Abusing behaviours by nutildah and JollyGood

[TheGreatPython]

What happened::

nutildah is re-opening a closed case with the help of JollyGood. The reason for re-opening is not letting down their investigation work because they feel like letting down will de-faming of their investigation skills in front of this community.

Profile Links of people involved:
nutildah: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=317618
JollyGood: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855
lovesmayfamilis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1982152

Reference Link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506921.0

Detailed explanation:

1. nutildah suspected about the ownership of my account with a post from 2021 against my recent local board posting. Even I proved my ownership by signing with a post from 2016, they were not ready to accept and kept refusing without proper explanation or proof for their claim.

2. After 3 weeks of struggle, finally nutildah decided (literally pretended) to remove my trust page tag but asked JollyGood to take over.

3. nutildah had never been ready to give up their one of investigation effort by removing their tag which must be be the primary reason why JollyGood entered into the picture.

4. JollyGood has been active on the same topic but decided to tag all the users whose cases posted on that topic on the same exact day where nutildah removing my tag after unable to explain their claims.

5. Asking for additional tagging is not a problem or asking to take over is not a problem. But, tricking to re-open a closed case by asking another person is a definite sign of abusement.

6. From the beginning, nutildah were too conscious about not removing their tag even after a cryptographic proof was submitted. Due to this exact same reason, the help from JollyGood might have been asked.

7. JollyGood tagged me just after nutildah removing the tag, with contents which is similar to what nutildah did.

8. After I requested JollyGood about removing the tag by citing the proof I had submitted, they revised the comment which is still proving nutildah's investigation is accurate and my proof was manipulated one. This is another clear sign why JollyGood decided to tag on SAME DAY where nutildah removed theirs.

9. Taking over by JollyGood was not a co-incident which can be confirmed by lovesmayfamilis's post here. lovesmayfamilis was primary contributor on that topic but they remained biased even after I submit a cryptographic proof and never stated any opinion but he was excited to talk about my case after JollyGood taking over my case. Being biased even after a proof where they continuously contributing is definitely not a good sign.


Additional Notes:

nutildah :
1. nutildah registered here by 2014 but no traces of any BTC addy prior to 2018. The first BTC addy could be found on the post history is available from 2018 post. Probably all previous posts with BTC addys might have been deleted.
2. By 2014, all 100% posts were from altcoin boards but the posting interest changed to other boards by 2018/2019.
3. The password of nutildah account has been reset for exact 10 times within the time frame of 3 months in 2018.

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=317618



lovesmayfamilis:
A confirmed plagiariser who had been banned at least once.


Looking for your opinion....

[holydarkness]

This belongs to the reputation board, as none of the members being mentioned on your post currently made any scam attempt, allegedly or proven. The one that you created for JG, would be better fit for such discussion than this one.

Oh, a small but helpful hint, when you create a thread, wanting people to address the challenge, perhaps it'll work better and better serve the purpose if you didn't lock them immediately after creation, as it will effectively prevent any means of discussion or any attempt at all, thus, rather counterproductive.

[suchmoon]

Additional Notes

Great strategy, claim that you're unfairly accused by launching unfounded accusations at others.

[mindrust]

I only see 2 neutral trust ratings on your profile. One note from jolly which explains what happened pretty briefly and the other is suchmoon's diary notes which nobody cares about nowadays I guess. What's the purpose of this thread?

Do you accuse someone with something? Since they dropped their charges against you, you should move on and be a happy fella.

If you are accusing someone with something, then you should give us more details . Otherwise this thread serves no purpose or whatsoever.

Someone was mean to you and you proved them wrong, the story ended there.

[yahoo62278]

Don't you think the better move might have been to just drop it and move on? You have 2 neutral tags, neither of which should harm your ability to do anything on this forum. Most of us probably have a neutral tag or 2 by this point with the way the trust system works. All you have done with this thread is likely put more eyes on your account, which if you are legit you have no worries, but if not those neutrals will be red at some point.

[Stalker22]

@JollyGood, please answer here

How do you expect him to answer you there when you locked your thread right after?  Smart move indeed. 

[AB de Royse777]

lovesmayfamilis:
A confirmed plagiariser who had been banned at least once.


Looking for your opinion....

I don't know the whole story to give you opinion about you and whatever you have done but lovesmayfamilis proved his worth in the forum. Everyone have good and bad in the past, intentionally or unintentionally we make mistakes, it's the nature of human.

An account without making mistakes is cleverly crafted and well planned account to build reputation for whatever reasons it have but an account owned by an average person with ups and downs, mistake and corrections is surely an account that is behind a real person. lovesmayfamilis is one of these member who has real character.

Try to be real, you will not need to convince anyone.

[Vod]

What happened::
nutildah is re-opening a closed case with the help of JollyGood. The reason for re-opening is not letting down their investigation work because they feel like letting down will de-faming of their investigation skills in front of this community.

If your second sentence is making such an assumption, there is no reason to continue reading.  If you have facts, we can review them.   Nutty and Jolly have done nothing but good for this community. 

[nutildah]

Well this is interesting. You share a wallet with loan scammer lemipawa.

Address: 1PNQDmVYFhofPSBZKonz8RKUhxSFUFrQnN
Game: Green
Multiplier: x1

Just done it , Thanks

1CJioEjSNrstkqejzLEjZYbQZeWTnWz2Bp

Let's take a look at what other accounts use this wallet:

1HJAVemb5v8WvBRKVqpJrtujPLaGd3UfC8 - Beymond (inactive)
16zp7rX9xPKNGW59scY6ZrB2Wz7mehmrB2 - wayneyoyo (-3 trust)
151V2aLR9QCes65LC4RNCMXgkGhVujm7XD - Beymond/Winalunt (inactive)
1DdffAP4WJoZbrdezXq9ptHeHhgpQ2hvBB - sosulon (banned)
16Rk4mqYKDRPvPjnvdbEbJgBU3zKtWLFZ1 - Beymond/Sniar (banned)
1CtJGHpc1UpN9qTaD6ZeMSRhNM6CAxkTPA - Sniar/fr0sties (inactive)
1PkhUt1XY7LoPj3nTyTFpF1eae7uiDqn4u - chaolang (banned)/Inkvor (inactive)
14koWo7eACQAw1XV71EK3uVFdtuieJfY9M - sosulon/Kiweikoo (banned)
1CncdEpheAjaN7Ta9KDrfhPoNKDB8rHjQ7 - sosulon
1Pbx8ZwXCuGYc91m3KzE3ZaFv9cp3F6Dae - Daijess (banned)
12oe3ifQXLEvYndNQ9u3wJ1b85LRnToZx9 - Alarmoz (inactive)
1FKSepDE9nLoWKWm52R5EJEmQVuyL7UWAb - Quasis (inactive)/Reenth (inactive)
18AX93bL7gtgadzKgjPRfpkXQFMR12fFCe - chaolang/nikona (inactive)/chaosPT (banned)
1GTVdyau7QmvAgZacDn6gXbYLk9xkVvfGX - davinchi (-1 trust, alt accounts connected)
17iPvTFx3HYPS8Mp8KWQaMXWB55yTTB5W2 - lemipawa/xinzark (banned)
19WtTNeKKbjKu6NQu2YSpSxwDT6ooaU18Z - Gladdy (inactive)/darlings (-1 trust)
1CPYBnqkfpqTdzQbQphEcAECNKCVbrQyQE - Sniar/wayneyoyo
1FtVMS4KzeJWyrdoEFsjo7ogw8bRsHmHFh - arallmuus (DT2)
1GmZVjPypWyREsi6HfVoAvf2WUdmUN6mVh - Inkvor/Alarmoz (inactive)
1H9jgsUdRtQiMjih5jWgFazye1xRHBbCGk - arallmuus
1PcgQXeVXN3kSNDYhLWgXMPg1t3bxWSuKo - MCdelux (inactive)/ZendiMOREN (inactive)
115fPdcnjE9hNo5Hwun7QLr3eWpDF93RKx - lemipawa/Daijess
1ANY4AY94MyYL7z45tVyqAMmphg61zsx4i - Sniar/jeep.jeep (banned)
13sBJfsUUBsrdsfqa5BtMSfVE5Tm4ALoFw - eMoxes (inactive)
1CJioEjSNrstkqejzLEjZYbQZeWTnWz2Bp - lemipawa/ajaxmoor (+2 trust, inactive)
12Y9A5TtxiuZn9MaVGgf8ukYJu2RPHznxv - Reenth/Nombuchril (inactive)
1J8EfHyMpm3PfmvchSphDugbcnrwnD6FST - ladyfox (banned)/Dohat (inactive)
1Bcvk2TfmveW1VWxLS1eCE3yF61oTjAeuo - lemipawa/adicted (inactive)
1MyMrP98tC4v8NTYwxj4RYWUUpX5bpSE2L - Chrismon (inactive)/roreick (inactive)
1A2WYMNb6JbGqJk1oCEGpbG8iAKEPEnqKB - teddybear (active)
1HXZ6vCx5G9hPdfm9ULrr62hzBwFnEXaxz - Gladdy (inactive)
1Hewedt4WCXkHHB77mJEXHV1jwWeAXoWCZ - vennali (-5 trust, inactive)/Munouhapi (inactive)
1BzD6g9mKkHtT16XA4AFELwfhQ7ujhC3mT - DevilMayCry (inactive)/phibay (+1 trust, inactive)
17X2dNhr61pnRus3GwmiHxqA7DtKEg2U58 - wuvdoll (banned)
1AtEHKngL7Bkkx5caw56C4wmx8sdny5XCH - wayneyoyo/vennali/teddybear
13ECgup8zi58cWNSKoMHwUuP7vFQHAQ4rm - Sniar/LucasJunior (banned)/havecoch (neutral tag for bought account, inactive)/Vesther (inactive)
1xQcedxKzZ5prx3Y5HDbjAVpPtyVaHoeV - Opekill (inactive)/DoubleTrouble (inactive)
1bTTMPfxYZP18r4Na9WoBT4HgqcgEhAM5 - kurapica (inactive)
169bLUGkRzFKm2iZQuBgqp9Ue3McUxUmkN - DoubleTrouble/deuce22 (inactive -1 trust for account trading)/PantFire (inactive)
1LihEhPr2uinagaTsDhSGc75W1mvWuBsqH - vennali
1LAzbbfC3WviDgUXaVVA2HU6MEKhwKUgWy - crazyrapid (inactive)
18NXQto1ZDYU3aXgWyzkjWhAdpAfpUYtka - Ponymah (inactive)
1FKUaEo3XLPJ1zHRRfwudVrxQ3yvtowwYh - lolipop (inactive)
1PGezYkcBBRj9PTHt1KvzdJdFaTyiDbA1b - Lixer (active)
14S74rSNir3FgdpZ48ksK4tkKTKx33FioL - PantFire/millionbaby (inactive)
1EkWDe8epjXAQRrFXzCn5JgDAWRYX6AXYU - TheGreatPython (active)
1BwPWkJ5iePeY68TLNEoCgRh4cFrcrcZVt - memoryDept (banned)
1DQjoZfxp7YTdDeQEDKuhUwhtBU82n9GHp - Noisskal (inactive)
15KFMptRWbaPtZZXi6At9YpeK6tw1Zw4Dn - Umworpol (banned)
1DnX4ApQbGJBgA5WU8UvpR8WZwR6kDhYYZ - arallmuus/ZendiMOREN/Nombuchril
1EqVjb8C9P1adc5X312EKfRKoFRzP3Lwn9 - bosskilla (inactive)
1CuwC8nsrvSKddSq3QDTk2oQAoyXtZTRv4 - Laosai (-1 for being alt of scammer, inactive)
1PNQDmVYFhofPSBZKonz8RKUhxSFUFrQnN - TheGreatPython

Because you are the original account owner, as you so fastidiously claim, that means you're a campaign/contest cheater, loan scammer, hacked account seller, thief and ban evader.

Before red tagging you I'm really curious to see what kind of defense you'll put up against this.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Because you are the original account owner, as you so fastidiously claim, that means you're a campaign/contest cheater, loan scammer, hacked account seller, thief and ban evader.

Before red tagging you I'm really curious to see what kind of defense you'll put up against this.

This is another topic in which the OP will seem to bury himself much deeper than he imagined - because even if only 10% of what was written in the previous post were true, then it only reveals the extent to which some are prepared to go to achieve some of their goals. I'm also interested in what the OP has to say about all this...

[Shishir99]

Well this is interesting. You share a wallet with loan scammer lemipawa....

because you are the original account owner, as you so fastidiously claim, that means you're a campaign/contest cheater, loan scammer, hacked account seller, thief and ban evader.

Before red tagging you I'm really curious to see what kind of defense you'll put up against this.

WTF was that?
I was actually convinced once he signed a message from an old address. So, even if he is the original owner of this account, he is ban evader, scammer and cheater? It's all based on your comment because I haven't checked the cases for each user. You have mentioned dozens of accounts and addresses. Now I am curious if OP would comeback saying yes, I bought this account and the wallet and I am not associated with those accounts. In both cases, his account will be painted red. But, I am curious what will be his response.

I was saying this.

OP, if you disagree with the feedback, create your own reputation thread and invite JollyGood to join if he wants (You seems created a thread, but it's locked). If other community members think he is not right and overreacting, he might get some DT exclusion. But if community thinks he is right, you are likely to get more feedbacks.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Good. Another jerk who comes here to protest about being treated unfairly and leaves with a much worse reputation. I think this is going to be a contrarian indicator when someone protests we better prepare the red tags.

In this case I will wait to see what he says since this is what Nutildah, who has done the work, is going to before leaving a nice red tag in his profile.

[JollyGood]

It seems we will not see the OP again.

He was online and active a couple of hours after the detailed and informative post by nutildah but has opted to not post a reply. It is probably safe to assume he will be focusing on his other accounts that have not been discovered yet as he attempts to recover from what just happened to his TheGreatPython account.

Had he not brought all that attention to himself, he might have gone unnoticed again for several years but now he has lost any practical use of the account he was trying to get in to a campaign (and each of the associated accounts will be tagged).

[Lucius]

WTF was that?
I was actually convinced once he signed a message from an old address. So, even if he is the original owner of this account, he is ban evader, scammer and cheater?
~snip~

Why do you think that account belongs to him personally if he signed the message from some old address? As far as I remember from some posts of those who sold BTT accounts, they included the full package - which means the original e-mail, and private keys for all publicly published addresses.

The only thing left as a possible proof that it is not the original owner is the comparison of IP addresses that can only be seen by the admin - and it only makes sense if the old and new owner did not use VPN or Tor.

[suchmoon]

Because you are the original account owner, as you so fastidiously claim, that means you're a campaign/contest cheater, loan scammer, hacked account seller, thief and ban evader.

Before red tagging you I'm really curious to see what kind of defense you'll put up against this.

Ok, the whole thing makes more sense now, OP tried to discredit you preemptively with this thread, knowing that the walls are closing in.

[nutildah]

These must be bought accounts; its hard to imagine that they are all still controlled by one person. But what to do with these ones:

1FtVMS4KzeJWyrdoEFsjo7ogw8bRsHmHFh - arallmuus (DT2)
1PGezYkcBBRj9PTHt1KvzdJdFaTyiDbA1b - Lixer (active)

They are technically ban evading & I can prove it, although it requires connecting alts that share addresses. On the other hand, its been 9 years & they haven't scammed anybody since purchasing the accounts (pretty sure that is what happened).

Ok, the whole thing makes more sense now, OP tried to discredit you preemptively with this thread, knowing that the walls are closing in.

What's funny is I was going to let the whole thing be. I certainly didn't coordinate anything with JollyGood and was ready to forget about it.

[Stalker22]

This just keeps getting better and better! This is why I love threads like this in the Reputation section. Hahahaha!

Great job @nutildah. I will review the evidence you have provided, and I think this will justify adding a bit more red to the OP account.

[Shishir99]

Why do you think that account belongs to him personally if he signed the message from some old address? As far as I remember from some posts of those who sold BTT accounts, they included the full package - which means the original e-mail, and private keys for all publicly published addresses.

First of all, I don't know how many accounts actually bought/sold with all the things you mentioned. I don't remember seeing such threads. Probably these thing happened a long time ago which I don't know. But I came to know that account selling is not prohibited and people used to buy sell account back in the old days. Even it was normal to collateral BitcoinTalk account to take loans.

The 2nd thing is, if that is the case, why do we even ask for a signed message from an old address knowing the current account owner could provide a signed message from an old address? It becomes a standard to ask for a signed message from an address and this is the reason people stake their Bitcoin address. This is why I thought It would be okay if he can sign a message.

[TheGreatPython]

Well this is interesting. You share a wallet

Yeah, because that was a custodial addy (from an exchange or casino, could not recall).

[FatFork]

Well this is interesting. You share a wallet

Yeah, because that was a custodial addy (from an exchange or casino, could not recall).

A custodial wallet doesn't quite explain the evidence provided by nutildah. If it truly were a custodial wallet where you don't control the private keys (like those from centralized exchanges or gambling platforms), you wouldn't be able to initiate individual transactions from those addresses, as shown in the example provided by nutildah:


The transaction in question has three shared inputs and two outputs, one of which returns funds back to your wallet (change address). This suggests control over the private keys.

Now, if you're talking about a different kind of "custodial" wallet, like the one on blockchain.com where you do control the keys, then it wouldn't make sense to only have some keys and not all of them, right?