Am I abusing the trust system?

[_BlackStar]

As the title says, I tagged 16 accounts of cheaters who were found guilty of cheat multiple campaigns based on evidence. Some worries come and they start asking because it looks like the tag is bad or overkills. It's about high ranking accounts ^{[Full member - Sr - Hero Member]} who got caught cheating in multiple campaigns, and based on the evidence I found then I really think they deserve a red tag.

Not saying same thing happened here but this COULD be the case in the accounts below, I believe that painting red is overkill! I expected to see a bunch of newbies farming, but this is different. You might also want to slowdown buddy, you've been painting a lot lately.

_BlackStar, I don't know how you linked all of the above accounts as cheates and stabbed every single one of their ass with a red pen, that's something awful to see in my opinion. Some of the accounts are from the local Indonesian community and this is really sad for me to watch.

the red tag you provided seems overkill. all accounts do have the same transaction pattern. but that doesn't provide solid evidence for the red tag you provided.

Did I make mistake?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403462.msg60595420#msg60595420

[Igebotz]

Did I make mistake?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403462.msg60595420#msg60595420

When you are not too sure USE neutral! You never provided the link to the bounty or signature you claimed they cheated with; instead, you only provided transactions from outside the forum to justify your actions. By the way, you left out some of my points in your quote.

BTW If your judgment is correct and you are confident that you made the correct decision, there is no need to panic; there is nothing wrong with others providing honest feedback. I'm surprised no response from the victims yet.

[_BlackStar]

When you are not too sure USE neutral! You never provided the link to the bounty or signature you claimed they cheated with; instead, you only provided transactions from outside the forum to justify your actions. By the way, you left out some of my points in your quote.

BTW If your judgment is correct and you are confident that you made the correct decision, there is no need to panic; there is nothing wrong with others providing honest feedback.

To be honest, I'm not panicking mate. This is my way of knowing if tagging an account in this way is justified or if it was a mistake. Meanwhile, I am also waiting for the results of your research on the account. 

I'm surprised no response from the victims yet.

Check their profile, all accounts have been inactive today, while some others have been inactive for several months.

[LoyceV]

I tagged 16 accounts of cheaters who were found guilty of cheat multiple campaigns based on evidence. Some worries come and they start asking because it looks like the tag is bad or overkills.

I find your Reference link to be far from convincing: I checked arifteguhr, for which your Reference link shows 2 shitcoin addresses and a link to their profile. It doesn't show where they posted the addresses, and your evidence doesn't make clear where it came from.
That's one of the reasons I don't like checking Ethereum or other centralized shitcoins on block explorers: it's often used to dump a list of addresses and/or a link to block explorers, without explaining the details. So I can't really review the evidence without digging myself, which I don't want to do.

I don't really care about shitposters "cheating" spam campaigns. The real problem is that those money grabbing schemes are designed to take money from gullible greedy "investors", and they've taken billions of dollars that way already! So if anything, all of them should be tagged for spamming their massive scams, but that's not going to happen. Now you're tagging the little guy, while the rich masterminds behind those massive scams just keep getting richer. I'm pretty sure the spam campaigns don't care about "cheaters" either, all they care about is cheap publicity to scam massive amounts of money.

TL;DR: it's futile. Many people are going to get scammed.

[YOSHIE]

I have an opinion on this, to be honest I have flagged hundreds of fake Alt accounts in the campaign, as evidenced by the address used in the campaign: (PROOF OF REGISTRATION), I rarely link them based on exchange or wallet transactions.

Fact: i don't trust transaction based addresses, let alone exchange master addresses, they can make transactions to thousands of users, with that one address.

Although i've done some investigation based on transaction, if i have any doubts i prefer neutral or i don't want to flag users even though they have multiple accounts, but in doubt, even though they cheated two or three years ago, except: the day I investigated they cheated, I flagged them.

I see this case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403462.msg60595420#msg60595420, In my personal opinion the 'evidence' is not strong enough, maybe if you add other evidence, for example: they make transactions with each other's BTC addresses, of course I don't doubt that they are Alt, but in this case, if it is brought to court, I believe this case will be rejected and ordered to find other, stronger evidence.

Conclusion: @_BlackStar, proving something must be transparent and accepted by the public in a professional and reasonable manner, so that they can accept it without problems.

I mean this, one case that we will file if the evidence is not strong and there are many witnesses or supporters object, I believe the judge cannot make a perfect decision, Of course they will delay until other evidence is presented, if there is no other evidence the case is deadlocked or can be closed.

[Pandu Geddon]

in this case, I am providing raw blockchain transaction proof. only shows possible farm connections from accounts greater than 2 already found accounts. not strong enough to judge someone in a case.

I also usually attribute other evidence such as the use of social media or others. when someone manages multiple accounts I'm sure there will be errors even if small.
but in this case, I've been trying to find other evidence. but hard to get. some accounts have been inactive for a long time. and some also have a history of changing passwords.

as @YOSHIE suggested, the evidence is not very strong. tags can be replaced Neutral, at least until stronger evidence can be obtained. or it could be a warning so that the account is no longer in the same bounty campaign.

[lovesmayfamilis]

OP, you should take your time and check each account not only for transactions and who sends to whom but try to find more matches.

All the accounts you identified have an old date of registration. I am sure that all of them were stolen, sold, or belong to the same farm.

Do we often see Indonesian accounts that do not belong to their owners? Often.

The negative review tag would be very appropriate, provided that there is more evidence.

By just using such accusations, you may accidentally tag another account in the stream, which could accidentally use the Telegram group that many cheaters refer to.

Try to find more proof of the connection, and then your tag will be correct.

[dkbit98]

Did I make mistake?

From your report I didn't see clear connection with all those accounts you tagged, and I don't want to do some additional research work myself again.
From my past experience catching cheaters I know many of them are using one address for collecting coins, that is usually exchange or single wallet,
but you only provided one bsc address with possible connection with Bitmart and Binance exchange, and without any explanation.
You need to provide additional proof of connection to add them negative tag, maybe same social media profiles, same telegram account, other addresses, same language speaking, or something else that connects them.
You could contact bounty manager of that campaign in private if you have some suspicions, but don't rush giving red tag candies to bunch of users because you are making them less effective.

[Mahdirakib]

I hope you realized now why I said that in the other thread.

The above evidence won't be enough to connect those accounts with each other. Perhaps, the user has used ‘new address’ as a middleman so that no one can link those accounts directly. I hope you guys will find some direct evidence of those accounts connection. I appreciate your efforts.

Why do you think so, did you try to do more research from the above transactions?

You have to find out some direct connection between those accounts before giving them negative feedback based on the current investigation. In this case, the main wallet (or collector wallet) still holding 5+ BNB on it. If all of those accounts belongs to the same person then he wouldn't hold the BNB which is in the main wallet now. It could be a collector wallet who is buying those coins and holding the BNB.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

From your report I didn't see clear connection with all those accounts you tagged, and I don't want to do some additional research work myself again.

I didn't either, and from reading that thread I thought I was the only one. 

By the way, just whose thread is that, anyway?  English Patrol Scuad was the one who started it, yet it somehow ended up being _BlackStar's show.  If you want to talk about suspicions of alt accounts, that one brings up some questions.

_BlackStar, normally I'd say when you're dealing with bounty hunters and this type of cheating, which has been going on for years and is so rampant that we probably don't even realize just how bad the issue is, be bold.  When I started tagging account sellers/buyers in 2016, I wasn't even on DT but I saw it as a problem and must have tagged well over 100 accounts (and check my sent feedback if you're interested).  Keep in mind that no one was doing that back then, but I figured I was going to make my voice heard and deal with whatever backlash came my way.

In your case, however, I don't think the evidence is solid enough to tag these accounts and you'd probably do well to leave them alone for now (but continue investigating).  It doesn't even look like bounty managers even care that much anymore about red trust, but that's another issue.  Plus, you're on DT so you'd better have all your ducks lined up straight before whipping out the spray gun, lest you start getting excluded from people's trust lists.

And if you didn't remove those feedbacks, personally I wouldn't even have a problem with that.  Fuck 'em.

[KingsDen]

If your judgement is debatable by your own self, it is a sign that your judgement isn't whole. I have never had an experience of being red tagged, but I'm sure the experience isn't a nice one. So, before you red tag be sure you are 100% convinced and also able to convince the community, then if you are unsure, you can use the neutral tag.

I have read where someone said that you shouldn't sentence someone before taking him to the court.

[OgNasty]

My take is that if you're sending out more negative feedbacks than positive feedbacks, you're definitely doing something wrong.

I get that being a forum Karen is popular here for whatever reason, but to people that are actually doing things, the forum police are like Karens.  The folks out in the real world have started pushing back against these constant finger pointers.  I hope that energy makes it to the internet soon.  The people constantly leaving negative feedbacks are worse for the community than the wannabe scammers (who 99% of the time have no chance of raising a satoshi with their scam attempts) in my opinion.  It's like they think the only thing they can do to spam for their signature campaign money is to throw allegations at people.  The hate and negativity these people foster literally chases away all the talent that participates here.

[examplens]

Did I make mistake?

obviously, you are not sure that they are for the red tag. if you are not sure, then neutral is better
a couple of transactions between addresses is not a strong enough argument that the accounts are connected. you have reasonable grounds for suspicion, but not enough to be sure.

My take is that if you're sending out more negative feedbacks than positive feedbacks, you're definitely doing something wrong.

this is a completely illogical point of view, at least for me.
negative feedback seems to be much more important because it serves to prevent the further spread of scams. while at the same time, positive feedback carries much more responsibility. someone else can take risks in business encouraged by positive feedback and that can get complicated if the feedback is given lightly.

[Falconer]

Did I make mistake?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403462.msg60595420#msg60595420

I see some doubts on your part after tagging all these accounts. The evidence you get is not entirely reliable as a compelling reason to negative tag all of those accounts. I agree that you should probably consider neutral tags or nothing until you find valid evidence. There has to be solid evidence to be able to confirm that all of these accounts deserve a red tag, so I believe you should revise the tag until you can prove them guilty.

On this forum it's actually really nice to have users who can contribute like you. I think you are a user who is starting to be recognized for your contributions either in the forum as a spam buster or maybe a cheat hunter, but honestly being a fair forum judge or cop is tough. You can use your DT powers to tag cheater, but before you do, I think you should consider The Pharmacist's advice first.

Plus, you're on DT so you'd better have all your ducks lined up straight before whipping out the spray gun, lest you start getting excluded from people's trust lists.

[naira]

Actually, I'm just an avid reader of the reputation section. Because I always like more extensive information and pay attention to various issues in this forum. So this time let me comment.

I think you did an excellent job and it is clear that you have spent a lot of time on each report. But if it's a legal matter, your position as plaintiff and some of the reported users is that of a defendant.

Just like in court you present evidence and charges against the convicted plaintiff. So it's up to the judge to decide according to the considerations and evidence attached. Here what is meant by the judge is the community or DT members who ultimately decide to provide a deterrent effect. At first, I assumed you were in a hurry to flag them with a red flag.

It's actually not wrong, it's just that what if you wait for the public's reaction first? Do not let you report and immediately give a red tag. Is there a plaintiff serving as a judge in the same case?

[FatFork]

_BlackStar, there is no doubt that these accounts are related in some way. The addresses you posted are certainly connected, not just by sending (accumulating) tokens to the same address, but also with direct transactions between them. However, blockchain transactions alone may not be sufficient to prove these are alt accounts, so I would recommend finding additional evidence (even circumstantial), and leaving a neutral tag in the meantime.

And if you didn't remove those feedbacks, personally I wouldn't even have a problem with that.  Fuck 'em.

I'll go along with that. 

[_BlackStar]

I find your Reference link to be far from convincing: I checked arifteguhr, for which your Reference link shows 2 shitcoin addresses and a link to their profile. It doesn't show where they posted the addresses, and your evidence doesn't make clear where it came from.

I hope I don't do much wrong in this case especially about sorting out the wallet used by each account to join the bounty.
arifteguhr uses this wallet: 0x2211f17Ca8c70990DB9f430Fc2687a6CF3B895f4
Here's his history of posting at bounty campaign: https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=0x2211f17Ca8c70990DB9f430Fc2687a6CF3B895f4

That's one of the reasons I don't like checking Ethereum or other centralized shitcoins on block explorers: it's often used to dump a list of addresses and/or a link to block explorers, without explaining the details. So I can't really review the evidence without digging myself, which I don't want to do.

Actually I'm not too interested in going too deep into this case, but the lack of participation of other users to raise this issue made me take the initiative to get more evidence. The data I'm currently gathering is incomplete, but I'm working on gathering more. I hope some other cheat hunters join forces to uncover it, this will let many managers recognize them all and not give him too many chances in the campaign.


While there is some other solid evidence I have come across:
1. Every account is inactive or even makes a defense until the second day. But after this, I'm sure some accounts will come out of their nests to defend themselves.
2. Average joins the bounty of Helena by Hhampuz and moonbet by julerz12.
3. Average delete POA in campaign they participated in.
4. Some of them have cheated before and are tagged.
5. Acumulate to main wallet: 0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41 [binance wallet],


I believe there are many records of transactions made by the account based on the evidence here: https://bscscan.com/txs?a=0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41&f=3.

But because it is a forked transaction, it will take some effort to find the account involved.



I think it's going to be a little more deaf than usual in this case and won't be revising those tags for a while while making a clear recap of the evidence, but you're free to do your own research for all those accounts.

[_BlackStar]

Guys, I have to let you know that in the last few days I got a pm from one of the accounts I tagged and we had quite an intense conversation about that. I also had to ask him to prove ownership of the account. I try to think about removing the tag because maybe I should be a little lenient so as not to directly damage other people's reputation.

I still think they all cheated in the many previous campaign based on token transaction to the same address. But the lack of time I currently have and the large number of accounts involved make me think that I should temporarily remove that negative tag and maybe go back to doing some research when I have enough time.

Based on the evidence of temporary transactions that I got from all accounts, maybe you can expand this case to find one fact that they are cheaters.

Proof of transactions involving 16 accounts: https://bscscan.com/address/0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41

Main wallets:

Code:

0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41

The accounts involved and wallet:

Code:

cvasy
Ten98
davincicode666
adiebitsler
Ezravdb
domoy77
BlackBaron
JeWay
marcous
Surrapatt
2tang
fadil46
imamusma
whiteblue
alisonwonder
arifteguhr

1. cvasy

Code:

- 0x09095C90861D28a67B737c82e07652fBA42083ec
- 0x1381498C0d0A47192EeD50169561bfd3eb99C7fc

2. Ten98

Code:

- 0xDcEf5FeD5a341c4bf80489577806E39Aa80fDca6
- 0xf9914603EDdB08D4D938BcAE24b19dF17013dFD9

3. davincicode666

Code:

- 0x388c8907A6287FB46924Ecb756Aa05d71ab2AB3E
- 0xc8CD5f01d45d15C92fC0F1F92468a29588c2d628

4. adiebitsler

Code:

- 0x27c0431D33eaceC7C1224B4Ed79cFda5Cf73f895
- 0xD5F6531b72cDa6e9148d30ECCCE23e8C9AC3786B

5. Ezravdb

Code:

- 0x0b4300a8f1aFfad5459688edE59fDD3731f8E4aa
- 0xCDafC1537094724C67a0521293538356a7a81974

6. domoy77

Code:

- 0xd08aC3B2Cc3f414Bb995C72176663E1D9E47A041
- 0x84ff4F9349bB0BA1B393468e30A5Ff175c010DC5

7. BlackBaron

Code:

- 0x7c789F514F2bf007eB810318DEEEb859B3394658
- 0x8258B12419DaFf46c708f0652371f5339855610a

8. JeWay

Code:

- 0x07B5D66C93F33249EB87c9031A563032681e36cB
- 0x08c66fA34656099cfB762265fEc6Be855d97e7b6

9. marcous

Code:

- 0x6E62AD4f245f69315A66ffD620dc0Ac1d8dE948d
- 0x83C13d08971286Fb9bF07f04056F57821e56f7C4
- 0x0b38cF288fCAB87684007EaB2594F29C85ADC325

10. Surrapatt

Code:

- 0xD699A9144078Df8B93Faff615965626166Bc7617
- 0x09095C90861D28a67B737c82e07652fBA42083ec

11. 2tang

Code:

- 0xC86a5d29d2Ff6724A4F9484a99918E2eFF6d0a93
- 0x126aD933de593c7e5C1238E4971bbf43714Bfc2d

12. fadil46

Code:

- 0x8bfFF3831d356444a434823cf6026FC50c4b1faD
- 0x5a499f5b444910aD8E9AD7459255992CF4fE4Df5

13. imamusma

Code:

- 0xCe2b095Ad4499f3751d54e0C7C363300Db4A8ac3
- 0x6e2Af536D77055fD45CDB72D03C3835c7691fBc7

14. whiteblue

Code:

- 0xF2847891CC55c9a158EA63270ceba1611AF6d9c1
- 0xF683421B3cd7e44b1205a5ca0c1A832B61343E8A

15. alisonwonder

Code:

- 0x277D24300684CAE24dC410eFeBd13eC3b835C503
- 0xff22c629a00A6cF91A361fe6d0fDB6d3F4F2F3E4

16. arifteguhr

Code:

- 0x2211f17Ca8c70990DB9f430Fc2687a6CF3B895f4
- 0x054d2B0E88E82E438606a7cAD6096B50AD7D1655