User
oneadvocateThis account was created to support bitbollo reputation thread, and since then, they have been only on the Reputation board. They are targeting users like DireWolfM14 and owlcatz. They have been writing using AI and then using some kind of AI humanizer tool, which helps them bypass regular AI detector tools. So, I checked some of his post with Pangram and Originality, and here is the result.
Legendary has been with us since April 12, 2014. The profile (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=313016) shows a bit more than 9,000 posts and about 2,000 in merit, with activity this month as well. There is no bio. What you see here is the thread rules, the auctions, and the trading. In your opening post, you made it plain you have never scammed anyone and that you are for a clean house, even going so far as to tell others to lock down their accounts. Some have said they will hold you to that.
Yet you made an issue of the admin.
Take Dec 2, 2021. You put in writing that Theymos would have saved a lot of money from scammers had he implemented 2FA years ago. Hardly a subtle way to call him out. The day before, you told bidders not to bid unless they secured their account, and certainly not to look for reimbursement in the event of an account takeover or MITM. You were clear you wouldn’t cover a loss from an unsecured account. So why is the bidder in one instance and on Theymos in the next?
In that same vein, you decried the new forum software as a scam and the SMF setup as a joke, directed at him since he commissioned the work. I have to ask why you used that word.
You also took pity on those with Donator status, saying if you held the rank you would want it to read “Scammed By the Forum.” That is a rank he bestows. He has gone out of his way to point out that donations are general support, not a guarantee of new software. Why put it in those terms?
You still do business here, and in the opening post you called it a well-known scamming forum while professing to want none of the nonsense. Why target Theymos and the donors on a site you continue to use? Do you stand by what you wrote and the call-out, or should an apology be forthcoming?
Pangram - 100% AI
Originality - 99% likely AI
Been going through the late-September threads instead of the quote walls. Putting down what the posts actually contain, point by point.
Bitbollo (Legendary, joined August 2014, activity around 4130, merit around 5106, about 12,800 posts) opened topic 5594694 on 21 September about frogbet and the campaign run by Little Mouse. Public version of that dispute: a deposit on 14 September got converted into a bonus with heavy wagering after a free spin, the review reward was not paid on the stated schedule, he was told 24 hours, a week passed, escrow that had been held for the campaign was sent back, and the casino side later said roughly $100 had been credited on the site. He filed flags and left negative trust over the handling and the continued promotion. Amount was small. That part is a campaign and deposit argument, written up in 5594694 and 5594724.
Seven days later, 28 September, topic 5595318 opens under the title that he is a scammer, ponzi promoter, account trader, cheater and abuser. The arguments under that title do not hold up. Here is why.
1. Timing. The heavy title only shows up after he filed the frogbet complaint and the flags. The address overlap those posts rely on was already public in December 2016 (Avirunes note naming bitbollo, Cs87kxy and Cearea11). Nothing stuck to the Legendary account then. It gets reused now, a week after the campaign dispute.
2. One old address is not control of another account. The load-bearing link is 14A8fkAAv2yaLJUBU5Nb82QWTtpPSYFPp2. Cs87kxy posted it on 19 June 2015 in a signature-campaign signup. Bitbollo posted the same string on 12 August 2015 next to 1BoSH7RisUAPpGfNbX8scSB43YP6Tx3g7M and 1JwLxS3za2s9gFVzn4SKk6xpgg24bxxh9d. In 2015 addresses were pasted into contests, quoted, and reused in giveaways. Posting a string someone else already posted does not show who held the key in 2016 or 2017, when the other account picked up its negative trust.
3. Exchange hot wallets are shared. Later posts point at both sides sending toward a cex.io hot wallet. A hot wallet receives deposits from thousands of customers. Shared traffic into an exchange wallet is not proof the keys are controlled by one person. Deposit addresses and hot wallets get mixed traffic all the time.
4. No proceeds TXID. Bitbollo has said in the thread that 1BoSH7RisUAPpGfNbX8scSB43YP6Tx3g7M is a long-used address he can sign for, that those addresses have years of ordinary exchange activity, and that he wants a TXID of scheme proceeds hitting them. Across the pages of 5595318 that TXID is not produced. What gets shown is old posts, co-spending into exchange infrastructure, and a list of DirectBet tipster addresses. Negative feedback for the boostcrypto thread (exit in about a week, trust note March 2017, “ponzi scammer”) and for account sales sits on Cs87kxy, not on the Legendary account.
5. DirectBet and account sales do not carry the title. The tipster rules linked in the accusation allowed a few entries per player. Account buying and selling was ordinary marketplace traffic on this board in 2015–2016. Neither of those, on the posts cited, turned into a red tag on bitbollo at the time.
6. Record after the old posts. Merit and activity accumulated across the decade after 2015. He has run the Bitcoin collectibles meetups (Milan, Catania, Tokyo, Seoul dates in topic 5503159), free drinks and open invite, merited by long-standing members. That is the visible activity, not a hidden scheme tied to a satoshi trace.
I went through the cited posts, the June and August 2015 address dates, the 2016 note, the trust entries on the other account, and the transaction claims in 5595318. No post in that thread shows scheme proceeds entering an address Bitbollo has used in the open for more than ten years. The charges in the title are not established by the material that was posted.
Shishir99 only started digging after Bitbollo left him a negative on the 21st. He said that himself on the 30th. The frogbet thing was a missed reward and a deposit, about a hundred bucks. Hours later, he opens 5594724 quoting the trust note. A week later, 5595318 shows up with the long title, and under it is a 2015 address plus a note from 2016 that never got bitbollo a tag. No tx of bad coins hitting an address he has used in the open for ten years. That is a reply to the feedback, not a new case. Bitbollo is innocent. Not a scammer, not a ponzi promoter, not an account trader, not a cheater, not an abuser. Bitbollo is innocent of the accusations that he is a scammer, a ponzi promoter, an account trader, a cheater, or an abuser.
Pangram - 100% AI
Originality - 91% AI
A review of DireWolfM14’s
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2003859 public record shows he has made use of “retard,” “retarded” and the like as an insult repeatedly. He has been a member since April 4, 2018, and his profile contains 6,856 posts spread across 344 pages. I didn't include “retort” or any quotes from others because private messages and anything he deleted don't show up on the profile.
I reviewed his history to determine whether his use of those words was an isolated error or part of a pattern. The answer is obvious; it is a pattern.
That is significant. We are not talking about mere antiquated vocabulary here. Educators, the medical community, disability groups, and society at large have put aside this kind of terminology for good reason, having found it offensive and stigmatizing to those with intellectual disabilities.
Members of Bitcointalk may have their differences. One can denounce an argument as wrong, dishonest, or ridiculous without having to degrade people with intellectual disabilities.
Examine the dates and the repetition in his posts and form your own opinion: is it right to humiliate fellow members with slurs?
Pangram - 100% AI
Originality - 57% AI.
