Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

[jokers10]

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.

I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back.

As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

[1714243695]

1714243695

[1714243695]

1714243695

[1714243695]

1714243695

[1714243695]

1714243695

[1714243695]

1714243695

[Timelord2067]

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?

Achow (I think that was their name) had a website where you could enter any users UID number and it would tell you what the market value of that account was (there were even modifiers such as green trust feedback Vs Default Trust which would increase the asking price)...

It was a double edge sword as those selling accounts would say it's value and trust feedback scores and we could pretty well work out which account was about to be sold with confirmation coming in the form of a change of password and email.

Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message.

It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless.

[yahoo62278]

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

[jokers10]

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig.

Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading.

But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved.

[Timelord2067]

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam.

With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with.  You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts.

[rby]

If you disagree, you can start by tagging my account first since I put it up for sale at one point in 2016.

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?  

It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

I can confirm very firmly that yahoo62278 is consistent in his judgement. I took my time to go through this thread created by you months ago - Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc. Your submissions in that thread is very consistent with what you are saying here and I strongly align with it.

[nutildah]

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?  

I really don't know but I don't think just any shitposter could pretend to be me and get away with it for more than 2 or 3 posts, tops. And although I did run a bounty campaign for a token called SHITCOIN once, if my account suddenly started advertising a new coin or ICO or something, it would probably raise some eyebrows. So in that way its probably not worth very much.

Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter?

[Poker Player]

Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter?

How are you going to know that? The only two pieces of information you give are negative, the second less negative than the first, but I don't know if he a scammer or not. Besides, I don't think we're going to see the case you raise because the person who had the account before will have enough red tags and people will have no reason to remove them if they left them in his profile in the first place. If the new owner is "only" a shitposter, do we have to remove the red tags? I don't see it. Besides, if he gets to join a signature campaign it will be 1xbit's. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.

I can confirm very firmly that yahoo62278 is consistent in his judgement. I took my time to go through this thread created by you months ago - Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc. Your submissions in that thread is very consistent with what you are saying here and I strongly align with it.

The problem with the thread you link to, as with account sale cases in general, is that when you start to dig in you find that it was just the tip of the iceberg and there was a lot more shit going on underneath.

yahoo62278 opened that thread because he and others felt some empathy towards martyns and his sobbing story, so common in these cases, but in the end it turned out that it was not only a bought account but that behind it there was ban evading and participation in the 1xBit campaign that we know of, and there are many things that we did not discover in this and other cases.

naim027 at the time also generated a lot of empathy, and many of us fell into the trap, I was one of them, and look how the story ended.

[nutildah]

I think the case you make is too hypothetical.

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

[PytagoraZ]

I have read these rules. But there are also those who really like to mark alt accounts. Who actually makes the rules? Didn't they break the rules by making up their own?

The trust system on the forum is unmoderated. There aren't any rules in place to stop a member from tagging a seller's or buyer's account.

<cut>
But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked

I call this bullshit. I haven't come across a single instance where accounts are tagged by DT members as alts solely based on token transfers between them. There is always other (circumstantial) evidence that connects them.

Noted and thanks
I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven, it might be better if there is a dedicated thread to open acknowledgment of past mistakes, and it's worth noting that forgiven mistakes are about past alt /sale of accounts (according to the agreement). Let the members admit it and maybe it will be better

Past mistakes due to scam or fraud, in my opinion is unforgivable

[Timelord2o67]

I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven...

I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned.

If a person who is inactive for say more than three months, then their trust feedback should "decay" back to neutral over a predetermined time frame. Regardless of whether or not they then come back online in which case the trust feedback paused decaying, but doesn't revert to either positive or negative as the case may be.

[mv1986]

I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven...

I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned.

If a person who is inactive for say more than three months, then their trust feedback should "decay" back to neutral over a predetermined time frame. Regardless of whether or not they then come back online in which case the trust feedback paused decaying, but doesn't revert to either positive or negative as the case may be.

That is definitely wrong. What if someone pulled off a massive scam and the character behind that account is not trustworthy whatsoever? Just go silent for a year or two and come back with neutral trust on that account? What if somebody with +20 trust goes silent for two years, comes back and is obviously the same person? Start from neutral trust? No, that can't be right. It is even asymmetric in the effects it creates for the forum and will to some degree lead to adverse selection. The incentive to work for positive trust decreases while the incentive to profit from negative trust increases.

[PytagoraZ]

I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven...

I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned.

For scammers I think it is not unforgivable. Only people with alt accounts. And that mistake is only in the past. At least 1 or 2 years ago

[lovesmayfamilis]

I think the case you make is too hypothetical.

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

From the very beginning, I thought that the first reason for creating this topic would be to talk about this account.
But for some reason, she left the discussion. And the owner quite flexibly evaded the answer. But if you look closely, then indeed, as you say, "the previous owner was a scammer, and the new owner is just a shitposter."

JollyGood what do you think about it?
But maybe you should take a closer look at these posts.

Since when did an early days developer of Rubycoin with its ticker RBY as username for this forum trying to nick a living through signature campaign and specially after a long 7 years of break from the forum along with hundred of deleted replies re-Rubycoin developments in many places in the forum including here: https://archive.ph/wip/6fUkn? You are not making yourself that much helpful to this known cheater/abuser/ban evader/compulsive liar's case. And also, I have nothing to prove that it is an account which might have been compromised or changed hands but I will post it anyway! Best of luck to everyone getting rid of this Naim027 and his countless bought accounts in the forum!

In your case, I don't buy that you are the real owner of RBY account

You're right, they're not. The account was created to promote a coin called Rubycoin, lol.

Funny that they deleted all their posts from Sept 2015 to Jan 2019  

wonder why that is... oh its because the account was owned by a scammer and then sold to its present owner.

wonder why they bother sticking their nose in threads about alt accounts, lol.

@rby if you are the original account owner, it would appear you still owe CleanWaterCoin 2 BTC, so pay up  

[Timelord2o67]

It seems some FUD and generalisations are creeping into this discussion. Hopefully this side issue will be pushed to one side.


PytagoraZ - not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying someone who owns multiple accounts shouldn't be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they controll the UID's it may not have been proven those accounts were bought?

[PytagoraZ]

It seems some FUD and generalisations are creeping into this discussion. Hopefully this side issue will be pushed to one side.


PytagoraZ - not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying someone who owns multiple accounts shouldn't be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they controll the UID's it may not have been proven those accounts were bought?

OMG...how is this actually? You are someone who I think really likes alt tagging, but you have alt? Honestly I'm confused by the rules of this forum. My understanding of this forum seems to collapse in an instant.

I'm so confused, actually alt is prohibited or not? Please answer me... I am confused to understand this forum

[JollyGood]

I like this unbiased move cause we can see there is some kind of relaxation towards the sold/bought accounts because they have some contribution to the community (basically they earned merits). But let's take the forum rule again "No plagiarism" and if someone did that they will get permanent ban, no excuse while on some exceptions they have been awarded a second chance by admin. So the same thing can be applied here or as DT community it has to be very strict?

I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread.

I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think  tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime.  From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you

It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree.

I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what properly constitutes a crime. According to you, how many different types of crime are there and at what levels should they be deemed worthy of a tag? The different crime you mentioned was related to scam attempts but could there be cases where account buyers are spamming not scamming and deserve a tag?

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.

I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back.

Please elaborate further.

As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability.

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?

Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message.

It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless.

Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address.

This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Now we have two dates from members as far as possible amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any potential amnesty should be conditional or not.

[Poker Player]

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

I am getting lost here, if you are referring to rby.

From the very beginning, I thought that the first reason for creating this topic would be to talk about this account.
...

Since when did an early days developer of Rubycoin with its ticker RBY as username for this forum trying to nick a living through signature campaign and specially after a long 7 years of break from the forum along with hundred of deleted replies re-Rubycoin developments in many places in the forum including here: https://archive.ph/wip/6fUkn? You are not making yourself that much helpful to this known cheater/abuser/ban evader/compulsive liar's case. And also, I have nothing to prove that it is an account which might have been compromised or changed hands but I will post it anyway! Best of luck to everyone getting rid of this Naim027 and his countless bought accounts in the forum!

On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it, and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter.

The only thing that by reading again the insinuation that he could be another of the alts managed by naim027, in this case with a purchased account, is raising my tagging agressivity by the minute.

wonder why that is... oh its because the account was owned by a scammer and then sold to its present owner.

I don't see anything in that link, in his trust profile I don't even see untrusted feedback.

[YOSHIE]

Likewise, if you see any post where a member is selling an account then feel free to post the details here and if you feel strongly about your conviction you should not wait for a review in order to place your own tag. After all, if you feel strongly enough about it to mention the account here maybe you should consider placing your own tag beforehand.

@JollyGood, you remind me of one of the cases I investigated in 2019.

* Topic: account seller, the biggest on the bitcointalk forums from Newbie to Lagendary.

I spent hours disclosing accounts being sold and bought, at that time I realized and on the other hand it can be proven that accounts are sold and bought, really can't be trusted and can harm other people, I really annihilate such account behavior.

I once got a PM from a member here, about two years ago, he bought an account with one of the members in a certain area, he paid $400 for an SR account, after paying the first member who sells accuses the buyer of the account being hacked, even though the buyer has paid the account $400, whether that is good or bad behavior, for both parties, of course not.
On the other hand, I painted the account red and again the account was sold to another member for $50, another buyer PM me to remove the tag I gave, of course I don't care, instead, I doubled the paint twice red, to make it spicier.


I also think that sellers and buyers of accounts should be beaten, so that there are no victims of greed, of course I will publish here at a later date, if I find a trading account, in a new case, to follow up.

[rby]

I am getting lost here, if you are referring to rby.

Poker player, you are a very intelligent and a wise man. The reason I said this is because, even before lovesmayfamilis mentioned my name you already gave a response to the alleged hypothetical statement

How are you going to know that? The only two pieces of information you give are negative, the second less negative than the first, but I don't know if he a scammer or not. Besides, I don't think we're going to see the case you raise because the person who had the account before will have enough red tags and people will have no reason to remove them if they left them in his profile in the first place. If the new owner is "only" a shitposter, do we have to remove the red tags? I don't see it. Besides, if he gets to join a signature campaign it will be 1xbit's. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.

After reading the above, I had to accolade your sense of judgement.

he is not a shitposter.

Thanks for this. But I do not think that this should bother anyone because shitposting is highly subjective. Once I am posting something you do not like, you are free to tag it shitposting even if it does benefit the rest of the community.