Quickseller is a dangerous person to deal with - avoid

[DireWolfM14]

Ah you are the Windows guy who created that WIN topic in Bitcoin section... that was epic I must admit

Haha.  Okay, but if that's your idea of "epic" I think you need to get out more often.

I agree that QS is good tech guy but he is much better liar, and I have full right to suspect anything he writes because of his scamming history.
I am sure that suchoom, babo, nutildah, marlboroza, yahoo62278, The Pharmacist and many others can say more about him than I can.
Some sadly people passed away so they can't speak anymore.

I'm well aware of Quickseller's reputation and the feuds that he's fostered, but none of that has any bearing on the questions that he asked.  Regardless of who asked the questions, if they're legitimate and pertinent they deserve measured responses.  I do agree with Quickseller that the way you reacted does indeed raise more questions.  I'm not doubting anything you said, I believe you that you're not involved and merely following an interesting project.  But again, your reaction was a bit odd.

[1714819008]

1714819008

[1714819008]

1714819008

[1714819008]

1714819008

[1714819008]

1714819008

[suchmoon]

I see things differently.  Assuming no posts were deleted from that thread, it appeared to me that dkbit98 refuted QS's comments based solely on his reputation.  QS's reputation aside, I've always thought of him as somewhat technically astute, and his questions in that thread were valid.

Quicksy asked a question about dk's involvement, got an answer (not involved, which you can believe or not but you can't claim that there was an attack in response to that question) and then proceeded to talk about ponzis etc. Those were not questions at all, insinuations at best. Should dkbit98 have taken the high road here? Yes, probably. But the fact that he didn't doesn't make him a shill or otherwise responsible for bugs/backdoors/exploits that may or may not exist in that wallet.

And Quicksy keeps saying that dkbit98 is a shill with no proof of that, and made some other claims that are provably wrong, so at this point I would very much doubt any of his "technically astute" claims in that thread. That's what shit-stirrers like him do, put a few smart-sounding wikipedia words into a soup of bullshit and pretend that it smells like roses.

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.

There you go, it's completely on-brand then

So is Quicksy's incessant trollfuckery.

[dkbit98]

I'm not doubting anything you said, I believe you that you're not involved and merely following an interesting project.  But again, your reaction was a bit odd.

Yeah, but than I would make Bitcointalk forum a much more boring place than it is now, and I honestly don't have all the answers on his tech question he got after few minutes of reading documentation.
I think that Mercury team is going to thank QS more than me (alleged shiller and ponzi promoter) for finding major BUG in their open source code, heck maybe they will even pay him few bucks even in some defi shitcoin if he prefers them now.

[Quickseller]

And Quicksy keeps saying that dkbit98 is a shill with no proof of that, and made some other claims that are provably wrong, so at this point I would very much doubt any of his "technically astute" claims in that thread.

He is acting like a shill in attacking anyone who questions his project. Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see this. Unfortunately, you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at things objectively. To you, everything is about which 'tribe' someone is in.

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.

There you go, it's completely on-brand then

This reaction shows this thread (opened by you) is personal in nature, and that you do not actually believe I am "dangerous" to deal with.

[suchmoon]

He is acting like a shill in attacking anyone who questions his project.

Is it? "His" project? Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see why you keep repeating this.

Unfortunately, you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at things objectively. To you, everything is about which 'tribe' someone is in.

The first sentence can be considered an opinion and it would be for others to judge (e.g. via trust exclusions). The second is just plain false.

Doesn't stop you from repeating these fallacious claims as facts.

This reaction shows this thread (opened by you) is personal in nature, and that you do not actually believe I am "dangerous" to deal with.

I do believe that you are dangerous to deal with, on the basis of facts listed in the OP. Note that I did not put your run-in with dkbit98 into the OP - I may reconsider if you resort to your usual shenanigans like doxing - so my opinion about it shows nothing of what you're implying. It's not trolling that makes you dangerous. It's your deceptive, purposeful, malicious actions that go far beyond forum disagreements.

[JayJuanGee]

~

I'm a bit surprised by his attack on you, on a tech board no less. Is there some history between you two that I don't know about? (or forgot, happens a lot lately LOL).

I see things differently.  Assuming no posts were deleted from that thread, it appeared to me that dkbit98 refuted QS's comments based solely on his reputation.  QS's reputation aside, I've always thought of him as somewhat technically astute, and his questions in that thread were valid.  Perhaps the question about about dkbit98's involvement in the project was a loaded one, I don't know.  Even if it wasn't I can see how dkbit98 might have interpreted it that way.

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.  Maybe I deserved it, I was shilling spyware, after all.

The questions about dkbit98‘s involvement in the project came after his attacks. I don’t think it is u reasonable to conclude that dkbit98 is shilling for the project based on his attacks. The initial questions were reasonable as you note. In addition to the conclusion of dkbit98‘s inconvenient, attacks on someone asking basic questions should tell onlookers they should be asking more questions.

dkbit98 had a history of attacking people that disagree with him. See his interactions with Lucius, HCP,    ~DefaultTrust, and I would not be surprised if there are others.

Overall, I agree with the point that attacking someone else is not a good idea and it tends to be a sign of weakness to not be able to separate the person from the argument and sometimes to become too emotional about some kind of criticism that has happened that was not really an attack but was merely a criticism.

Surely, if the other person has attacked first, then it would be a lot more acceptable to attack back, but maybe still not necessary to get down into the off-topicness of person rather than substance. 

I know that sometimes I will attack others.. but my own rendition of those situations is that in my head I have concluded that they have attacked first, and maybe I had already given them sufficient chances on the discussion of the substance (or we have a prior relation)..  Anyhow I believe that I mostly will only attack after I feel that I have been attacked first and after a certain amount of attempts at addressing the topic..but I do understand and appreciate that there are some arguments and discussion topics that are not real and genuine talking points.. so in that regard sometimes there might be some instances in which I had determined that a pre-emptive attack might come in useful, even though I do not consider myself to have such a habit,.... at least not regularly.. but I could see how sometimes preemptive attack can be useful...  sometimes. perhaps?..

[Quickseller]

I know that sometimes I will attack others.. but my own rendition of those situations is that in my head I have concluded that they have attacked first, and maybe I had already given them sufficient chances on the discussion of the substance (or we have a prior relation)..  Anyhow I believe that I mostly will only attack after I feel that I have been attacked first and after a certain amount of attempts at addressing the topic..but I do understand and appreciate that there are some arguments and discussion topics that are not real and genuine talking points.. so in that regard sometimes there might be some instances in which I had determined that a pre-emptive attack might come in useful, even though I do not consider myself to have such a habit,.... at least not regularly.. but I could see how sometimes preemptive attack can be useful...  sometimes. perhaps?..

Sure, if someone is acting in bad faith, it might not be unreasonable to attack first. However, I don't think I was acting in bad faith. Others have noted that the questions I was bringing up were reasonable questions.

[Timelord2067]

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

[suchmoon]

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

I don't know where I read that, but it makes sense that "the accused" must have a platform (the thread) to respond to the accusation made against them. Surely it follows an unlocked thread that is referenced in the Flag is that platform?

Flag not supported at this point given:

The terms of creating Flags is quite clear in that the thread cannot be a self moderated one (this thread is self moderated) and the thread cannot be locked.   You did not create the thread, therefore, you cannot guarantee that the thread won't ever be locked.

tl;dr: If timelord didn't have double standards, he wouldn't have any standards at all.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

He is acting like a shill in attacking anyone who questions his project. Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see this.

As DireWolfM14 mentioned, dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately....and I'd go so far as to say he's always burning a short one, because if my pathologically-constricted memory serves me correctly, he's been snippy with me a couple of times in threads about Ledger wallets, which I know he's not a fan of.  But I mean come on, QS.  You've been here a long time, and I know you've got a much thicker skin than this.

Yeah, but than I would make Bitcointalk forum a much more boring place than it is now

This is true, unfortunately.  I think a lot of us like a little drama mixed in with all the technical discussions and shitposts, as it makes this joint a little more lively--that's certainly true for me, as long as I'm not the center of the drama, but that hasn't happened for a while, and even then it was just some bitching by a group of zero-value members who I tagged years ago.

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

Man, if all the unhealthy threads got locked, where would all the fun come from?

[Timelord2067]

... snowflake ...

Time to let it go.

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

Man, if all the unhealthy threads got locked, where would all the fun come from?

Most of the posts in the last day or two or this thread have all been of the type "they started it, therefore I have the right to continue it on as I please - and I WILL! - RRRReeeeeeee !!!!!".

This is not healthy for the Forum.

[suchmoon]

Time to let it go.

Please. I'm letting you go and never return to this thread. If you have a meta complaint there is a board for that. Thank you!

[nutildah]

This reaction shows this thread (opened by you) is personal in nature, and that you do not actually believe I am "dangerous" to deal with.

I do believe that you are dangerous to deal with, on the basis of facts listed in the OP.

Everybody who supports the flag against quickseller believes he is "dangerous to deal with." If its not because he's the kind of person who believes its OK to self-escrow, its because he's the kind of person that will accuse a highly-reputable campaign manager of embezzling campaign funds based on nothing but speculation, and then join one of that manager's campaigns under an alt account.

Did you ever apologize about that @Quickseller? I can't tell from the Scam Accusation you posted.