PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller, Take 2

[eddie13]

How likely is "somewhat likely"? 1 in a million? 1 in a thousand? Bonus points if you can find another user who matches all findings in the OP and is not Quicksy's alt.
If anyone can do that I'll replace my neutral on PN7's account with a positive rating containing an apology. Posts created or edited after January 1 2020 don't count for obvious reasons.

Well, it needs to be a bit more encouraging than just that, probably 1 BTC will get the job done   .

I'll up the stakes eventually if there are no takers

I have been on the boarder of this subject immidiately after seeing the first accusations but their was absolutely no evidence at all presented transparently and surely wasn't 100% convinced past the maximum benefit of the doubt, but the evidence presented in the OP of this thread, while still circumstantial, does further convince me that PN7 is likely QS..

I think the underlying root cause of QS starting this fresh account would be for monitory reasons (like Rodger Ver's "real Bitcoin") as others have stated to earn from a signature campaign, rather than to further sow discord..
Atleast he didn't just buy an account passphraise and created it on his own from scratch..

[figmentofmyass]

over the course of 3 years

PrimeNumber7 registered in March 2019.

the OP went as far back as march 2017 to find examples of common misspellings. that's what i was referring to.

to answer your question, "somewhat likely".

How likely is "somewhat likely"? 1 in a million? 1 in a thousand? Bonus points if you can find another user who matches all findings in the OP and is not Quicksy's alt.

i think my references to the word "common" sum it up. these examples are "occurring, found, or done often; prevalent." it's tough to put a number on it exactly. you implied the likelihood is extremely low so i'm interested to hear the odds you'd put on it.

parsing through forum accounts to find generic similarities sounds super rewarding and worthy of my time, but i'll pass.

I'm not red-trusting or flagging the account. I do believe my neutral is fully justified though and I disagree that the OP info is meaningless.

i think neutral feedback and the "likely" characterization are perhaps reasonable---at least not worthy of arguing over. that's different than acting like there is actual proof here. or red tagging PrimeNumber7 for a "likely" but unproven connection.

I have been on the boarder of this subject immidiately after seeing the first accusations but their was absolutely no evidence at all presented transparently and surely wasn't 100% convinced past the maximum benefit of the doubt, but the evidence presented in the OP of this thread, while still circumstantial, does further convince me that PN7 is likely QS..

I think the underlying root cause of QS starting this fresh account would be for monitory reasons (like Rodger Ver's "real Bitcoin") as others have stated to earn from a signature campaign, rather than to further sow discord..
Atleast he didn't just buy an account passphraise and created it on his own from scratch..

well played.

[suchmoon]

I think that covers all the bases of me also being QS and am down to split that bounty..

A+ for the effort, D for reading comprehension:

Posts created or edited after January 1 2020 don't count for obvious reasons.

Now... if you're implying that PrimeNumber7 is trying to frame Quickseller - this would be a very interesting twist.

i think my references to the word "common" sum it up. these examples are "occurring, found, or done often; prevalent." it's tough to put a number on it exactly. you implied the likelihood is extremely low so i'm interested to hear the odds you'd put on it.

parsing through forum accounts to find generic similarities sounds super rewarding and worthy of my time, but i'll pass.

Thought so.

[PrimeNumber7]

Have a scroll back through some of my previous trust/feedback wall posts.  I've compared word use in the past and been slapped with "crazy ideas" labels.

Nice to see someone else using the same principal.

I guess the acceptance of this kind of evidence depends on who is being accused, however it could also be a case of the OP not agreeing with:

political stance (both hard right Republicans)

Also, this is not all my own work, as some of this evidence was provided to me by various sources who wish to remain unaccredited for the time being.

I will say up front that Suchmoon has been making innuendoes of the underlying connection for months. I also have good reason to believe he has been trying to get some people who are active in handing out tags to notice this connection "on their own". This leads me to believe the evidence is not strong (see OP), or has the potential to reflect poorly on Suchmoon for some reason.

Some of the examples in the OP reflect proper English usage, and as figmentofmyass mentioned, indicate bad faith by the OP (or maybe Suchmoon, I don't know).

I like to read the forum from my phone, and will sometimes post from my phone. When I post, I will often accept predictive text that my phone suggests. I have noticed that many forum users go to extremes to 'secure' their forum accounts, including not using their phones, so maybe the chances of two forum users making the specific mistakes are small, but this question would be invalid because the population of forum users includes a small population users who post from their smart phones that may have caused the mistakes in the OP (when they are actually mistakes). A scientifically valid experiment would need to control for input device if the input device (aka keyboard, or phone) may play a role in the errors. Further, there may be other small groups of distinct forum users who make other specific spelling errors.

I would ask the OP if he (or Suchmoon) can cite any scientific research that validates the use of common spelling errors to identify common authorship? If so, the research would be, at best, mixed on the subject.

[suchmoon]

~

Your bullshit about two phones being broken the same way is approaching the infinite monkey theorem.

Your attempts to discredit me are heartwarmingly familiar.

[Timelord2067]

I would ask the OP if he (or Suchmoon) can cite any scientific research that validates the use of common spelling errors to identify common authorship? If so, the research would be, at best, mixed on the subject.

I am reviewing this post as the search patterns suggested by others in this (and part 1 thread) yield a wider number of posts than the ones I found, hence the findings I made did not take into consideration other avenues of inquiry which would result in a far different conclusion.

I won't be able to examine this in full today, but it is the only thing I am currently working on.


Just as a side question for others, why was tspacepilot's research on Master-p widely accepted, but phrase usage being cited here isn't?

[PrimeNumber7]

I would ask the OP if he (or Suchmoon) can cite any scientific research that validates the use of common spelling errors to identify common authorship?

~

what’s that? No? Crickets.. No? Anything?

[owlcatz]

Your bullshit about two phones being broken the same way is approaching the infinite monkey theorem.

Your attempts to discredit me are heartwarmingly familiar.

LOL.. I know right? That whole post screams Quickseller to me, that exactly what I would have expected, he's given up now, so he doesn't care again and will just try... try... again.. Like a failure he is. :Joy:

Remember kidz.... This motherfucker half doxxed me for no reason whatsoever afaict.

Come on out Quicksy - Let's go a round like the old days, eh?   Bump my dox thread by your alts? No? Okay, well find something, you are fucking boring my ass you stupid scamming piece of shit trump-trash...

[suchmoon]

what’s that? No? Crickets.. No? Anything?

I'm sorry that you can't hear me laughing at your demands for scientific research after you said natural language processing is "junk science".

[eddie13]

D for reading comprehension

Rats.. You caught that edit?
I noticed at the last minute while comparing myself to the "both hard right Republicans" checklist bit, therefore the edit..

Now... if you're implying that PrimeNumber7 is trying to frame Quickseller - this would be a very interesting twist.

Frame him for what purpose? To ruin the QS account reputation? lol
Maybe try to frame him as a ban evader or actually scam to frame him as an actual scammer other than the self-escrow gig?

iirc not too long ago QS denied being an alt of another account on the basis that he did not want to be liable for the actions of the other account, and it was generally believed that his denial was true.. (Not digging for it)
A denial from the QS account in this case would likely actually put more doubt in my mind that PN7 is QS and this refusal to answer is just technicalities..

Not denying here is more evidence he is QS to me, similar to, and as is, the discreditation of SM referenced and seen above..


All we have so far is one red tag from lauda, which I doubt will stop PN7 from being paid for a signature..
Is the goal here to stop PN7/QS from being paid for a signature? Or just to make sure QS is being watched for something actually serious?

As I have alluded to previously I think one of the only dangers of QS is in his mastermind if he did actually put effort into trying to pull off a big scam..
But I don't see where QS has ever tried pulling off any big scam, and as time goes on, it becomes only less likely in my mind..
Heck, if PN7 is indeed QS he didn't really put much effort into obfuscating his posts to not be caught now did he? Maybe it is even an experiment of his to see if he will be allowed to post cleanly under a new account..

I think QS signature posting under a relatively cleaner account is quite harmless, and now it is well known and will be well watched..
I understand to most here that QS is absolutely unredeemable in their eyes, so I won't even ask what the requirements of such would be, but I guess that I will dangerously admit that I myself do see some value in users like QS and TOAA, in the fact that they keep everyone on their toes, and force them to toe the straight-and-narrow line, because others are jumping at the opportunity to expose wrongdoing of rivals.. (Is "wrongdoin" a QS or TOAA word?)
It has some good in the big picture from my perspective..

Actually related to my last post on the concept of the....

marketplace of ideas

The false accusations don't fly do they? The free market works..

Another interesting dynamic I see happening is that it used to be that every sock was QS, and then lately every sock was CH, now is it going back to every sock is QS again?

I think it is probably QS but what are you all going to do about it? And what do you think should be done about it?
Maybe that should be the title of a thread.. "What should be done about PN7 probably being an alt of QS?"..
Lit up red or just plenty of neutrals?

[nutildah]

Interesting spelling mistakes, I always thought QuickSeller was a native English speaker.

Yes, he is, and that's the point: if you're not an American English native speaker its a bit harder to judge what phrases and misspellings are common versus uncommon.

i bet if you parse through years of my posts, you'll find a few misspellings i've shared in common with probably a bunch of other forum accounts. i really don't find that conclusive at all.

But will you find all of those shared with QS/PN7? Would you even find more than 3 of the 9 examples provided? There's a big difference in odds between guessing 3 correct numbers in a lottery and 4.

There's a pool of users for each individual phrase/word/mistake. The odds of a user residing in a pool with another user go down considerably when filtered by subsequent pools. The pools vary in size from containing liberally 1/8th of all forum users (probably closer to 1/20th, hence they are all "uncommon") to 1/50th, 1/100th or even lower.

Let's just say all pools contain 1/8th of all active forum members for the sake of argument: by the 5th example, you're down to 1 in 32,768 members. And if you cross-reference this with the sections they post in and their total number of posts, it further narrows down the remaining list of members by a considerable degree (perhaps less than a handful).

This Venn diagram example isn't perfect as it would require 3-dimensions and circles of unequal sizes to more accurately portray the overlap of users and words, but it demonstrates the decreasing amount of chance users have with residing in areas of large amounts of overlapping circles.



Quickseller resides in the very center of this diagram. The number of users who fall into all 8 circles (share the same 8 phrase/misspelling similarities) is extremely small. As a matter of fact, I would contend that he only shares it with PrimeNumber7, but I'm welcome to be proven wrong.

Why does it all matter?

I would absolutely find a similar analysis yielding similar results to be valid comparing any two forum members, regardless of their reputation. However, I would only consider it worth publishing on the forum if one of them had a multi-year reputation of being deceitful, dishonest and harmful to other members.

You should only trust PN7 as much as you would trust QS.

[suchmoon]

~

As I've said before, to me the issue here is the thoroughly deceptive way Quickseller is trying to sockpuppet his way into whatever it is that he wants to achieve - to earn from sig campaigns, or to regain his DT "powers", or to prove that account farming is cool... who knows.

I think it is probably QS but what are you all going to do about it? And what do you think should be done about it?
Maybe that should be the title of a thread.. "What should be done about PN7 probably being an alt of QS?"..
Lit up red or just plenty of neutrals?

I can't speak for nutildah but I personally don't particularly care for any specific outcome other than perhaps not wanting to have QS/PN7/etc in DT. Unfortunately with the DT1 inflation and random selection it's almost inevitable that he'll get in at some point.

How everyone else interprets the presented information is up to them.


Some totally unscientific numbers to complement the nice rainbow diagram above:

-                           |passphrais|immidiatel|boarder|rodger ver|monitory|underlying root cause|sow discord|maximum benefit of the doubt|
----------------------------|----------|----------|-------|----------|--------|---------------------|-----------|----------------------------|
passphrais                  |-         |2         |3      |3         |2       |2                    |2          |2                           |
immidiatel                  |2         |-         |11     |2         |3       |2                    |2          |2                           |
boarder                     |3         |11        |-      |5         |6       |2                    |2          |2                           |
rodger ver                  |3         |2         |5      |-         |2       |2                    |2          |2                           |
monitory                    |2         |3         |6      |2         |-       |2                    |3          |2                           |
underlying root cause       |2         |2         |2      |2         |2       |-                    |2          |2                           |
sow discord                 |2         |2         |2      |2         |3       |2                    |-          |2                           |
maximum benefit of the doubt|2         |2         |2      |2         |2       |2                    |2          |-                           |

Each number shows how many different users used each pair of words/phrases. 2 means it's just Quickseller and PrimeNumber7. So out of 28 possible combinations 21 are unique to those two accounts. I couldn't find a quick and easy way to make a 3-dimensional one but there is only one triple combination that has more than those two users. Beyond that (4 or more out of 8) it's only QS and PN7.

I think I know the potential rebuttal to that. Those words and phrases could have been picked in such a way that only those accounts are matched. But since I know for a fact that's not what happened this is sufficiently convincing for me. Others are free to do their own research although aside from some verbal gymnastics there doesn't seem to be much interest in that.

"transparently" was excluded as it's too context-sensitive.

[PrimeNumber7]

I am sure there are plenty of other unique word combinations that, when paired together, are used by exactly two distinct forum members. Further, you appear to be padding your numbers with word combinations being used correctly.

Further, with the near admission of puppetry used in this thread, I would question your claim of lack of involvement in this thread, and this one...

[AlexSimion]

snip

Isn't it though more relevant that all this new evidence , is on top of the previous claims submitted ?   And actually no , this amount of unique word combinations when compared to 2 distinct forum members the odds of them matching are extremely low! if none whatsoever. ( add that to the previous claims and what are the chances of it being simply a coincidence ? )
And honestly this is simply my input as someone who has never dealt with most likely any of you participating in this thread . So there's 0 interest of me taking anyone's side on this matter .
Simply my input after analyzing the claims OP has made , and yeah , I agree with OP 100 %.

[nutildah]

Let's dissect a couple of these assertions as I think its inaccurate to say I am presenting evidence in "bad faith."

"underlying root cause" is actually a common expression, probably because "underlying" is part of the definition of "root cause".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22underlying+root+cause%22

First of all, we're talking about "common expression" as in common on the forum; not what is yielded as a Google search result. On the forum, there's exactly 8 instances of "maximum benefit of the doubt" that can be found, 4 belong to QS and 1 belongs to PN7. Not exactly a "common expression."

"to sow discord" is also a common english expression:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22sow+discord%22

there are tens of thousands of examples of people on news sites, twitter, etc saying "maximum benefit of the doubt"

Yet on the forum, there's only 13 accounts that have ever used that phrase, and 2 of them are QS/PN7. 13 users out of thousands.

None of the examples provided are "common", though some are more common than others.

[figmentofmyass]

Each number shows how many different users used each pair of words/phrases. 2 means it's just Quickseller and PrimeNumber7. So out of 28 possible combinations 21 are unique to those two accounts. I couldn't find a quick and easy way to make a 3-dimensional one but there is only one triple combination that has more than those two users. Beyond that (4 or more out of 8) it's only QS and PN7.

can you qualify that data? if there are 5 word combinations on bitcointalk that only 2 people share, does that somehow prove they are alts? how do you account for coincidences? what are the actual scientific standards for this kinda shit (if they exist)?

I think I know the potential rebuttal to that. Those words and phrases could have been picked in such a way that only those accounts are matched. But since I know for a fact that's not what happened this is sufficiently convincing for me.

yes, i believe that's true. i'm glad you're willing to concede that. i can't really verify the data either, so i'll have to take your word for it.

First of all, we're talking about "common expression" as in common on the forum; not what is yielded as a Google search result.

that's a point of contention for me. if some combination of expressions is more common in general internet usage but less common on bitcointalk in relative terms, anomalies will appear more severe in your data than they should and the likelihood of coincidence increases.

take this extreme example: two red blooded murrrican hicks from north carolina (go panthers!) join an internet forum mostly comprised of brits/euros. these two share several linguistic similarities/phrases and worldviews in common because of their southern hick upbringing. to the rest of the forum, they both stick out like a sore thumb. are they the same person?

this is the logic of your claim: "so few people on the forum use these terms that anyone who does use them must be the same person". you see how that's fallacious/circular reasoning, right? it's not self-evident.

"to sow discord" is also a common english expression:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22sow+discord%22

there are tens of thousands of examples of people on news sites, twitter, etc saying "maximum benefit of the doubt"

Yet on the forum, there's only 13 accounts that have ever used that phrase, and 2 of them are QS/PN7. 13 users out of thousands.

common general usage makes it difficult to rule out coincidences in your narrow data set. see above.

expressions/idioms are also tricky because you should be capturing all forms, otherwise you're not truly representing their prevalence. eg for "sow discord" you should be including users like:

I'm beginning to think that whoever wants to see Bitcoin fail - his easiest strategy might probably not be buying gazillions of GPUs but to just sow the seeds of discord within the community

And what a wonderful job they are doing carrying out Putin's wishes as puppets engaging in sewing division and discord.

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

etc etc

anyway, good luck PrimeNumber7. some people around here are obviously itching to burn you at the stake.....

[TECSHARE]

These threads are great and all, but in spite of you all L.A.R.P.ing as Nazi hunters or something do these kind of threads serve any purpose? Have you considered getting a life?

[suchmoon]

I am sure there are plenty of other unique word combinations that, when paired together, are used by exactly two distinct forum members. Further, you appear to be padding your numbers with word combinations being used correctly.

Are you still claiming that your phone suggested "passphraise" and "maximum benefit of the doubt" or have you moved to some other straw man argument? I never claimed that all words/phrases listed in the OP are incorrect. Nor did nutildah as far as I can see. Some are clearly misspelled, some are just rare.

Further, with the near admission of puppetry used in this thread, I would question your claim of lack of involvement in this thread, and this one...

Near admission... what does that even mean? Don't go full Quicksy on us, speak in full sentences.

that's a point of contention for me. if some combination of expressions is more common in general internet usage but less common on bitcointalk in relative terms, anomalies will appear more severe in your data than they should and the likelihood of coincidence increases.

"passphrase" is about as Bitcoin-ish as it gets. The correct spelling has been used by ~7000 users on this forum. Don't start arguing now that this being a commonly used word the chance of it being accidentally misspelled the same way by two different users is greater.

You asked for numbers, I gave you numbers, you're still refusing to show any numbers of your own, so it's becoming a bit of a one-sided argument.

These threads are great and all, but in spite of you all L.A.R.P.ing as Nazi hunters or something do these kind of threads serve any purpose? Have you considered getting a life?

Reviewing your posting history I can say with a fairly high certainty that you are not Quickseller. I don't want to give away the secret sauce and teach him how to hide better but he has some distinct patterns throughout all his alts. I have had to learn this after some years of being stalked by the man, so I have some experience trying to pick him out of the crowd, and there are a lot of things you exhibit that he does not. BTW, for the record I don't know anything about this user, and this is not an endorsement of their activities, just a simple reply to a question. I am not particularly a fan of cryptodevil or quickseller, so this is said having zero allegiance to either party, 3rd parties take it for what you will.

(emphasis mine)

[nutildah]

take this extreme example: two red blooded murrrican hicks from north carolina (go panthers!) join an internet forum mostly comprised of brits/euros. these two share several linguistic similarities/phrases and worldviews in common because of their southern hick upbringing. to the rest of the forum, they both stick out like a sore thumb. are they the same person?

I feel like this is a trick question. You said they were "two red blooded murrrican hicks", so obviously they aren't the same person.

this is the logic of your claim: "so few people on the forum use these terms that anyone who does use them must be the same person".

Not at all. I'm saying that nobody uses all of those terms except for them.

common general usage makes it difficult to rule out coincidences in your narrow data set. see above.

How are you deciding what is common versus what is uncommon? Because a big number appears next to the number of Google search results? Thats even less scientific than what me and suchmoon are doing.

expressions/idioms are also tricky because you should be capturing all forms, otherwise you're not truly representing their prevalence. eg for "sow discord" you should be including users like:

That's not the phrase used by Quickseller, so why would I care about that? "All forms" aren't relevant, only those used by Quickseller. I feel like you are failing to grasp what I am doing at a fundamental level.

[PrimeNumber7]

I feel like you are failing to grasp what I am doing at a fundamental level

Are you Suchmoon?