Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

[Igebotz]

Focus on the living rather than the dead because they are more likely to commit fraud. Going about tagging the participants of the forum old tradition is meaningless.

What happens when the rest of the DT members sees you as a threat to the system ?

If you live in a glass house do not throw stone

[1714310939]

1714310939

[1714310939]

1714310939

[1714310939]

1714310939

[JollyGood]

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.

If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling.

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.

That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged.

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.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process.

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.

If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying.

And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it.

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?

I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust.

And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members.

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.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.

[FatFork]

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.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.

I might be wrong, but I think nutildah is talking about rby (the user you just replied to). Apparently, the account changed hands, and the previous owner was a scammer from way back (although there aren't any negatives from the DT). I didn't investigate further to determine if the new owner is a spammer or not. 

[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.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.

I might be wrong, but I think nutildah is talking about rby (the user you just replied to). Apparently, the account changed hands, and the previous owner was a scammer from way back (although there aren't any negatives from the DT). I didn't investigate further to determine if the new owner is a spammer or not.  

I spent some time looking at @rby's post history yesterday, and I can safely say that he is not the original owner of the account.
The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week.


https://ninjastic.space/post/7626147


https://ninjastic.space/post/7363114


https://ninjastic.space/post/7638304

And that's why I asked the opinion of @JollyGood himself about what he thinks about this account.
It was he, who was the creator of the topic, who accused this project of being a scam.
There are many allegations about this project on the Internet.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-rby-rubycoin-5102088

They call themselves a precious gem for the digital age but is it all a scam? I posted in their official censored thread and had my post deleted because they want to silence any critical posts just Minex official thread is doing.

After 10 months of no posts in its official Rubycoin thread the OP (rby) woke up from self-imposed hibernation and made the following post:

But if we talk about the fact that the current owner is not the person who was behind the account at the very beginning, then you can simply trace his posts. He does not write like a miner or a coder who understands this. There is not a single answer to the topics of mining or technical discussion. This is the most common account that came to the forum for subscription companies. I don’t call it a shitposter, but the first posts hint at this very much.
There is a significant difference in what he writes about.


https://ninjastic.space/post/8011158

Bot is artificial intelligence that someone program with a certain algorithm. It is program to buy at a particular low and sell at a particular high. Don't forget that the market operates or works on demand and supply.
If the demand and supply change, the bot will do unexpected and may finish your fund.

I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner, and in this case, explain why there are so many complaints about this project. I don't expect much, though.

[JollyGood]

I will continue replying and addressing the key posts in the this thread but as they get too long, I post using small numbers. Having said that I decided to make this post before continuing with matters related specifically to this thread because I cannot be the only one reading these replies from PytagoraZ and wondering why he is very strong in advocating alt-accounts (which may or may not be cheating in signature campaigns and bounties) should not be tagged on the basis they have not scammed.

PytagoraZ has been clear (apart from once in what appears to be a typing error) that there is a distinction between scammers and alt-accounts. I am not disputing that not all alt-accounts are scammers but a member such as PytagoraZ who has been registered in the forum for around 24 days is bringing attention to himself as his motives could be questioned. After all, he seems to know a lot about this forum in a space of the days he has been registered.

Furthermore, he has clearly stated his friends do not have alt-accounts and has already laid down what can be seen by some as the information as protection in case an error of judgement happened on his part (such using a known address or merit abuse or email share etc) because he already covered most of that in his first post in this thread by alluding to account connections and if any such account was connected in future he has a case to cite this thread a reference in that he already stated shared address and said there is an element of fear his friends have when using this forum to the extent they dare not enter yet somehow share posted addresses.

Add to that everything else you can deduce by reading between the lines it makes it clear PytagoraZ is not the newbie he claims to be who somehow frequently switches from the highly knowledgable to the innocent buffoon within the space of a few posts.

For those reasons, if PytagoraZ has nothing constructive to add to this thread I advise him to stop posting here and will also state that if their main motive was to create an account in order to seek further rank for using in future signature campaigns (possibly alongside other accounts), then this PytagoraZ account has already been brought to the attention of some for users who just may keep an eye on it for future reference.

As said earlier, I have been asked some questions by respected members and I intend to answer them as best I can but that will happen in the next post.

Edit: Btw...The person who ordered and taught me to register in this forum now doesn't dare to login to bitcointalk anymore. The reason is because his wallet and friends are connected. Yes, I know my friends don't have alt, but they do have a community that used to be active on the bounty. And often they ask their friends for a little eth/btc. Yes I am willing to bear witness that they are not spammers, just a bunch of young people playing the forums well. But no one dares to enter the forum for fear of being banned/marked

I got this story when I wanted to buy BTC from my own friend and he didn't want to sell it to me because later my account would be considered connected to my friend's account.

Edit: Sorry, maybe this is not a thread for me to join the discussion. Maybe DT can communicate with each other to decide whether tagging alt that doesn't cheat is allowed or not? because forum rules allow alt.

I know about the DT system after installing BPIP extension a week ago

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

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

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

[PytagoraZ]

~snip~

Ok... This is quite long and I will try to answer it with my limited English skills

I think I have caught the attention of a god class member. Maybe it's good for me or bad for me, I don't know, let time will tell my progress in this forum

I just joined this forum about 24 days ago. When I first joined everyone was explaining about forum rules, I read them, then there was a case about using AI, I read about it, then there was a second use case for AI, I read about it, then the case of naim and abraham, I read about it, then the case of royse with poker players , I read it, then I read the timelord thread, Saw many members tagged by actmyname, then I read the meta thread and beniner & help.

Isn't that enough to tell me about this forum?

Before you, there were many people who thought I caught  to know this forum too quickly. Including how I get merit here. I think it's easy, there are lots of threads that help members get merit, they're all here and can be read by anyone

I even sometimes read threads in Russian and I translate them. Maybe my language skills are limited but there is technology that can help me, google translate is enough to help me read many threads here.

My next question is, how long does it take for a new member to understand the forum? As for what needs to be explained here, anyone who wants to read it can understand it quickly.

Sometimes I'm smart enough or sometimes I'm like an idiot, that's a must, because I also need merit, new members like me won't be considered if I answer, so I think it's better to be stupid and ask a lot of questions.

I found a violation but no one answered it, that's because I'm an ordinary member, if you find it, many member will reply and many will give merit. I already understand that most merits are given to famous people, new members are very difficult to get because we are not considered.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5382714.msg62477458#msg62477458

Like I said, I have a friend who has joined this forum. When I was told that I often comment on reputation threads, my friend forbade it. He told me not to relate with DT, because I could get marked. But I ignore it

I think this thread is interesting to discuss. The other threads are just small talk for signature campaigns. I'm not on a campaign so I'm more interested in discussing. Even though I know that what I say won't be taken into account because I'm still a junior member

It might annoy you when a junior member joins in commenting here. Indeed I am a nobody, and you are a DT and a member of the god class. If you tell me to stop commenting here. I will do it. I want to be here safely, I also want to join the campaign one day.

But I didn't find any interesting thread other than here. Maybe it's better for me to become an ordinary member with lots of posts to get merit. And one day you will judge me as a trash poster who is only concerned with merit and sigcamp.

You are free to judge me, because you are the judge. I won't be able to do anything. I'm also not a Timelord2067 who has a high level but doesn't follow the campaign. I'm just an ordinary member. And if you tell me to be an idiot and not to be smart here. I will do it with pleasure.
I hope my writing can be read because my language skills are limited. Maybe I'll edit/fix it for readability
I think this has gone off topic. I'll do what you say in next reply, and after that you can continue the discussion on this topic

[JollyGood]

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.

In this case and in the context of the reply, I agree the expectations he has are over reaching.

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.

Thank you for highlighting this lovesmayfamilis.

Well, I have no idea if nutildah was talking specifically about the rby account but you are right about this thread. It was long overdue but after reading nonsense from rby in the thread you referenced, I decided to create the thread in order to have a generalised discussion about account trading.

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?

Anybody can correct me if I am wrong but it seems he is saying with great conviction (and for reasons not yet fully known) words to the effect of: Someone who owns multiple accounts should not be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they control the accounts until/unless they have scammed.

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.

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.

And if it were a simple case of the rby account simply keeping a low profile and making enough posts to reach signature campaign payment quote then you would not have even looked at their profile. The rby account is yet another that has unilaterally by their own volition brought an unwanted and unnecessary spotlight to themselves.

Having said that do we know for sure who nutildah was referring to?

[nutildah]

On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it

CleanWaterCoin

2014-06-04

Reference

We hired Kassado and paid him 2BTC. Not only did he not deliver any final code, but he refuses to respond or give us our money back.

and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter.

This one is a bit more subjective but I disagree entirely. Aside from the posts made by the previous owner (who was a native English speaker) and the new owner's recent foray into Reputational matters, most of his posts are low-effort nothingness that exist simply to fill a post quota. But I suppose its not fair to single him out from the other accounts that post in the Gambling section which also excel in writing nothingness.

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

You didn't look hard enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[PytagoraZ]

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

You didn't look hard enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Does this have something to do with Royse? I saw a poker player thread with royse getting heated. Looks like you took it that way back

[Poker Player]

You didn't look hard enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, I don't know, I was sure there was nothing, but now I see the untrusted feedback, I guess it was a mistake of mine.

So, we have several untrusted feedback and the only one that has a reference dates back 9 years, accusation of which rby has defended himself although I don't know how well. I would tag him for the account having changed hands but not for that past event that I do not have the information to evaluate but since we are debating it, I will wait to decide whether to tag him or not.

Looks like you took it that way back

I don't know where you got that nonsense from. My friend has nothing to do with what nutildah and I are discussing here.

[The Cryptovator]

Account trading was not closely monitored prior to the implementation of the merit system. It seems that only account sellers were tagged by the Pharmicst. However, after the introduction of the merit system, account trading became widely tagged. This is because it has become increasingly difficult to build an account through merits alone, leading people to choose the option of purchasing accounts instead.

In my opinion, if those involved in account trading had proven themselves to be trustworthy before the merit system was implemented, it might have been considered to remove their tags. However, tagging them instead would have disrupted the balance of the forum and could have reignited conflicts.

Account trading should not be tolerated after the introduction of the merit system. A trustworthy individual would not engage in buying accounts and would instead focus on being a valuable contributor. Good contributors do not need to purchase accounts; they can easily build their own.

[Poker Player]

Account trading should not be tolerated after the introduction of the merit system. A trustworthy individual would not engage in buying accounts and would instead focus on being a valuable contributor. Good contributors do not need to purchase accounts; they can easily build their own.

I think it's a good idea. Accounts that have changed hands as from February 2018 should be red tagged, while in the previous ones it should not be an amnesty in my opinion, but see each case.

[rby]

The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week.

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?

There is not a single answer to the topics of mining or technical discussion. This is the most common account that came to the forum for subscription companies.

Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board?

I don’t call it a shitposter, but the first posts hint at this very much.
There is a significant difference in what he writes about.

I am not moved by the shitposting talks. Just like people wearing signatures and completing weekly post quota, accusing others of posting to complete post quota. LOL
What signifant difference? Someone announcing a project and bumbing a thread and later joining conversation. Nothing to show.

I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner

You understand that you do not have any case here not even an iota. If there be, you should have uncovered it. Atleast, I have known you for sometime here and how you work.

Poker player, follow the standard and don't just speculate. Everyone knows how to go into one another's profile to write whatever feedbacks. But we do it only when there are glaring evidences which are purely indisputable.

[JollyGood]

edited: the original first part of this post will be posted next

And that's why I asked the opinion of @JollyGood himself about what he thinks about this account.
It was he, who was the creator of the topic, who accused this project of being a scam.
There are many allegations about this project on the Internet.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-rby-rubycoin-5102088

They call themselves a precious gem for the digital age but is it all a scam? I posted in their official censored thread and had my post deleted because they want to silence any critical posts just Minex official thread is doing.

After 10 months of no posts in its official Rubycoin thread the OP (rby) woke up from self-imposed hibernation and made the following post:

Yes going all the way back to January 2019 I created a scam accusation about the rby scammer. I cannot recall why I did not tag the account, I simply cannot work out why I did not tag.

Well, though it would be good for the current rby account operator to explain their actions (in the buying/selling process when they purchased the rby account), I expect to hear very little from them now that the account has been tagged by multiple members.

For the current rby account, there is a sense of irony that the account is enrolled in the Sinbad.io signature campaign

The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week.

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?

The laughable part in that post is that somehow the Bitcoin creator (Satoshi) and the Rubycoin creator (rby) have been mentioned in the same sentence

Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board?

So it is confirmed, the current owner/operator of the rby account claims to be the original creator of the account.

I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner

You understand that you do not have any case here not even an iota. If there be, you should have uncovered it. Atleast, I have known you for sometime here and how you work.

Poker player, follow the standard and don't just speculate. Everyone knows how to go into one another's profile to write whatever feedbacks. But we do it only when there are glaring evidences which are purely indisputable.

The current owner/operator of the rby account has already claimed in a post I quoted above that they are the original creator of the account, therefore we have that statement now. They have made it clear they claim are the original owner/creator of the rby account. I think we all agree that claim is absolute nonsense.

From this point forward, all posts related to the "rby" account or the Rubycoin scam in this thread will be deleted as we have already gone off-topic for too long. Feel free to continue the discussion regarding all matters related to the rby account in the newly created uncensored thread: The curious case of forum member: rby (of the Rubycoin scam)

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Account trading was not closely monitored prior to the implementation of the merit system. It seems that only account sellers were tagged by the Pharmicst. However, after the introduction of the merit system, account trading became widely tagged.

You got that mostly right.  

If you can find someone (like maybe Lauda) who was tagging account buyers/sellers before me, please let me know because I think I was the first to start doing so in 2016.  That's because I got scammed for 0.3BTC by TimSweat; he had green trust and I stupidly thought that meant something more than it did.  After that, I realized how dangerous it could be if an account with green trust got into a scammer's hands--and back then, there were all sorts of threads in which accounts like that were being sold.

I didn't discriminate when handing out the red trust back then, but as I said there should be room for second chances.  Every case is different, but in general account trading is a net negative for the forum.  Not everyone thinks traded accounts ought to be tagged, and that's fine.  It's good for us to have a wide range of opinions on things, but I'm always going to side with someone who tags an account buyer or seller.

But if it happened years ago?  Eh.  At this point if the account in question hasn't done any damage and doesn't necessarily have the potential to for the reason I mentioned or because they've turned into a seriously disruptive shitposter/troll, I'd leave it alone.

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?

Lol.  Your point that people and their lives change over time is well-taken.  Whether Satoshi is doing what he was doing back in 2009 and prior is unknown, I could look at my own life and tell you that so much has changed in the past four years that many of the posts I wrote before 2019 I wouldn't have written today (though my writing style hasn't changed that much to my knowledge).

[JollyGood]

If you can find someone (like maybe Lauda) who was tagging account buyers/sellers before me, please let me know because I think I was the first to start doing so in 2016.  That's because I got scammed for 0.3BTC by TimSweat; he had green trust and I stupidly thought that meant something more than it did.  After that, I realized how dangerous it could be if an account with green trust got into a scammer's hands--and back then, there were all sorts of threads in which accounts like that were being sold.

These are moments of a historical period being posted and shared therefore it is interesting to read about what was going on back there. I had no idea you were scammed back then but I do have recollections of reading some of your feedbacks for account buyers. Now I understand why you did it.

I didn't discriminate when handing out the red trust back then, but as I said there should be room for second chances.  Every case is different, but in general account trading is a net negative for the forum.  Not everyone thinks traded accounts ought to be tagged, and that's fine.  It's good for us to have a wide range of opinions on things, but I'm always going to side with someone who tags an account buyer or seller.

But if it happened years ago?  Eh.  At this point if the account in question hasn't done any damage and doesn't necessarily have the potential to for the reason I mentioned or because they've turned into a seriously disruptive shitposter/troll, I'd leave it alone.

One of the problems with that rby account at the moment is that I created a scam accusation for Rubycoin years ago, for one reason or another I did not tag it probably because I forgot or was busy looking around for other scams. Several years later the buyer purchased it because it did not any have any red tags from DT members and it could used for signature campaigns therefore had I tagged it back in 2019 it most probably would never have been put up for sale and there would never have been a buyer or a seller.

Whether the current owner/operator of the rby account is disruptive (or not) did not form my basis of the negative feedback. The rby account was behind the Rubycoin scam and for that reason the account should have been tagged when I created the scam accusation in 2019. When I noticed my error I decided to tag for that scam.

I have no interest if the current owner/operator of the rby account is contributing positively or not, all that matters to me is that the rby account was used for the Rubycoin scam and deserves a tag. What does not help the current owner/operator is that he is lying when he claims he miraculously remembered post-Covid19 that he had a forum account and because of nostalgia decided to reactivate it. Instead of owning up to having multiple accounts he has gone down the opposite route.

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?

Lol.  Your point that people and their lives change over time is well-taken.  Whether Satoshi is doing what he was doing back in 2009 and prior is unknown, I could look at my own life and tell you that so much has changed in the past four years that many of the posts I wrote before 2019 I wouldn't have written today (though my writing style hasn't changed that much to my knowledge).

You are posting to an account buyer/seller who is probably using multiple accounts enrolled on signature campaigns. Apart from maybe a thread or post here and there where he demonstrates he is not exactly a low quality poster (and that is subjective), it is all a smokescreen designed for misdirection just in the event any of his accounts gets caught out.

It happens with other account buyers too because all they are interested in is meeting their posting quota for their signature campaigns. He really does not have any interest in Satoshi or anything else beyond signature campaigns enrolment.  

==================================

Where do you think we should draw the line with tagging accounts that have been purchased as far as amnesty is concerned? Some have cited the date of the introduction of the feedback system others have said other things. I would like to read your views.

[yahoo62278]

You are posting to an account buyer/seller who is probably using multiple accounts enrolled on signature campaigns. Apart from maybe a thread or post here and there where he demonstrates he is not exactly a low quality poster (and that is subjective), it is all a smokescreen designed for misdirection just in the event any of his accounts gets caught out.

It happens with other account buyers too because all they are interested in is meeting their posting quota for their signature campaigns. He really does not have any interest in Satoshi or anything else beyond signature campaigns enrolment.  

Aren't most people who are in sig campaigns worried about post quota and getting paid? We may not be buying accounts in order to circumvent the process of ranking up and enrolling, but we still have the same worries, or we wouldn't be in the campaigns.

Sorry wasn't trying to derail, i just feel like bought account or not we still have some of the same issues. Some just did it the right way vs the other way.

Whether a new owner or not, if the account was involved in a scam, they should probably be tagged and the new owner just has to deal with the collateral damage. If they were that worried about future consequences, then they should have done some research before purchasing the account. That is, assuming the seller released the name before purchase. If not, buyers should stay out of forum drama and just worry about their post quota to stay under the radar. How many times has a person tried to get involved and been outted? This guy would not be the 1st. Learn your lesson here folks!!!

[JollyGood]

Aren't most people who are in sig campaigns worried about post quota and getting paid? We may not be buying accounts in order to circumvent the process of ranking up and enrolling, but we still have the same worries, or we wouldn't be in the campaigns.

Sorry wasn't trying to derail, i just feel like bought account or not we still have some of the same issues. Some just did it the right way vs the other way.
I agree, those of us participating in signature campaigns have a quota to meet that cannot denied. Whereas for some of us already Hero or Legendary rank we can receive the highest payouts but for some it would include ranking up too. You are not wrong when you stated some just did it the right way vs the other way.

Are you still of the thought that there should be blanket amnesty for account traders before say 1st July 2023 and that all traded accounts discovered after this date can be tagged: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457879.msg62478118#msg62478118

Various views have been put forward, I would like to compile and present them as comparators to take the discussion forward.

Whether a new owner or not, if the account was involved in a scam, they should probably be tagged and the new owner just has to deal with the collateral damage. If they were that worried about future consequences, then they should have done some research before purchasing the account. That is, assuming the seller released the name before purchase.

That was precisely why I decided to tag the rby account. I should have tagged it in 2019 when created the scam thread but the account and not necessarily the new owner was the receiving the tag and in those circumstances they have to accept the collateral damage (as you put it) and move on.

If an account has been associated with a scam, it should be tagged for that specific scam regardless of whether the new owner/operator is posting excellent quality content or low quality trash.

If not, buyers should stay out of forum drama and just worry about their post quota to stay under the radar. How many times has a person tried to get involved and been outted? This guy would not be the 1st. Learn your lesson here folks!!!

There are many cases as you aptly pointed out where those with multiple accounts or purchased accounts are quietly receiving this signature campaign payouts by posting in threads where they can keep a low profile yet for inexplicable reasons they decide to get involved in threads where they get noticed and for that reason some members start looking to those accounts only to discover the accounts were either hacked/brought/sold or there are a series of connected alt-accounts.

They do not learn from others mistakes and like others they get themselves noticed and only have themselves to blame.

[yahoo62278]

Are you still of the thought that there should be blanket amnesty for account traders before say 1st July 2023 and that all traded accounts discovered after this date can be tagged: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457879.msg62478118#msg62478118

Account sellers may have purchased the account for resale and are not tied to the scam, but if an account scammed they fall into the collateral damage category as well. It's the account that gets ruined, the seller themselves may have nothing to do with the scam.

Again, it should be looked at as case by case, if the seller was not in control and didn't do the scam, why tag them? Aside from the fact that people dislike sellers. The account that the scam was done on is what should be tagged.

Its a whole mess of a topic for sure. My mind could be swayed and its a subject that we will never get 50%+ of the masses to agree on.

[jokers10]

Again, it should be looked at as case by case, if the seller was not in control and didn't do the scam, why tag them? Aside from the fact that people dislike sellers. The account that the scam was done on is what should be tagged.

Imagine someone hacked account of satoshi (if it wasn't blocked) and sold it to someone for signature posting. The buyer will fairly post some low quality things for getting paid and will never scam anyone. And what about a reputation of original owner of satoshi's account? If he's not among us at the moment, has it no value anymore?

If someone pretends to be someone else it is shady by itself. It's not just about that I don't like sellers. If someone will decide to sell his own account, well, I think at least neutral tag is needed, but, well, it's not such a big deal for me (for some others it is a problem). What I don't like is that account trading motivates hackers to hack old accounts. And buyers pretend to get background of the original owner for their own and ruin his reputation.