideration to bob123 in good faith (and under contractual agreement) that a certain price would be paid once this consideration (PM from account) was made.

You will also see later in that same conversation about 2/3 of the way down:

bob123 (18:52): "OK send me a message from this account and we have a deal"

He explicitly accepts the terms discussed, and accepts further consideration from the seller in the form of a PM which is then delivered just after as you can see in the conversation. Also once again prices are discussed and agreed upon.

bob123 himself admitted they had a deal, signaling his willingness to contract, and that contract was activated upon consideration (the PM). Just because bob123 backed out of his agreement, and the seller realized he would not complete it at that time does not invalidate the contract bob123 formed. bob123 adding on additional terms after the agreement was formed, and consideration was already made does not invalidate the contract either. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.

[bob123]

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided.

Well.. i can just repeat myself.. you seemed to have overlooked that (or maybe just didn't reply on purpose):

[...]
Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that.

The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.
This did no damage to anyone at all.


So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate.

'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.

I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7

[xtraelv]

What comes before is irrelevant because they both later agreed on $280. bob123 accepted consideration after the contract was formed. They both also agreed to use escrow. The seller made the consideration to bob123 in good faith (and under contractual agreement) that a certain price would be paid once this consideration (PM from account) was made.

You will also see later in that same conversation about 2/3 of the way down:

bob123 (18:52): "OK send me a message from this account and we have a deal"

He explicitly accepts the terms discussed, and accepts further consideration from the seller in the form of a PM which is then delivered just after as you can see in the conversation. Also once again prices are discussed and agreed upon.

bob123 himself admitted they had a deal, signaling his willingness to contract, and that contract was activated upon consideration (the PM). Just because bob123 backed out of his agreement, and the seller realized he would not complete it at that time does not invalidate the contract bob123 formed. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.

When a counter-offer is made it kills the initial offer. Even is the person making the counter offer agrees later to the initial terms. This has happened to me in a real estate deal. I made an offer. Then the seller made a counter offer. The counter counter offer was rejected. The seller then offered the same terms as the initial offer I had made which I rejected because I had already decided to buy elsewhere.




Shows the buyer rejected the account based on quality. An account that has plagiarized content is a misrepresentation by the seller.

-- although I do not see any plagiarized content myself. The posting history does make me wonder if it is an account stolen after the last bitcointalk hack where passwords were exposed.


The seller also misrepresented the trust on the account.







Which IF there was a contract would put the seller in breach of contract because he is not showing an account "as described".

It would mean that the message that was sent from that account did not match the description of the account that would have been part of that contract.

The absence of a message from an account that matches the sellers description means that the conditions that the buyer insisted on throughout the conversation (if there was a contract) were not met.


I found an interesting quote:

Since when is asking for proof of possession (picture of the product with username) a "low-life" move??

This same processor is available at NewEgg for $359.99.  Fry's Electronics (right down the road) is selling it for $380...

Tell me again why this low-life should spend an extra $40.00, pay for shipping, and likely receive a stolen chip without warranty?

Yep. Asking for proof of possession for someone who has ZERO feedback is not too much to ask.

$356 with free shipping on Amazon also.

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Boxed-I7-6700K-Processor-BX80662I76700K/dp/B012M8LXQW

http://archive.fo/SGJRp

'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.

I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7

Forfeiting a sale - IF - there is a contract is a technical breach of contract. Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

There was no implied contract of confidentiality as the seller clearly was aware of the risk and stated it was his risk.



I am not convinced that there was a binding contract. I am not satisfied that the conditions that form part of the terms discussed were met by the seller.

It is not really a victory on your part. The flag is permanently there and while it only has the support of one DT but also 4 other members - there are clearly other members that support the flag which I can understand - even though I do not agree with their analysis or conclusion.

[TECSHARE]

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided.

Well.. i can just repeat myself.. you seemed to have overlooked that (or maybe just didn't reply on purpose):

[...]
Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that.

The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.
This did no damage to anyone at all.


So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate.

'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.

I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7

I am not overlooking anything. You agreed to terms. You then agreed to pay a specific amount after he provided consideration by PMing you from the last account. It is at this time a contract was formed. Just because you refused to fulfill your agreement does not make the agreement invalid. It came into effect the moment he sent you the PM, also known technically as consideration, which you then used to cause damages. Sorry I don't care how many people oppose this flag, it is valid. You entered into a contract under fraud which directly resulted in damages via the loss of account value. If you had not explicitly made the agreement it might have been different, but you did in fact create a contract  with intent to defraud and then violated it AFTER receiving considerations.

When a counter-offer is made it kills the initial offer. Even is the person making the counter offer agrees later to the initial terms. This has happened to me in a real estate deal. I made an offer. Then the seller made a counter offer. The counter counter offer was rejected. The seller then offered the same terms as the initial offer I had made which I rejected because I had already decided to buy elsewhere.


https://i.imgur.com/nSZBySE.png

Shows the buyer rejected the account based on quality. An account that has plagiarized content is a misrepresentation by the seller.

-- although I do not see any plagiarized content myself. The posting history does make me wonder if it is an account stolen after the last bitcointalk hack where passwords were exposed.


The seller also misrepresented the trust on the account.

https://i.imgur.com/rxM4KAD.png

https://i.imgur.com/SxocdF3.png

https://i.imgur.com/t1xBqVJ.png

Which IF there was a contract would put the seller in breach of contract because he is not showing an account "as described".

It would mean that the message that was sent from that account did not match the description of the account that would have been part of that contract.

The absence of a message from an account that matches the sellers description means that the conditions that the buyer insisted on throughout the conversation (if there was a contract) were not met.


I found an interesting quote:

Since when is asking for proof of possession (picture of the product with username) a "low-life" move??

This same processor is available at NewEgg for $359.99.  Fry's Electronics (right down the road) is selling it for $380...

Tell me again why this low-life should spend an extra $40.00, pay for shipping, and likely receive a stolen chip without warranty?

Yep. Asking for proof of possession for someone who has ZERO feedback is not too much to ask.

$356 with free shipping on Amazon also.

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Boxed-I7-6700K-Processor-BX80662I76700K/dp/B012M8LXQW

http://archive.fo/SGJRp

'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.

I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7

Forfeiting a sale - IF - there is a contract is a technical breach of contract. Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

There was no implied contract of confidentiality as the seller clearly was aware of the risk and stated it was his risk.

https://i.imgur.com/rBGZBdB.png

I am not convinced that there was a binding contract. I am not satisfied that the conditions that form part of the terms discussed were met by the seller.

It is not really a victory on your part. The flag is permanently there and while it only has the support of one DT but also 4 other members - there are clearly other members that support the flag which I can understand - even though I do not agree with their analysis or conclusion.

https://i.imgur.com/RIv6OGr.png

Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.

[xtraelv]

Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.

Invitation to treat, ability to examine goods, performance of terms, counter offer, variations, clarity all are part of forming a contract.

It is not cherry picking. It is viewing the entire discussion as a whole.

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

With any commercial disputes - some require court action to resolve. Two parties enter court and usually only one party is found to be correct when it comes to determining if there was a contract or not. Both sides usually have smart lawyers.

In commercial conflicts the consumer has rights. Terms have to be clear. To say there a contract wherethere was a condition of privacy would require some discussion around that. That is absent from the chat log.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

I doubt that we will agree on whether there was a contract or not. However we should agree  that this is one of the most controversial flags.  It is not a straight forward one. 

[TECSHARE]

Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.

Invitation to treat, ability to examine goods, performance of terms, counter offer, variations, clarity all are part of forming a contract.

It is not cherry picking. It is viewing the entire discussion as a whole.

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

With any commercial disputes - some require court action to resolve. Two parties enter court and usually only one party is found to be correct when it comes to determining if there was a contract or not. Both sides usually have smart lawyers.

In commercial conflicts the consumer has rights. Terms have to be clear. To say there a contract wherethere was a condition of privacy would require some discussion around that. That is absent from the chat log.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

I doubt that we will agree on whether there was a contract or not. However we should agree  that this is one of the most controversial flags.  It is not a straight forward one. 

What you are trying to do is very transparent. You are just repeating technical terminology and hoping either that some of it will stick or that people will be too dumb or passive to even bother to check. I believe you to be actively disingenuous at this point, because you are smart enough to know what happened here. It is in fact very straight forward, you just don't like the conclusion.

There need not be any agreement for privacy, because consideration was provided under fraud, then the contract was violated by bob123 by not completing payment. This information was obtained via fraud and then directly used to cause financial damages. Once again, I might remind you the lowest standard for this flag is "... bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages...". For you to argue that this not only does not constitute a technical agreement but doesn't even constitute an IMPLIED agreement is just totally disingenuous. You have fun wearing your little lawyer suit though.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

I think you are just misinterpreting TECSHARE's point here.

If Bob123 didn't wanted to go into the contract with the seller or if the seller didn't wanted to engage in the contract with Bob123, this telegram discussion you are implying would just not exist.

Bob123 had a pri-decided intention to engage in the contract with the account seller and than again broke it intentionally after exposing his digital goods.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

Yes, there was a risk of no sale before the seller revealed his accounts to Bob123, but when Bob123 agreed to buy the account once the ownership is proved the contract should be automatically formed there after IMO.

I find your way of relating this incident to court judgements interesting, but I don't think we could imply complex court laws here anyways there are too many differences.

[xtraelv]

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

I think you are just misinterpreting TECSHARE's point here.

If Bob123 didn't wanted to go into the contract with the seller or if the seller didn't wanted to engage in the contract with Bob123, this telegram discussion you are implying would just not exist.

Bob123 had a pri-decided intention to engage in the contract with the account seller and than again broke it intentionally after exposing his digital goods.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

Yes, there was a risk of no sale before the seller revealed his accounts to Bob123, but when Bob123 agreed to buy the account once the ownership is proved the contract should be automatically formed there after IMO.

I find your way of relating this incident to court judgements interesting, but I don't think we could imply complex court laws here anyways there are too many differences.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of
an offer. Again, there must be an objective manifestation, by the recipient of
the offer, of an intention to be bound by its terms. An offer must be accepted
in accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must
exactly match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.

Once an offer has been accepted, the parties have an agreement. That is the
basis for a contract, but is not sufficient in itself to create legal obligations.

In common law, a promise is not, as a general rule, binding as a contract
unless it is supported by consideration (or it is made as a deed).

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

[IMadeYouReadThis]

This is not what happened here.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of
an offer. Again, there must be an objective manifestation, by the recipient of
the offer, of an intention to be bound by its terms. An offer must be accepted
in accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must
exactly match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.

Once an offer has been accepted, the parties have an agreement. That is the
basis for a contract, but is not sufficient in itself to create legal obligations.

In common law, a promise is not, as a general rule, binding as a contract
unless it is supported by consideration (or it is made as a deed).

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

This is what happened here.

(i) Breach
3. A breach of contract is committed when a party, without lawful excuse, fails
or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs
defectively, or incapacitates himself from performing.
 (a) Failure or refusal to perform – a failure or refusal to perform a
contractual promise when performance has fallen due is prima facie a
breach.
(b) Defective performance – where a person promises to do one thing but
does another, which differs, for example, in time, quantity or quality,
this amounts to a breach. The effect of such a breach often differs
from those of a complete failure or refusal to perform (see below).
Note that where the "defect" in performance is particularly serious, the
breach may amount to non-performance rather than defective
performance (for example, if a seller promises beans but delivers
peas).
 (c) Incapacitating oneself – for example, a seller commits a breach of
contract for the sale of a specific thing if he sells it to a third party.

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

[bob123]

Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'.

I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer.
If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage.


But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.
It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

The flag has not been started by the seller.
There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it.
There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it.

[TECSHARE]

Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'.

I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer.
If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage.


But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.
It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

The flag has not been started by the seller.
There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it.
There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it.

You made an agreement. You received considerations under that agreement (the PM and the information resulting from it). At this point the contract was active. Rather than submitting payment as you agreed to, you then released that information (consideration) you received under false pretenses not only violating the contract, but causing damages which then took you firmly into fraud territory, not just contractual violations. This is quite clear cut, you even provided all the evidence yourself. All of this Playschool lawyering is not going to change the facts.

[HCP]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

[TECSHARE]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.

[xtraelv]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.

Cannot sell something that is not for sale. Either the OP is lying or zackie is lying. Since the OP is claiming a "loss" of value of the accounts - he can only have a loss if he owns the account.

So there lies the paradox. Either the OP is lying or the OP is lying.

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

[suchmoon]

These retaliatory flags are going to be fun. Livecoin should probably flag this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51656503#msg51656503

Seems like a clear violation of a written contract according to some "lawyers" in this thread.

[TECSHARE]

Cannot sell something that is not for sale. Either the OP is lying or zackie is lying. Since the OP is claiming a "loss" of value of the accounts - he can only have a loss if he owns the account.

So there lies the paradox. Either the OP is lying or the OP is lying.

WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

These retaliatory flags are going to be fun. Livecoin should probably flag this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51656503#msg51656503

Seems like a clear violation of a written contract according to some "lawyers" in this thread.

Just because you don't like a contract doesn't make it wrong or bad. Contracts are voluntary. If you don't like a contract don't engage with the entity, it is that simple. Also as others have stated it is probably not legal for them to freeze funds over such an issue. I know you are a simple creature and think this is all a game, but the only thing that keeps a place like this able to function is that we uphold our contracts. That is what enables this community to operate without the state stepping in to be mommy and daddy every time some one has an issue at the detriment of everyone. Keeping an agreement is the only thing that has any true value around here.

[xtraelv]

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

[TECSHARE]

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

[xtraelv]

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

Perhaps you want to re-read what you just said and consider whether you want to continue supporting the flag.


What I read was: " The person who placed the flag was going to scam bob123 but bob123 couldn't have known that at the time of the scam so therefore he should be tagged for not parting with his $."

An illegal contract is legally unenforceable.  Even if the illegality is found out later. But like I said earlier. There was no implied or express agreement. The PMs posted by the seller do not show that there was such an agreement.

From the evidence that I see the OP and associates demonstrated that they were trying to sell an account they did not own..

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Keep in mind that part of the claim by the OP is that they are not scammers.

[TECSHARE]

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

Perhaps you want to re-read what you just said and consider whether you want to continue supporting the flag.


What I read was: " The person who placed the flag was going to scam bob123 but bob123 couldn't have known that at the time of the scam so therefore he should be tagged for not parting with his $."

An illegal contract is legally unenforceable.  Even if the illegality is found out later. But like I said earlier. There was no implied or express agreement. The PMs posted by the seller do not show that there was such an agreement.

From the evidence that I see the OP and associates demonstrated that they were trying to sell an account they did not own..

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

Keep in mind that part of the claim by the OP is that they are not scammers.

Don't speak for me, I can speak for myself. As I explained before and which you promptly ignored in favor of your next convoluted distraction, was that the seller may or may not have known the account was stolen. Furthermore more than one account was involved. There is no way for you to know the seller's intent based on this information. We can however determine the intent of bob123 here without a doubt, because he said so publicly his intent was to enter into a contract he never intended to keep, then take actions resulting in intentional damages to the seller. The rest of your song and dance is irrelevant.

[Quickseller]

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

First, if you are not familiar with the thread and situation, I don't see how it would possibly be appropriate to have a stance on the flag one way or another.

The evidence is in this post.


I have copied a portion of the screenshot linked in the above referenced post. If you review the screenshot, you will see that bob123 said he will buy [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659] Ntrain2k upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see in the below image that bob123 received a PM from ntrain2k:

You can see above the copied portion of the conversation that bob123 was offered a "green hero" for $550, and also that bob123 asked for PMs to be sent to "alice321" which they were.

Further, you can see this portion of the conversation posted by bob123:

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. 

[xtraelv]

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid.  

Is contradicted by this  which was posted by the seller.



Seller posted the entire chatlog here:
http://archive.is/rlBTD

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.

It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen.

The claim by the seller is:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer.

The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it.

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[TECSHARE]

https://i.imgur.com/P3n361H.png
Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid.  

Is contradicted by this  which was posted by the seller.

https://i.imgur.com/UYUQ3J0.png

Seller posted the entire chatlog here:
http://archive.is/rlBTD

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.

It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen.

The claim by the seller is:

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer.

The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it.

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

You are just repeating yourself now. There is no proof that the seller knew the account was hacked, furthermore, more than one account was damaged. bob123 received considerations under contract which he never intended to honor BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. bob123 provided the proof himself.

[Quickseller]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

[xtraelv]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case.

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred.

Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statements

By supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag.

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[TECSHARE]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case.

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred.

Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statements

By supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag.

...

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

If you stretch your narrative any thinner, it is going to pop. Supporting the flag does not mean we support everything the creator ever said, it means that we support the claim of the flag, which is supported by bob123's own admissions. This is pretty cut and dry regardless of how badly you wish to distract from that. The only reason the escrow was not arranged was because bob123 accepted the terms that he would pay a set price up front upon consideration of a PM from the user name (as proven by bob123's submissions). He knowingly entered into a contract he did not intend to honor, with intent to take the legal rights of the seller by causing damages. Just because you think the ends justify the means does not change the facts.

[xtraelv]

If you stretch your narrative any thinner, it is going to pop. Supporting the flag does not mean we support everything the creator ever said, it means that we support the claim of the flag, which is supported by bob123's own admissions. This is pretty cut and dry regardless of how badly you wish to distract from that. The only reason the escrow was not arranged was because bob123 accepted the terms that he would pay a set price up front upon consideration of a PM from the user name (as proven by bob123's submissions). He knowingly entered into a contract he did not intend to honor, with intent to take the legal rights of the seller by causing damages. Just because you think the ends justify the means does not change the facts.

It is not about "everything the seller ever said". It is about the specific reasoning he gave when he created the flag.





The OP has been flagged as a scammer by the account he tried to sell that he does not own. How much more scammy can it possibly get ?

[bones261]

I just want to say, that we now have verification that a second account that the OP and his business partner offered for sale was a hacked account. It appears that the OP and his business partner are selling stolen merchandise. But I guess some people believe that we should flag anyone that dare try to expose their shady business. Fortunately, for Nasty Fans, whoever acquired this account didn't realize what kind they could have done. It appears they only shitposted with it.

Recently, it has come to light, that the nonnakip account was recently offered for sale.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0
I just want to make NastyFans aware, so there is no confusion. If the sale is authorized, I think the community should be made aware. If it was not authorized, I am hoping someone can reach out to nonnakip to take proper actions. It appears that the password was changed, recently, so either nonnakip took the proper steps to ensure his account is secure or someone actually purchased the account.
(Please note, there is no evidence that the account seller actually had access to nonakip's account. So it could have been a fib on the account seller's part.)

Yes my account was hacked. I had a unique random 16-character password. I assume there was a security breach at bitcointalk.org.

Thank you for making this public. OgNasty contacts me in private and informs me of the situation. I had no awareness because I am very busy the last months. (Sorry for this!)

I contacted the bitcointalk.org forum and they cooperate very well to help restore my account to me. I change my avatar back and delete forum posts from imposter. The imposter seems to like ethereum and altcoin discussions. The imposter did not send any private messages and did not post anything to mislead others about identity. I think the imposter did not know who nonnakip is. Maybe it just want some Hero account.

I recommend all bitcointalk.org users to update passwords.

[TECSHARE]

I just want to say, that we now have verification that a second account that the OP and his business partner offered for sale was a hacked account. It appears that the OP and his business partner are selling stolen merchandise. But I guess some people believe that we should flag anyone that dare try to expose their shady business. Fortunately, for Nasty Fans, whoever acquired this account didn't realize what kind they could have done. It appears they only shitposted with it.

Recently, it has come to light, that the nonnakip account was recently offered for sale.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0
I just want to make NastyFans aware, so there is no confusion. If the sale is authorized, I think the community should be made aware. If it was not authorized, I am hoping someone can reach out to nonnakip to take proper actions. It appears that the password was changed, recently, so either nonnakip took the proper steps to ensure his account is secure or someone actually purchased the account.
(Please note, there is no evidence that the account seller actually had access to nonakip's account. So it could have been a fib on the account seller's part.)

Yes my account was hacked. I had a unique random 16-character password. I assume there was a security breach at bitcointalk.org.

Thank you for making this public. OgNasty contacts me in private and informs me of the situation. I had no awareness because I am very busy the last months. (Sorry for this!)

I contacted the bitcointalk.org forum and they cooperate very well to help restore my account to me. I change my avatar back and delete forum posts from imposter. The imposter seems to like ethereum and altcoin discussions. The imposter did not send any private messages and did not post anything to mislead others about identity. I think the imposter did not know who nonnakip is. Maybe it just want some Hero account.

I recommend all bitcointalk.org users to update passwords.

Just because Bob123 happened to be correct after the fact does not mean he had any ability to know if these accounts were hacked or legitimately acquired beforehand. Again to summarize...

Lying = not a flaggable offense

Forming a contract you don't keep = flaggable offense

Solution? Don't form contracts you don't intend to keep, even with scumbags. If contracts don't also apply to scumbags they don't apply to any of us.