User @Amph - sale of BTT account via PM!

[Welsh]

Yeah, I don't see too many users not believing you here Lucius. I wouldn't recommend risking your account security over this. Whether or not users want act upon the evidence supplied is up to them. Some already have. I absolutely wouldn't give up your account security. The thing is; you aren't just giving them temporary access, because undoubtedly you've got other personal messages; which means they could see those too which goes beyond the agreement, which is an invasion of privacy not only for you, but for the other users you've communicated with. I'm not saying the person you entrust with this responsibility will go prying through that information, but they might accidentally see it, which we can't just turn our brains off.

I don't doubt what you're saying is true, I'm more concerned about how the situation came about, since there does seem like someone is directing users to contact other users without any permission whatsoever. Almost, impersonation of you via Telegram.

[Dunamisx]

The two users involved were both claiming right against each other, but what we should look into now is that was the account sold? Is there any evidence for such? Because from what i perceived here, the two of them may actually be working on the same objective to fish out account famers that uses telegram to conduct their illegal activities, but nevertheless why should we respond to mails or telegram chat we are not interested on? Also i think it's time the forum take serious with the sending of unsolicited PMs on the forum by users, what @Lucius could have done is to reported such PM to he moderator at first when he received such invite.

[Welsh]

Also i think it's time the forum take serious with the sending of unsolicited PMs on the forum by users, what @Lucius could have done is to reported such PM to he moderator at first when he received such invite.

The forum does, I'm not saying to not report unsolicited personal messages, but reporting a message in hopes to get it verified publicly isn't going to fit in with the moderation guidelines, and therefore wouldn't be done. Of course, Lucius could've reported the personal message for being unsolicited, and I do urge users to report unsolicited messages.

Lucius probably did the right thing for their reputation announcing this to the public, and in fact seemed to be quite sensitive about providing the evidence of the personal message at first, since it's generally considered that personal messages are indeed that; personal. We don't know the intentions of the user on Telegram that was impersonating Lucius, or at the very least implying some sort of deception that they're Lucius.

[DireWolfM14]

It's quite possible that someone is using Telegram looking for account sellers, and then pointing them to a random user on DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust2, trying to get them to admit that they want to sell the account knowing that the DefaultTrust/DefaultTrust2 would say something publicly about it.

There could be several motivations to this; honeypotting which this would be considered, isn't exactly encouraged around here, and actively frowned upon itself. So, the Telegram user doing it could be trying to do it anonymously, and using some other user to deal with it on Bitcointalk. However, that's not exactly great either; since they're effectively putting the user they're saying to contact on Bitcointalk under risk, as it appears they want to buy the account. I suspect in an attempt to keep themselves anonymous due to the frowned upon honey potting. However, I don't see why they just wouldn't send the user to a newly created account, and then report that publicly. Going through the verification that's required if necessary.

I don't know, that's my best guess since Lucius seems to be rather dumbfounded by why they received the personal message in the first place.

I've been harassed on Telegram by a forum member in the past, and I think you're actually onto something here.  I don't doubt Lucius's claim that he didn't contact Amph on Telegram, and I don't doubt that Amph believes that he was contacted by Lucius.  There are some real sick drama queens here who just want to stir shit up.

Well if we are theorizing here, why would the telegram user request a screenshot of the PM (especially if he is claiming to be the owner of the account), he wouldn't need a screenshot. Telegram user could have been trying to setup Lucius for not posting about an account seller contacting him.. or maybe thought Lucius would try to buy it and they wanted the screenshot to post themselves in order to smear Lucius? *shrug*

edit: Regardless, it looks like Amph is willing to sell his account?.. to anyone that contacts him on telegram?

That's a really good question.  I don't think that the Telegram user who was pretending to be Lucius has any ill intent for Lucius, but he didn't want to expose himself as the Rent-A-Cop, busybody conducting an immoral sting operation to expose accounts being sold.  Remember when bob123 did something like that got a shit-ton of grief over it?  I think that's what the mystery user was trying to avoid, while still being able to expose the account for sale.

Again, asking for screenshot of the PM that was sent is kind of a red herring.  Why would Lucius do that if he already got the PM?  He could have taken a screen shot himself, as he already demonstrated here in this thread.  It does lend some credibility to Welsh's speculation.

As for account sales, it upsets me less than it used to be in the past.  Yeah, someone could buy a high-ranking, trusted account and use it to scam people, but anyone here with a high ranking, trusted account could go rouge at the drop of a hat.  Yogg, for example.  The best course of action is to be extremely careful when dealing with folks here on the forum, and assume that you could be scammed at any point by anyone.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that several high-ranking trusted accounts on this forum have been sold at one point or another, and none of us are even aware that it happened.

[lovesmayfamilis]

For some reason, it seems to me that someone wanted to frame Lucius. See how he has tagged several account sellers in recent days. Expecting Lucius to report about PM, the scammer wanted to frame him as a buyer in the hope that he could avenge the previous red tags and the failed sale.

[LoyceV]

your screen don't prove anything either, there are plenty of way to edit any screen or even video so...

That's true, screenshots don't prove a thing. But maybe you can tell me: is this PM doctored or did you sent this?
So @Amph: Are you trying to sell your account?

It's quite possible that someone is using Telegram looking for account sellers, and then pointing them to a random user on DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust2, trying to get them to admit that they want to sell the account knowing that the DefaultTrust/DefaultTrust2 would say something publicly about it.

That's possible. And considering the drama created by sting operations in the past, it makes sense they're not using their own name. Someone loves the drama.

There are other ways to verify it, obviously. In the past, some users have given temporary access to trustworthy users, but I wouldn't recommend that either.

I've done that a few times, but those were quite new accounts. In this case, Amph's negative feedback on Lucius more or less confirms it's real:

he contacted me via telegram and tricked me to send him a pm on his bitcoin talk profile saying that im selling the account, so he can create then a topic to diffamate me on public

Well if we are theorizing here, why would the telegram user request a screenshot of the PM (especially if he is claiming to be the owner of the account), he wouldn't need a screenshot. Telegram user could have been trying to setup Lucius for not posting about an account seller contacting him.. or maybe thought Lucius would try to buy it and they wanted the screenshot to post themselves in order to smear Lucius? *shrug*

That Telegram screenshot asking for a screenshot makes it obvious someone has a different agenda.

For some reason, it seems to me that someone wanted to frame Lucius. See how he has tagged several account sellers in recent days. Expecting Lucius to report about PM, the scammer wanted to frame him as a buyer in the hope that he could avenge the previous red tags and the failed sale.

If <whoeverdidthis> knows Lucius tags account sellers, it makes more sense to expect he'll tag this one too.

I've left negative and neutral feedback for asking to buy my account by PM years ago.

[lovesmayfamilis]

If <whoeverdidthis> knows Lucius tags account sellers, it makes more sense to expect he'll tag this one too.

Then there's the second option . Knowing that Lucius would definitely put a negative tag, the seller could be directed to him. The question is, "Where and when was the information about the sale of the account?" If this is a telegram group, then anyone could pretend to be Lucius. And the seller will naively believe that there is a buyer. If the information was only available to a few people, then @Amph should look for the "well-wishers" in his environment.

[Lucius]

Again, asking for screenshot of the PM that was sent is kind of a red-hearing.  Why would Lucius do that if he already got the PM?  He could have taken a screen shot himself, as he already demonstrated here in this thread.  It does lend some credibility to Welsh's speculation.

My guess is that the person behind everything wanted that screenshot to try to set me up by opening a new thread and accusing me of trading with accounts - luckily I was quick and reacted in time. Although even now some doubt that I have something to do with this, what would happen if I just tagged that account and reported that PM?

For some reason, it seems to me that someone wanted to frame Lucius. See how he has tagged several account sellers in recent days. Expecting Lucius to report about PM, the scammer wanted to frame him as a buyer in the hope that he could avenge the previous red tags and the failed sale.

Yes, it seems that I touched a hornet's nest because I dared to touch the operation of selling BTT accounts, which is a very lucrative business in which some, let's say, respectable members of this community also participate as escrows.

Last year I had a bad feeling and opened the next thread just in case -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5418044

That's true, screenshots don't prove a thing. But maybe you can tell me: is this PM doctored or did you sent this?
So @Amph: Are you trying to sell your account?

btw i'm not seeing that i didn't send that pm, i'm saying that he tell me to do so, to create this topic, that's my point

What more do you need than the fact that he has already admitted that he did it? Not only did he try to sell his account, but he also turned out to be a fool who someone managed to get him to admit publicly and cast a shadow of doubt on me along the way. Someone had obviously been planning this for months, because it was necessary to find someone naive enough to do it this way.

[LoyceV]

My guess is that the person behind everything wanted that screenshot to try to set me up by opening a new thread and accusing me of trading with accounts - luckily I was quick and reacted in time.

It was a win-win for the drama queen behind this: either you complain about Amph, or he complains about both of you.

Although even now some doubt that I have something to do with this, what would happen if I just tagged that account and reported that PM?

Report it for what? It may be unsolicited for you, but Amph didn't know that.

What more do you need than the fact that he has already admitted that he did it?

Nothing, it's quite obvious.

@Amph: what's with the negative retaliation feedback? That's not how you're supposed to use the Trust system.

[Little Mouse]

he is the one that contacted me via telegram if you think that is not him you must have some serious logic flaw

In telegram, I received a message from satoshi  Kidding. Someone impersonated suchmoon from bitcointalk and offered me a currency exchange which I was looking for but when I asked to PM me in bitcointalk they just disappeared and deleted the chat history. You know what, telegram, is the safe heaven for scammers. Always verify through bitcointalk. Why did you PM him if you don't want to sell the account? You may have an argument of a fake PM screenshot but I seriously doubt Lucius is a liar.

[digaran]

Guys please, it's obvious that Amph is a naive person, and clearly if he was in this business he would have known the better methods to sell an account. This could be considered as a one time mistake which I'm sure he'd promise not to think about it again.

What I'm suggesting is that you could at least give him a chance by looking the other way just this once, if he was an untrustworthy member for years, this would have been understandable to tag him right away at the first chance, but if you think there is a silver lining to this issue, please reconsider your tags, at least make them neutral for a while to see what happens next, but please don't ruin his reputation just for one mistake, please.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

What I'm suggesting is that you could at least give him a chance by looking the other way just this once, if he was an untrustworthy member for years, this would have been understandable to tag him right away at the first chance, but if you think there is a silver lining to this issue, please reconsider your tags<snip>

I respectfully disagree.  I don't know why Amph chose to go about trying to sell his account the way he did, but that doesn't matter.  An account like his--well-established and with an extensive post history--could easily be used to scam people who didn't know it had changed hands.  I also think it's safe to assume Amph would eventually sell his account, and given that I've left negative trust to people for even bidding on accounts, there's no way I'm going to give him a second chance out of the goodness of my heart.

As for account sales, it upsets me less than it used to be in the past.  Yeah, someone could buy a high-ranking, trusted account and use it to scam people, but anyone here with a high ranking, trusted account could go rouge at the drop of a hat.  Yogg, for example. 

Both could certainly happen, but that doesn't mean the community shouldn't be warned when a Legendary account is put up for sale.  You can't really give a warning in advance of an old-timer going rogue, but in a situation like this you sure as hell can.

Account sales bother me less these days as well, probably because I haven't seen any scam accusations against anyone using a purchased account in quite some time--but I'll be damned if I won't still hand out a neg when I see someone trying to sell their account.  Account sales are still as damaging (or potentially so) to the forum as they were when a bunch of DT members started hunting them back in 2016.

[Lucius]

Guys please, it's obvious that Amph is a naive person, and clearly if he was in this business he would have known the better methods to sell an account. This could be considered as a one time mistake which I'm sure he'd promise not to think about it again.

What I'm suggesting is that you could at least give him a chance by looking the other way just this once, if he was an untrustworthy member for years, this would have been understandable to tag him right away at the first chance, but if you think there is a silver lining to this issue, please reconsider your tags, at least make them neutral for a while to see what happens next, but please don't ruin his reputation just for one mistake, please.

Given that you defend it so ardently, the question arises whether you are in some way connected to that account/member? In your opinion, everyone should get a second chance, regardless of what they do, to the extent that it can have long-term, very bad consequences for any member of this forum?

Not only is he more than obviously guilty because he had the intention of selling his BTT account, but he also involved me in all of that - and regardless of the fact that people who think logically think that I am not the person who contacted him on Telegram, the doubt always remains - or better to say that the damage he did to me is irreparable.

Maybe that was his intention from the beginning, even to the extent that he consciously sacrificed one of his alt accounts - because I doubt that it was the first and last BTT account he sold.

[digaran]

In your opinion, everyone should get a second chance, regardless of what they do, to the extent that it can have long-term, very bad consequences for any member

In your opinion he couldn't scam people himself but if he'd sold the account the new owner could do the scam? Are you basing your judgment on "what if"? That shows how biased you are and IMO you shouldn't be on DT with that line of thinking. And you are more worried about your own reputation than protecting the community, you could have just sent him a PM telling him what he was doing wrong and give him a neutral feed back to make the warning more serious, but you chose to ruin him publicly for something you deem untrustworthy which is not even illegal just that frowned upon in this community.

Yes he could have sold the account to a scammer, he had years to do that but he didn't, and nobody got scammed so far, warning people about a potential scam which could happen in the future and which will never happen by tagging him is a poor judgment.

What is a mystery for me, did Amph knew account sales would get him tagged or not? If he didn't know then now he knows loud and clear, if he knew then maybe a red tag is deserved.

[Rikafip]

What is a mystery for me, did Amph knew account sales would get him tagged or not? If he didn't know then now he knows loud and clear, if he knew then maybe a red tag is deserved.

He is a veteran member so chances are that he knew the consequences of his actions (even though he did it in a very naive way which can make you think he didn't but people do stupid things sometime). Since ignorance is not a valid excuse, whether he knew or not doesn't really matter in the end.

[digaran]

What is a mystery for me, did Amph knew account sales would get him tagged or not? If he didn't know then now he knows loud and clear, if he knew then maybe a red tag is deserved.

He is a veteran member so chances are that he knew the consequences of his actions (even though he did it in a very naive way which can make you think he didn't but people do stupid things sometime). Since ignorance is not a valid excuse, whether he knew or not doesn't really matter in the end.

I guess it doesn't matter really, because if you open a marketplace topic started by him, you'd see a large red box warning people that he is a scammer, so far so good, but if he gets one positive feedback from a DT member, that red box disappear, in other words, anybody with even a single positive feed back could scam away at ease.

[Lucius]

In your opinion he couldn't scam people himself but if he'd sold the account the new owner could do the scam? Are you basing your judgment on "what if"? That shows how biased you are and IMO you shouldn't be on DT with that line of thinking. And you are more worried about your own reputation than protecting the community, you could have just sent him a PM telling him what he was doing wrong and give him a neutral feed back to make the warning more serious, but you chose to ruin him publicly for something you deem untrustworthy which is not even illegal just that frowned upon in this community.

Yes he could have sold the account to a scammer, he had years to do that but he didn't, and nobody got scammed so far, warning people about a potential scam which could happen in the future and which will never happen by tagging him is a poor judgment.

What is a mystery for me, did Amph knew account sales would get him tagged or not? If he didn't know then now he knows loud and clear, if he knew then maybe a red tag is deserved.

You're a bigger troll than I thought, but it's not worth arguing too much with such people, because you obviously have the attitude that things like this should be swept under the carpet instead of the community finding out what really happened.

My reputation is very important to me (regardless of what others think about it), and I will certainly not allow myself to be called into question by protecting someone who did something that the majority of members of this community do not approve (at least in principle).

Apart from me, only one DT member left a red tag, so that also clearly shows that the majority thinks like you - that is, they gave him a second chance.

[Cryptomiles1]

I never wanted to post here because I know too well that is above me. From all comments I am seeing here there is nothing to argue about whether is true or not, first it was from a telegram which we can say any one could randomly sent messages to you claiming to be a reputable from the forum, it's understandable but to an extent of moving out from there to sending a private messages using the account shows that he truly wants to sell the account.
And from my little understanding here, account selling is highly prohibited, except in some cases were the account is being hacked or stolen from the original owner and using for evil activity and wanting to sell it without the knowledge of the real owner at such point it could be considered. And however when you refused to raise an alarm of malicious activities then the account could be tag or ban for such action.

[holydarkness]

[...]
I guess it doesn't matter really, because if you open a marketplace topic started by him, you'd see a large red box warning people that he is a scammer, so far so good, but if he gets one positive feedback from a DT member, that red box disappear, in other words, anybody with even a single positive feed back could scam away at ease.

I assume you're talking about this kind of warning flag?



Which there weren't any since no one raise any type of flag against him, as recorded by BPIP, nor do I find any red box on his old thread on altcoin marketplace, be it seeing from a guest account or a member account. So I am not really sure what you're talking about.




As for someone with positive feedback could easily scam people, I have to agree at certain degree. Yes, some people could and would likely more trusting toward someone with positive feedback, that's why exercising logic and DD prior to dealing with anyone is advisable.

But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily translate into someone with one trusted feedback could "scam away at ease". Given your rank, I am sure you're well aware that all you need is to report such attempt to the scam accusation board, and that user would be investigated. If found guilty, they'll got some negative feedback which would --I strongly assume-- made anyone dealing with them to further weight in their option in spite of the presence of that nice looking green number.

[digaran]

I assume you're talking about this kind of warning flag?

Since I have no active flag and still have that red box above my thread on marketplace, I assumed everyone will get that red box after receiving negative feedback. I checked a few members with no active flag, only negative trust and they had the same warning while any member with a positive trust doesn't have that warning.