PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller, Take 2

[figmentofmyass]

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.

and what does that prove?

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.

you're the one making a claim, not me. it's incumbent on you to state what your claim is, to present your evidence, and---since it's not clear what your evidence proves---to qualify it.

i asked you to qualify your numbers. what exactly do they prove? you keep implying they prove that PrimeNumber7 = Quickseller, but that isn't clear.

i'm at a loss for what "numbers" i could provide since i am not making any claim. expecting people to "prove the negative" here is very unreasonable. the burden is on you and nutildah to prove this connection beyond a doubt.

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.

that's the point. you apparently can't imagine a plausible situation where PrimeNumber7 and Quickseller aren't the same person. and yet, you can't articulate why they must be 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.

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

and from there, you conclude that they must be the same person. if you are not trying to make that claim, i suggest changing the thread title.

....and it's definitely 100% circular logic.

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.

for you to say that Quickseller and PrimeNumber7 are the same physical person using linguistic analysis is an extraordinary claim. that means they are the only person in the world who exhibits these (supposedly definitive) linguistic patterns. the existence of 2 forum accounts fitting that criteria doesn't prove that. it merely proves that 2 forum accounts share a number of linguistic similarities.

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.

you're literally including idiomatic expressions in your data but excluding correct usage of those expressions where they don't suit your claim. you are just showcasing how this is an exercise in cherry picking.

For me, posts like these are just as incriminating as any of the evidence presented here. These read exactly like someone who has had a grudge against suchmoon for a long time (i.e. QS), and not at all like a relative newbie.

suchmoon tagged PrimeNumber7 a long time ago as an alt of QS. he's obviously also contributing data to this analysis in an effort to make the link stick.

doesn't that explain the grudge?

but it was all but confirmed for me when I noticed both you and QS reporting posts with the exact same phrasing. The odds of that happening between two random people is very rare and obviously not something someone else can mimic.

That can give false positive result, someone ask you for advice and you say "report it to moderator, write this in comments: (insert comment)". So they just c/p that and report post or use very very similar words. It is nothing unusual I guess. How many similarities are you talking about, if it is not secret?
Everything here and in other thread is circumstantial evidence, there is no rock solid proof of connection, even PrimeNumber7 attacking only suchmoon (as o_e_l_e_o pointed) is circumstantial evidence. Having that said, there is probably nothing which will convince me that PM7 and QS are not alt accounts.

this basically sums my thoughts up.

i just feel like people ITT are trying way too hard to claim/imply there is proof of a connection. there just isn't. we all have the same suspicions, but that's not good enough. red tagging based on this seems abusive/retaliatory.

[1713531341]

1713531341

[1713531341]

1713531341

[1713531341]

1713531341

[owlcatz]

Blah blah blah. It's a QS account, alright? Wtf else is it? It wouldn't be defending itself as it's doing, just as QS would without reason.

He's fucking with you all. Just lock the thread and tag PN7.

[suchmoon]

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.

and what does that prove?

It disproves your statement about expressions common in general usage and less common on bitcointalk. I mean literally the paragraph I replied to.

you're the one making a claim, not me. it's incumbent on you to state what your claim is, to present your evidence, and---since it's not clear what your evidence proves---to qualify it.

i asked you to qualify your numbers. what exactly do they prove? you keep implying they prove that PrimeNumber7 = Quickseller, but that isn't clear.

i'm at a loss for what "numbers" i could provide since i am not making any claim. expecting people to "prove the negative" here is very unreasonable. the burden is on you and nutildah to prove this connection beyond a doubt.

You made the claim that it's "likely" (or "somewhat likely" or whatever it was) for the usage of those words/phrases to be a coincidence. I take it you no longer claim that. On the flip side, neither myself nor nutildah ever aimed to prove something "beyond a doubt". You're welcome to have any doubts you want.

[DireWolfM14]

you're the one making a claim, not me. it's incumbent on you to state what your claim is, to present your evidence, and---since it's not clear what your evidence proves---to qualify it.

i asked you to qualify your numbers. what exactly do they prove? you keep implying they prove that PrimeNumber7 = Quickseller, but that isn't clear.
~
i just feel like people ITT are trying way too hard to claim/imply there is proof of a connection. there just isn't. we all have the same suspicions, but that's not good enough. red tagging based on this seems abusive/retaliatory.

I think you're getting hung up on semantics, or maybe not hung up on semantics enough?  I can't tell yet.  Nutildah and suchmoon have provided an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.  

Now I know this isn't a court room, no prosecuters are seeking the death ban penalty, and no one is going to jail for any "crime."  Nonetheless, I think it's fair to allow the same standards of prosecution that are acceptable in the US criminal courts.  Circumstantial evidence is often allowed in court proceedings, and is often enough to make a connection to criminal acts, and will result in a conviction.

If this were a court room, we would have to leave it up to the jury to decide if the circumstantial evidence constitutes "proof."  If you and I were on the jury together, I would find it odd that you insist on focusing on the "circumstantial" aspects of each individual piece of evidence rather than see how all of the pieces of circumstantial evidence tie together beyond what can reasonably be considered "coincidental."

Suchmoon has provided statistically significant circumstantial evidence.  If you wish to play defense attorney, use the same parameters provided by nutildah and suchmoon to show how the evidence is overly coincidental.  But continuing to point to each piece of evidence and insisting that it exist independent of each other piece of evidence is disingenuous, and not very convincing.

[actmyname]

:manz-spinning:

Originally I wanted to talk about A->B vs. A<->B connections but as I'd continued the dialogue in my head I found fleeting relevance given that QS has the reputation that they do and that PN7 would have no reason—except perhaps as a bit of a laugh—to emulate [or rather, imitate] Quickseller's typing style.

I do want to state that incessant obsession thereof is neither conducive to sanity nor is the pinnacle of productive efficiency. It is quite the shard of coincidence were a regular user to argue this case, never mind the user in question... yet I beckon towards a more apt use of your time.

Arguments derived from this scenario are based from a trite situation and I see no point in continuing thereof.

As the kids say, "peace out, dude"

[suchmoon]

~

Sitting on that fence seems uncomfortable, get off it and tell us if you think PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller's alt or not. I promise to throw only a medium-sized tantrum if you disagree with me.

[actmyname]

Sitting on that fence seems uncomfortable, get off it and tell us if you think PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller's alt or not. I promise to throw only a medium-sized tantrum if you disagree with me.

Ah, but for you see, the fence is merely an illusion. The truth is: there is no fence.

Balance of probabilities, I would align with the common sentiment in this thread.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? It is doubtful.Fences don't exist: it's a gradient, like gender.

[nutildah]

you apparently can't imagine a plausible situation where PrimeNumber7 and Quickseller aren't the same person.

Personally speaking, this is correct. Having been on the forum for as long as I have, understanding the dynamics of certain personalities and being able to recognize forum-specific linguistic patterns leads me to believe they are absolutely the same person.

and yet, you can't articulate why they must be the same person.

No, because admittedly I did not deliver absolute proof of anything. It is simply evidence which I believe any rationally-minded person could use to conclude that in all likelihood they are 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.

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

and from there, you conclude that they must be the same person. if you are not trying to make that claim, i suggest changing the thread title.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. There's a big difference between what you think I said and what I actually said. I made a hypothesis ("PN7 is Quickseller") and am backing it with evidence.

for you to say that Quickseller and PrimeNumber7 are the same physical person using linguistic analysis is an extraordinary claim. that means they are the only person in the world who exhibits these (supposedly definitive) linguistic patterns.

Again, I'm only talking about people on the forum. Don't know why you keep conflating it to mean the entire world.

the existence of 2 forum accounts fitting that criteria doesn't prove that. it merely proves that 2 forum accounts share a number of linguistic similarities.

Correct -- again, I'm not talking about absolute proof. I said that in the OP.

you're literally including idiomatic expressions in your data but excluding correct usage of those expressions where they don't suit your claim. you are just showcasing how this is an exercise in cherry picking.

The entire basis of the analysis is based on words used by Quickseller. Including those not used by Quickseller makes no sense. Again, I don't think you understand what I am doing at a fundamental level.

Like I said in the OP, you're free to come to your own conclusions. But if you continue to misinterpret my analysis I will continue to correct your misunderstandings.

[hilariousetc]

i just feel like people ITT are trying way too hard to claim/imply there is proof of a connection. there just isn't. we all have the same suspicions, but that's not good enough. red tagging based on this seems abusive/retaliatory.

People are giving what they believing to be proof of a connection and it's pretty damning evidence to me when you count it all up, but yes, the smoking gun is missing. To compare hypothetically, if somebody took QS to court over this he'd likely get away free, but so did OJ. Sometimes all you need is a little doubt to walk away in the eyes of the law but in the court of public opinion we all know OJ is guilty even if there wasn't enough to convict in the eyes of the law (or you just have a really good lawyer who can talk a good talk and sew enough seeds of doubt). I wouldn't tag QS negative but I never tagged him originally anyway, but I think a neutral based on the evidence we have would be fine if that's what people want to do. I am however waiting for the day that everyone can move on from this though as it will just carry on forever otherwise and QS will probably always be here on one alt or another and this game of cat and mouse will likely continue on.

but it was all but confirmed for me when I noticed both you and QS reporting posts with the exact same phrasing. The odds of that happening between two random people is very rare and obviously not something someone else can mimic.

That can give false positive result, someone ask you for advice and you say "report it to moderator, write this in comments: (insert comment)". So they just c/p that and report post or use very very similar words. It is nothing unusual I guess. How many similarities are you talking about, if it is not secret?

Well sure it can, but so can everything else that has been presented, but it all adds up and it to be a mere coincidence or all false positives would be ludicrous to me. I can't tell you how many similarities there was on the reporting because I didn't keep count and reports are expunged after a month or so, but it was something I noticed over time and was finally like, where have I seen that report before. I copied and pasted a couple and there were direct hits on both QS and PN7. Most people probably keep their reports saved in their browser like I do, so you just use the drop down menu and choose the appropriate one and I'm guessing that's where he slipped up. Or he could have just typed them out again as much like the similarities that can be found in the phrases and language used of people posting publicly the same happens for the report queue. Some people report so many posts you become accustomed to them and you don't even need to look at their name to know who it was that reported it.

We could go down the path of comparing all contributors to this thread with each-other and cite examples such as hilariousetc and Quickseller using the expression

Code:

BTW

Well you could, but that's why you're a moron and nobody takes half of your deductions seriously. BTW, both me and QS/PN7 both use periods at the end of our sentences. Coincidence? Possibly.

[eddie13]

I can't tell you how many similarities there was on the reporting because I didn't keep count and reports are expunged after a month or so, but it was something I noticed over time and was finally like, where have I seen that report before. I copied and pasted a couple and there were direct hits on both QS and PN7. Most people probably keep their reports saved in their browser like I do, so you just use the drop down menu and choose the appropriate one and I'm guessing that's where he slipped up. Or he could have just typed them out again as much like the similarities that can be found in the phrases and language used of people posting publicly the same happens for the report queue. Some people report so many posts you become accustomed to them and you don't even need to look at their name to know who it was that reported it.

I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...

Who knows... The next thing I know staff could be blabbering about my email account(s) used on the forum and have any users pissed off at me brought very close to my family's home...

How much exactly should staff-only information be expected to remain private?

When should one expect even the IP log to be leaked?

You basically have my dox, so how safe is it in your hands??

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?  

Maybe I should ditch this compromised account and go full anon..

[Lauda]

I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...

BadBear set a precedence.

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?  

You'd be very crazy or naive to do so. You should work under the assumption that everything and anything that BTCT has could leak anytime, especially since the expansion of the "account recovery team".

[LoyceV]

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?

From About privacy:

It's possible to use bitcointalk.org without submitting any personal info. Use Tor + a throwaway email + a new pseudonym, etc. If you care about preventing personal information from being collected on bitcointalk.org, then preventing this collection is your responsibility.
~
At our sole discretion, we may (noncommercially) share or extend retention on any of a specific user's userdata even without law-enforcement involvement. This is very rare.

[eddie13]

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?  

You'd be very crazy or naive to do so.

You are 100% correct..
That whole spiel about trusting 3rd parties and such..
Maybe I've been too far into the "I didn't do anything wrong so don't have anything to hide" camp...

From About privacy:

very rare.

Seems PN7 being QS is worthy of breaking into the qualification of "very rare" circumstances..

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

Seems BCT has turned into argument city recently.  
But if someone has alt accounts they should be banned.

[LoyceMobile]

Seems BCT has turned into argument city recently.

It's been like that for as long as I can remember.

But if someone has alt accounts they should be banned.

Bye guys, it was nice knowing you

[figmentofmyass]

You made the claim that it's "likely" (or "somewhat likely" or whatever it was) for the usage of those words/phrases to be a coincidence. I take it you no longer claim that.

you asked me a question and i gave my opinion. i wouldn't call that "making a claim". it's certainly not like making a thread called "PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller".

i would consider it unlikely at this point, although i'm still frustrated that nobody in the thread could really articulate anything about the statistical significance of the data. everything boils down to "that looks compelling". so that's where i stand.

On the flip side, neither myself nor nutildah ever aimed to prove something "beyond a doubt". You're welcome to have any doubts you want.

i appreciate that, though by comparison i'd say that tspacepilot was significantly more humble about the limits of his "experimental" model despite seeming much more well versed in forensic linguistics and statistics.

back then, basically everyone acknowledged it was not proof either. the only reason quickseller was officially "caught" was that he had a meltdown in the thread and eventually just admitted it in some bizarre attempt at rationalization.

i was a bit perturbed that people seemed to be accepting the OP as proof ("Forensic linguistics never fail." etc etc) and probably took out some of that out on you and nutildah, apologies.

@nutildah almost everything in my last post went right over your head. let's agree to disagree.

Sometimes all you need is a little doubt to walk away in the eyes of the law but in the court of public opinion we all know OJ is guilty even if there wasn't enough to convict in the eyes of the law (or you just have a really good lawyer who can talk a good talk and sew enough seeds of doubt). I wouldn't tag QS negative but I never tagged him originally anyway, but I think a neutral based on the evidence we have would be fine if that's what people want to do.

i agree with all that. like i said from the start, i have the same suspicions as everyone else. but i strongly believe this falls under "circumstantial evidence" and is therefore undeserving of red trust. i think anything else would be bad precedent and would encourage more lynch mob behavior.

in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know: you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....

[Timelord2067]

Irony:

.

We could go down the path of comparing all contributors to this thread with each-other and cite examples such as hilariousetc and Quickseller using the expression

Code:

BTW

Well you could, but that's why you're a moron and nobody takes half of your deductions seriously. BTW, both me and QS/PN7 both use periods at the end of our sentences. Coincidence? Possibly.

Sit down, no-one was talking to you.

[hilariousetc]

I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...

Who knows... The next thing I know staff could be blabbering about my email account(s) used on the forum and have any users pissed off at me brought very close to my family's home...

How much exactly should staff-only information be expected to remain private?

When should one expect even the IP log to be leaked?

You basically have my dox, so how safe is it in your hands??

I'd like to think I could trust Bitcointalk against anything but legal subpoenas within proper jurisdiction, but maybe not?  

Maybe I should ditch this compromised account and go full anon..

Aside from Admins, staff have access to very little information. I couldn't leak your info such as IPs and emails or anything else even if I wanted to and there's a huge difference between commenting on words/phrases being used and actual private information.

Theymos also won't give out your info unless with a subpoena. I believe he's ignored many legal requests before if they're not legally required. For instance, if the police merely asked him to give yours or my information out I don't believe he would. However, if it was court ordered then I'm sure he will comply in most cases unless he believed he didn't have to (for instance, I'm not sure how valid say a Chinese or UK warrant would apply to a US-based website). I think theymos has even commented on these requests before where he's refused to hand things over because he didn't believe they would be just or helpful to their case (though don't quote me on that but maybe someone can find the times he's talked about this sort of stuff).

Seems BCT has turned into argument city recently.  
But if someone has alt accounts they should be banned.

Alt accounts are allowed as per forum rules. If someone has alts that have already been banned then that's a different story.

in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know: you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....

Well unfortunately that's just something that happens around here and most of us probably get dragged into at some point. A lot of people will hold grudges when they feel like they've been wronged by someone or they've lost money or earning opportunities because of others and this sort of tit for tat to try take the other down will be infinite until one person finally goes over. I definitely think there are certain cases that should have truces called upon, but it's easy to say when I'm not the one in it.

[nutildah]

@nutildah almost everything in my last post went right over your head.

Its not just me. Apparently you went over everybody's heads.

the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7

Not at all. Its because I want people to be aware that evidence of the connection exists. If I wanted to actively contribute to his downfall I would have neg tagged him.

[suchmoon]

in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know: you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed. As you can see it didn't change many opinions, which is pretty much what I would have expected. Most people simply don't care but for those that do (e.g. people attacked by Quickseller) it's good to know which users they should avoid dealing with.