100% of Quickseller's Flags are false.

[Timelord2067]

It's not looking too good for Quickseller [Trust] [BPIP] having Flagged (21 type one + 1 type 3) Flags that offer no proof.  100% of Quicksellers Flags are false.

http://loyce.club/trust/flags/50.html


These twenty-one flags cite the one thread: [dox'ed]James Volpe TheGamber aka moreia aka many others is an alt of dzeros (there's no actual doxing, just BTC TX from one wallet to another wallet as proof that is quickly rebuffed)

7 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged TheGambler (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

8 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged dzeros (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

10 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged moreia (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

11 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Spodermen (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

12 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Plutonium (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

13 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged silvercane (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

14 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Gambler_appeal (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller, killyou72. Opposed by nobody.

15 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged NextPonzi (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

16 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged NextPonziV2 (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

17 Active. Quickseller flagged fastponzi (type 1, see why). Supported by pandukelana2712, Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

18 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged bit-dividends (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

19 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Bit-Dividends.com (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

20 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Crypterest (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

21 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged CryptoSplit (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

22 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged dmugetsu (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

23 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged Fiiasco (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

24 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged InvestCryptos (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

25 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged BtcGains (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

26 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged kerimk2 (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

27 Active. Quickseller flagged BitcoinPonzi.io (type 1, see why). Supported by pandukelana2712, Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

28 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged sergiom Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

Quickseller in his OP claims there are

Known alts:

(snip) <--- details removed due to thread being in the "investigation" section

(total of 20a lot of known alts)

But as some-one who knows a thing or two about alts, I can't find any references linking any of the UID's listed to anyone else.


Pamoldar (who?) and then Quickseller both flag  ky94PjDw - Pamoldar as a Type 1, Quickseller as a type 3 Flag.

32 Active. Pamoldar flagged ky94PjDw (type 1, see why). Supported by nutildah, Pamoldar, pandukelana2712, Quickseller, asu. Opposed by DarkStar_, Steamtyme, Hueristic, bill gator, ky94PjDw.

33 Insufficient support. Quickseller flagged ky94PjDw (type 3, see why). Supported by dbshck, Steamtyme, Quickseller, ky94PjDw. Opposed by Hueristic[/size].

Not to be outdone Steamtyme starts a type two flag against ky94PjDw

I haven't encountered a flag that "expires" already, but here is one...  

36 Expired. Steamtyme flagged ky94PjDw (type 2, see why). Supported by dbshck, redsn0w, Steamtyme. Opposed by nobody. -

All three of these flags reference @theymos' thread Trust flags as "proof" of their flags.  Only trouble is ky94PjDw is not mentioned in either the OP or the first page (TL;DR the rest) so in this instance, all three, Pamoldar (type one), Steamtyme (type two) and Quickseller (type three) flags are fake.


Quickseller's type 3 flag against ky94PjDw is interesting in that he would have been directly affected financially ... (what ever the correct wording is) from his trade with ky94PjDw - but the thread "proof" isn't there.


100% of Quicksellers Flags are false.  I know people such as @Vod and @Suchmoon (and a whole lot more) are going to want to sink the boot in, however, I just ask that you don't indulge that person with lengthy responces.  It's Flag abuse in the most blatant kind that @theymos needs to stamp out.

[1713880809]

1713880809

[DarkStar_]

Pamoldar (who?) and then Quickseller both flag  ky94PjDw - Pamoldar as a Type 1, Quickseller as a type 3 Flag.

All three of these flags reference @theymos' thread Trust flags as "proof" of their flags.  Only trouble is ky94PjDw is not mentioned in either the OP or the first page (TL;DR the rest) so in this instance, all three, Pamoldar (type one), Steamtyme (type two) and Quickseller (type three) flags are fake.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51436190#msg51436190

[Quickseller]

There is blockchain evidence...it is also widely acknowledged that those referenced in that thread are in fact of James Volpe. This includes the assistance of vetting the information by one or more admins.

ky94PjDw was a test account created by theymos to allow users to get a feel of how the flag system works.

[Timelord2067]

Pamoldar (who?) and then Quickseller both flag  ky94PjDw - Pamoldar as a Type 1, Quickseller as a type 3 Flag.

All three of these flags reference @theymos' thread Trust flags as "proof" of their flags.  Only trouble is ky94PjDw is not mentioned in either the OP or the first page (TL;DR the rest) so in this instance, all three, Pamoldar (type one), Steamtyme (type two) and Quickseller (type three) flags are fake.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51436190#msg51436190

Thanks for the information - As I said in the quote, I had endeavoured to find the name ky94PjDw in that thread, but it wasn't mentioned, hence the observation in the OP.

There is blockchain evidence...it is also widely acknowledged that those referenced in that thread are in fact of James Volpe. This includes the assistance of vetting the information by one or more admins.

ky94PjDw was a test account created by theymos to allow users to get a feel of how the flag system works.

Post three of Your thread you are told that the person used a mixing service which is a dubious response in itself, however your OP does not cite any references as to where you've come to the conclusion the names listed are alts.  The thread was created over three years and two months ago:

Code:

04 May 2015, 06:55:02

Last edited

Code:

18th of July 2015

post five disgraced koshgel is massaging your ego to which in post seven you are wanting others to press charges then from then on it's down to your alts such as ACCTseller to help kick an empty tin can around the playground at lunch time.

the enemy of your enemy is your friend,i thought you two are friends because you are fighting abusive Dt members? just focus in one goal.

Quickseller isn't anyone's friend except his sock-puppets.  His thread is stale having come to life this year after he created his twenty flags with this as his first post since the flags were created.

Well hopefully you will get arrested soon. How much bitcoin did you end up with after gambling most of what you stole away? I was thinking about planning a trip to Australia somewhat soon, perhaps I could pay a visit to the local PD and try to push you to get investigated and arrested for your crimes.

No doubt because the "PD" in your own area have heard it all before? 


After kicking the tin can around for 36 hours this is the last post:

Oh James, you are absolutely correct. You have conducted yourself with complete integrity and have never mislead anyone dealing with you in any way whatsoever. /s

I would say integral as most other topic owners in the gambling section

Would have never thought I'd have seen the day you were left with nothing but sarcasm.

And not one of the 98 posts connects the twenty flagged users to each other.

100% of Quickseller's Flags are false.

[marlboroza]

I don't see it the way OP see it. I'll pick one random flag (Plutonium):

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic

Ponzies are mentioned in that topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1046791.0.

I believe that anyone dealing with Plutonium is at a high risk of losing money

This thread is mentioned in topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all

and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so

Indeed, guests and everyone, because Plutonium is ponzi scammer, as it is visible in thread linked above.

This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

Connection between other accounts might or might not be true (I did not check everything yet) but this is irrelevant for this flag. Relevant factor is that they are ponzi scammer which is, again, mentioned in QS's thread. Evidence of scamming exist.

I actually see flags that should be supported, not bashed.

[Timelord2067]

marlboroza is using reverse-enginering to make the flag fit the accusation...

[quote author=marlboroza link=topic=5165940.msg51855060#msg51855060 date=1563369648]
I don't see it the way OP see it. I'll pick one random flag (Plutonium):

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic

Ponzies are mentioned in that topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1046791.0.
[/quote]

The only two times the word Ponzi are mentioned in the Opening Post by Quickseller is in this first paragraph:

[quote author=Quickseller link=topic=1046791.msg11275421#msg11275421 date=1430686502]
TheGambler has run many HYIP/ponzi sites over the years. Research into his identity has caused me to believe that he has been running scam sites since at least 2012, however I think they probably go back to ~2010. He is known by some as moreia, by others as Spoodermen, he seems to think his "main" account is TheGambler. He has scammed at least 15 BTC on bitcointalk, however the amount is likely at least 4 times (by my guesstimate) as much considering it is difficult to know the exact amount he scammed on most of his HYIP/ponzis. He has been described by some as the plague to the community, he is a serial scammer.
[/quote]

Quickseller lists Plutonium as an alt, but makes no connection between the accused (TheGambler) and Plutonium. (and he's already "guestimating" ... not offering facts)

I believe that anyone dealing with Plutonium is at a high risk of losing money

This thread is mentioned in topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all

What Quickseller actually said was:

Known scam sites he ran:
#bitcoin-stocks.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all

The "he" being the subject of the op - TheGambler.  There is no breakdown of which user allegedly did what much less offer proof of connections.

and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so

Indeed, guests and everyone, because Plutonium is ponzi scammer, as it is visible in thread linked above.

This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

Connection between other accounts might or might not be true (I did not check everything yet) but this is irrelevant for this flag. Relevant factor is that they are ponzi scammer which is, again, mentioned in QS's thread. Evidence of scamming exist.

I actually see flags that should be supported, not bashed.

Again, marlbaroza is using reverse-enginering logic to make the flag fit the accusation.  Quickseller hasn't proven the connection between the subject of the thread and those he claims are alts, so the flag was ... "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."

Given marboroza has already started a thread asking us to distrust him it's little surprise he has only now gone back and supported the flag all these weeks later.  He doesn't have anything to loose by supporting a flag that was created incorrectly.



by my guesstimate Quickseller, trigger happy to be seen to have mended his ways has created a flurry of Flags, then has read the fine print and has stopped creating flags in the hope no one would notice the thread supporting the flags does not hold up to scrutiny.


Somebody feel free to PM @theymos to come have a look at this thread... and feel free to audit my own Flags (if you-know-who) hasn't already tried it.

[marlboroza]

I can do that too, you know!

Given marboroza has already started a thread asking us to distrust him it's little surprise he has only now gone back and supported the flag all these weeks later.  He doesn't have anything to loose by supporting a flag that was created incorrectly.

Timelord opposed this flag:


 
Update topic, this line is false:

Quickseller flagged Plutonium (type 1, see why). Supported by Quickseller. Opposed by nobody.

This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with

That ponzi thread linked by QS raised enough red flags and that should be more than enough to support it. And...



"Due largely to the factors mentioned in topic (scammed people) I believe that anyone dealing with account Plutonium is at high risk of losing money."

You don't see red flags in that thread?   Ok, why don't you oppose these flags then, the same way you opposed flag against GP?

Go ahead, oppose flags created against scammer(s).

The only two times the word Ponzi are mentioned in the Opening Post by Quickseller is in this first paragraph

How many times one has to mention word Ponzi until it become valid for you? 3 times? 4? 10?

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Pamoldar (who?) and then Quickseller both flag  ky94PjDw - Pamoldar as a Type 1, Quickseller as a type 3 Flag.

All three of these flags reference @theymos' thread Trust flags as "proof" of their flags.  Only trouble is ky94PjDw is not mentioned in either the OP or the first page (TL;DR the rest) so in this instance, all three, Pamoldar (type one), Steamtyme (type two) and Quickseller (type three) flags are fake.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51436190#msg51436190

Thanks for the information - As I said in the quote, I had endeavoured to find the name ky94PjDw in that thread, but it wasn't mentioned, hence the observation in the OP.

You have been sleeping all those days? 🤪

[Timelord2067]

You have been sleeping all those days? 🤪

Probably - Normally I only frequent the Scam Accusation and Reputation threads (and occasionally the Currency Exchange section).  Pleased to meet you.

[hacker1001101001]

I don't see any of those flags started by QS false, he has linked a well organized thread about the risks of dealing with TheGambler and his alts here, which would convince anyone with due intelligence to believe he is at high risk of trading with that person.

Even the accused accounts are already red trusted for scamming, so I think the type 1 flags started by QS are good at it's place.

[Quickseller]

I don't see any of those flags started by QS false, he has linked a well organized thread about the risks of dealing with TheGambler and his alts here, which would convince anyone with due intelligence to believe he is at high risk of trading with that person.

Even the accused accounts are already red trusted for scamming, so I think the type 1 flags started by QS are good at it's place.

Feel free to support them if you feel they are correct:)

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

You have been sleeping all those days? 🤪

Probably - Normally I only frequent the Scam Accusation and Reputation threads (and occasionally the Currency Exchange section).  Pleased to meet you.

I was talking about that test flag created by theymos. By the way, nice meeting you here too. I have seen you around but I guess we never had this chance to exchange words. Anyway it's done. 🤪

[hacker1001101001]

~

Feel free to support them if you feel they are correct:)

By looking at the evidence and some discussion in the topic linked to the flag, I am inclined to think that all of this accounts are high risk to deal with.

Flags supported.

[nutildah]

I don't see any of those flags started by QS false, he has linked a well organized thread about the risks of dealing with TheGambler and his alts here, which would convince anyone with due intelligence to believe he is at high risk of trading with that person.

Even the accused accounts are already red trusted for scamming, so I think the type 1 flags started by QS are good at it's place.

The majority don't have supporting evidence that such and such is an alt of his main target, that is why they are false. Anybody can accuse anybody of being an alt, but without evidence to support a claim, they are simply claims.

Anyone with "due intelligence" should question unsupported claims.

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

[actmyname]

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do we just ignore low-post or inactive accounts? Because "age" carries weight to it and Bitcointalk is rife with scams, there is no telling when the account might reactivate.

Better to be proactive regardless of the user.

[hacker1001101001]

The majority don't have supporting evidence that such and such is an alt of his main target, that is why they are false. Anybody can accuse anybody of being an alt, but without evidence to support a claim, they are simply claims.

Anyone with "due intelligence" should question unsupported claims.

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

I seem to have used my "due intelligence" before supporting those flags, if you see majority of the accused accounts post history they are in one way or the other connected to some ponzi or scam, most of them are shady anyways. It's worth supporting flags against this fraudsters than attacking the person who created them IMO.

Having less posts or being an inactive account doesn't mean it's not helpful to warn newbies about them, rather what you are advocating for looks like an unnecessary clog of drama, but whatever.

[nutildah]

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do we just ignore low-post or inactive accounts? Because "age" carries weight to it and Bitcointalk is rife with scams, there is no telling when the account might reactivate.

Better to be proactive regardless of the user.

I suppose so but there's thousands of scammer accounts out there...  I'm not wasting my time dealing with such low level / banned / inactive accounts, especially when the evidence against them isn't particularly strong or well laid out.

The majority don't have supporting evidence that such and such is an alt of his main target, that is why they are false. Anybody can accuse anybody of being an alt, but without evidence to support a claim, they are simply claims.

Anyone with "due intelligence" should question unsupported claims.

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

I seem to have used my "due intelligence" before supporting those flags, if you see majority of the accused accounts post history they are in one way or the other connected to some ponzi or scam, most of them are shady anyways. It's worth supporting flags against this fraudsters than attacking the person who created them IMO.

Flags read:

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic

Not strong enough evidence mentioned in that topic for most flags. He should do things correctly or not do them at all.

[actmyname]

I suppose so but there's thousands of scammer accounts out there...  I'm not wasting my time dealing with such low level / banned / inactive accounts

The reason I stress my point is because there have already been incidents in which an account is shady (or even affiliated with scams) to which feedback was not given out of inconsequentialism.

The account would later do some bullshit farming in Games & rounds or Off-topic and then sidestep back into the light to scam some Newbies.I have the same opinion here as I do with spam: the more you fight, the easier it will get.

[xtraelv]

I've supported all of them except sergiom (I couldn't find the linking evidence) but that account is banned anyway.

They are only low priority - most of the accounts have not been active for years (but could be re-used later)

They were all tagged with negative feedback by at least 2 DTs already for the same issue with other supporting links.

Most of the accounts were named after the ponzis that they were representing.

NextPonzi - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=410356
NextPonziV2 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=412768
fastponzi - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=413326
bit-dividends - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=496639
bit-dividends.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=434420
Crypterest - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487999
CryptoSplit - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=503558
InvestCryptos - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507340
BtcGains - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=351936
BitcoinPonzi.io - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=412415

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1046791.0

Known scam sites he ran:
#NextPonzi - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=921851.0 - Looks like they scammed for ~12.5
#PonziFast v2 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=938671.0;all - looks like they scammed for ~2.6
#bit-dividends.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=947235.0;all
#Crypterest.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1002314.0;all
#Cryptosplit.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.0;all
#InvestCryptos - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.0;all
#BTCBackers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=824055.0;all
#BTCgains - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761797.0;all
#BitcoinPonzi.io - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927412.0;all

I don't mind it was QS who made the accusation - if it is valid I'll support it.
Although it is not immediately clear - all the evidence is in the thread. Supported also by negative feedback tags by at least two DTs.

[Timelord2067]

...

xtraelv's post [Archive] is a lowly cut and paste of another post without any attribution and is being passed off as his own research.

Let's call it what it is - plagiarism by xtraelv.