DaveF tainting my trust with baseless claims without reading my posts

[mochi86_]

Fellow user DaveF seems to have tainted my trust by falsely accusing me of 'Claiming to have wallet with 300000+ BTC'.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5496715.msg64086137#msg64086137 This was my thread on me FINDING a website's directory holding a corrupted wallet.dat file (in which THEY claimed that it holds 300000+ BTC) that I shared the link and everything so everyone else can investigate it on their own instead of pinning me for false information.
HOWEVER, DaveF seems to be so giddy to not even read my extensive fvking explanations and just assume I was trying to scam the people of this forum. I find this very outrageous and that the mods do something about this.

I understand that this forum probably has a section dedicated solely for getting issues like these resolved but I want everyone to know that what our fellow forum user DaveF did is not acceptable and completely absurd.

As the title states, mods, you may delete this thread AS LONG AS this outrageous issue is resolved and DaveF's false negative trust feedback gets removed from my profile. <-- As noted by esteemed users of this forum, I will be taking this claim back.

Summary:
I didn't claim to have a wallet with 300000+ BTC, I simply stated that I found a site which directory held a corrupted file which claimed that, not me. DaveF seems to not read for shit and claim false accusations. I understand that there may be a section of the forum dedicated for getting this resolved but I need everyone to know that falsely accusing someone without reading anything they wrote it completely absurd and outrageous.

^I understand that foul language don't solve crap but if I'm being honest, I only used it to this extent to express how I felt. I will take it back tho 

[mochi86_]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5496715.msg64087265#msg64087265

This response was where I gave the website link and extensive info about my findings just so everyone knows.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

If you want to get help on this problem I suggest you change the title as most people here are paid to post and if they think they are spending time on this thread trying to help you solve the problem and their posts are going to be deleted you are disincentivising them. So I'm not surprised no one has responded to this post yet. Better change the title to something that sums up what it is about and when it is resolved you can lock the thread, bottom left.

[LoyceV]

Fellow user DaveF seems to have tainted my trust by falsely accusing me of 'Claiming to have wallet with 300000+ BTC'.

So you thought the best thing to do was leaving retaliatory negative feedback? You should read my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

As the title states, mods, you may delete this thread AS LONG AS this outrageous issue is resolved and DaveF's false negative trust feedback gets removed from my profile.

That's not how things work around here. Mods don't just delete threads, and you don't get to make conditions for them.

Summary:
I didn't claim to have a wallet with 300000+ BTC, I simply stated that I found a site which directory held a corrupted file which claimed that, not me. DaveF seems to not read for shit and claim false accusations. I understand that there may be a section of the forum dedicated for getting this resolved but I need everyone to know that falsely accusing someone without reading anything they wrote it completely absurd and outrageous.

The foul language isn't helping your case. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

[ABCbits]

2 users above me made good suggestion, i would recommend OP to follow their suggestion. Anyway, i believe OP doesn't deserve the negative trust where OP's behavior is different than usual scammer or shady user on this forum.

[JeromeTash]

In this forum, people look out for scammers and suspicious chaps, so it's no surprise that you received a negative tag. If you are not sure about something. It's better you ask. What you are trying to do and also sending that retaliatory feedback will not help at all

Also, mods do not delete such threads unless if you maybe move it to archival board but... the reference is already there.

[mochi86_]

Before I start off my response, I want to mention:
- I did rename this thread
- I did edit my original post
- This response — like basically all my responses — is descriptive asf so please do not respond with topics I have covered here. Thank you in advance!

Fellow user DaveF seems to have tainted my trust by falsely accusing me of 'Claiming to have wallet with 300000+ BTC'.

So you thought the best thing to do was leaving retaliatory negative feedback? You should read my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

With all due respect LoyceV, I put a negative feedback in hopes of him realizing what he's done. <-- If DaveF is willing to be cooperative in resolving this issue, I will be removing the feedback so things are back to how they were. If not, I have no choice but to keep it there.

I do believe everyone's familiar with the term 'an eye for an eye'? That's the thinking process I had. Now, it seems that such esteemed forum user as yourself don't really agree with what I have done here, but I can't really change my ways just because an highly respected user told me to.

^I will, however, keep what you said in mind in case such a case happens in the future.


Now, I didn't just start this thread so I can just yap my butt off about the issue. I will admit, I was in a very flabbergasted position at the time of starting this thread and had just let my emotions take over on expressing the issue; I now see I should have maybe taken a more civil approach.

Mind you, I am still in uni, and well... I don't really like how my generation(GenZ) acts but it gets the better of me at times — like these — where it comes out and I say/act in ways I didn't intend to.

In this forum, people look out for scammers and suspicious chaps, so it's no surprise that you received a negative tag.

JeromeTash, I understand that fully. I am well aware myself on how 'vigilant' this forum is about scams but I would kindly ask you to take your time to read what I had posted that our fellow user DaveF seems to find as 'suspicious'. Why, you may ask, should you take the time to? Because I clearly mentioned everything everyone needs to know INCLUDING where I got the files and everything.

If you are not sure about something. It's better you ask.

I'm surprised you say this to me but not to the older users of this forum. Here's my take on it (let me know what you think on it too, thank you!):

Just because you think someone's a scammer does not mean you get to immediately label them as one. I, for one, am NOT a scammer. Hell, I've been scammed a couple of grand by a bitcoin scammer. I understand the hate for scammers. HOWEVER, if you are quick to label someone as a scammer when they really aren't, aren't you responsible for making their start in this forum a miserable one?

Also, mods do not delete such threads unless if you maybe move it to archival board but... the reference is already there.

As for this, I mistaken this forum for forums like Reddit or something LOL That's my fault; I forgot that this forum's more old-school hehe

[LoyceV]

With all due respect LoyceV, I put a negative feedback in hopes of him realizing what he's done. <-- If DaveF is willing to be cooperative in resolving this issue, I will be removing the feedback so things are back to how they were. If not, I have no choice but to keep it there.

Your "threat" is meaningless, you're not on DT. Look at this Untrusted feedback for example: it's meaningless.

I do believe everyone's familiar with the term 'an eye for an eye'? That's the thinking process I had.

That's quite uncivilized.

Now, it seems that such esteemed forum user as yourself don't really agree with what I have done here, but I can't really change my ways just because an highly respected user told me to.

You're still missing the point. The relevance of feedback is (more or less) based on whether or not "the community" trusts the judgement of the user who left it. I couldn't care less about the retaliatory feedback you leave, as long as it doesn't show up by default.

^I will, however, keep what you said in mind in case such a case happens in the future.

That's something

Now, I didn't just start this thread so I can just yap my butt off about the issue. I will admit, I was in a very flabbergasted position at the time of starting this thread and had just let my emotions take over on expressing the issue; I now see I should have maybe taken a more civil approach.

You can of course still change that. Use the edit button and correct mistakes.

Mind you, I am still in uni, and well... I don't really like how my generation(GenZ) acts but it gets the better of me at times — like these — where it comes out and I say/act in ways I didn't intend to.

Welcome to adulthood, where life is full of disappointments

Just because you think someone's a scammer does not mean you get to immediately label them as one.

Lol. That's exactly how it works. With convincing evidence, of course.

You see now how all the "drama" you create distracts from what you were trying to accomplish?

[hugeblack]

2 users above me made good suggestion, i would recommend OP to follow their suggestion. Anyway, i believe OP doesn't deserve the negative trust where OP's behavior is different than usual scammer or shady user on this forum.

+1
DaveF is a good member and rarely gives unfair negative trust but since scammers claim to have access to wallet.dat he might be wrong with that negative trust.
Also don't forget that you tried to search for these files.

Anyway the only one who can remove it is DaveF, so lock this topic, be friendly, send him a message with this topic link and the matter will be resolved.
I trust him and I don't think he is biased in his judgments.

[DaveF]

If anyone cares, here is a link to the original text of the post:

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6408/64086137.html

So you 'found it' and when were called out on it changed your post.
Not even a minor edit the post was totally changed.

You even had this in it

I will reveal more info of where I got this file and how later as this information seems to be very valuable even if the file may be corrupted.

So yes you claimed to have access to a wallet with 300000+

So no, the neg trust stays for now.  

Don't see what the big deal is, unless you were planing to join a signature campaign it does not really matter. And it's only one negative, most people don't pay attention to just 1 it's when you get more then that it matters.

As for the people mentioning the retaliatory negative feedback. That is an issue for the mods to decide, personally I don't care if it's there or not since they are not on DT so most people will not see it and I'm sure others at this point will probably give them a ~ in their settings so they will probably never get to DT.

-Dave

[LoyceV]

If anyone cares, here is a link to the original text of the post:

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6408/64086137.html

He sounds like a dreamer, thinking he found 20 billion dollars on the internet. Lol.
It doesn't make sense to load wallet.dat into Electrum.

For what it's worth: I would not have tagged him for this.

[Wapfika]

Don't see what the big deal is, unless you were planing to join a signature campaign it does not really matter. And it's only one negative, most people don't pay attention to just 1 it's when you get more then that it matters.

Most probably he wants his account reputation stay clean due to the nature of what he is posting that needs trust in able to view it seriously(he thinks user will believe on his findings). His account doesn’t aim for campaign rather due to the purpose to attract to whatever scheme he is planning in the future that related to this huge BTC findings?.

~

On the side note, neutral feedback is much better since he doesn’t share any info that will give risk to other user.

[DaveF]

....For what it's worth: I would not have tagged him for this....

yeah, but you are a nicer person then I am :-)

Don't see what the big deal is, unless you were planing to join a signature campaign it does not really matter. And it's only one negative, most people don't pay attention to just 1 it's when you get more then that it matters.

Most probably he wants his account reputation stay clean due to the nature of what he is posting that needs trust in able to view it seriously(he thinks user will believe on his findings). His account doesn’t aim for campaign rather due to the purpose to attract to whatever scheme he is planning in the future that related to this huge BTC findings?.

~

On the side note, neutral feedback is much better since he doesn’t share any info that will give risk to other user.

But if there is / was a plan / scheme to sell access to their 'super secret methods of getting access or something it does serve as a warning.

As I said above will keep it as a neg for now. Will keep an eye on them to see if their posting improves.

-Dave

[Poker Player]

For what it's worth: I would not have tagged him for this.

Considering that the only red tag you have sent in all of 2024 was to LoyceAprilFools for obvious reasons I don't take it as a reason to not red tag someone. Rather it's the opposite, if I see you red tag someone I know there are plenty of reasons to do so but just because you don't do it or don't see reasons doesn't mean it's not justified in my view.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

DaveF is a good member and rarely gives unfair negative trust but since scammers claim to have access to wallet.dat he might be wrong with that negative trust.

Yep, he's not a prolific red-tag giver as far as I know and he's also a trusted member of the community--even so, we all make mistakes now and then.  Not saying he did or didn't; that's to be determined.

Anyway the only one who can remove it is DaveF, so lock this topic, be friendly, send him a message with this topic link and the matter will be resolved.

OP, pay attention to the above advice to be "friendly" regardless of how annoyed you might be.  At the very least, don't leave retaliatory feedback before starting up a thread like this.  The only thing that's going to achieve is you getting shit from everyone (as already evidenced by some of the comments) and decreasing the likelihood of getting your issue resolved.  Nobody here respects retaliatory negatives, so when you hand one out it absolutely works against you. 

[mochi86_]

With all due respect LoyceV, I put a negative feedback in hopes of him realizing what he's done. <-- If DaveF is willing to be cooperative in resolving this issue, I will be removing the feedback so things are back to how they were. If not, I have no choice but to keep it there.

Your "threat" is meaningless, you're not on DT. Look at this Untrusted feedback for example: it's meaningless.

Noted.

...
That's quite uncivilized.

...
You're still missing the point. The relevance of feedback is (more or less) based on whether or not "the community" trusts the judgement of the user who left it. I couldn't care less about the retaliatory feedback you leave, as long as it doesn't show up by default.

In what way is it uncivilized in this situation? As you mentioned, my feedback to DaveF is basically 'meaningless' so in a way, nothing's been done, really. I don't always go for the mindset of 'eye for an eye' in every situation I get into but in this particular one, I believe it was appropriate as no one's getting harmed.

noted.

...
That's something

 .
 .
 .

Lol. That's exactly how it works. With convincing evidence, of course.

Indeed.

I understand it's exactly how it works but you don't just blurt out scammer as soon as you 'suspect' they are. Like you mentioned, "with convincing evidence"; where in my thread have I tried to scam people? Did I say someone has to pay me to receive the file? I don't care who has it! It's on the internet for all to find themselves!
I also mentioned that the wallet.dat file was corrupted; which means whoever made that file manually changed addresses to fool others or something. I clearly mentioned that the file was corrupted as I thought that would be a very huge indicator that the wallet.dat is probs just another deadend.

...

So you 'found it' and when were called out on it changed your post.
Not even a minor edit the post was totally changed.

You even had this in it

I will reveal more info of where I got this file and how later as this information seems to be very valuable even if the file may be corrupted.

So yes you claimed to have access to a wallet with 300000+

I'm sorry, but how was the original post completely changed? The original wording hasn't been changed and I only updated additional paragraphs as people like you seem to not want to read anything and automatically call in a scam.

Now, the reason I mentioned that quote of mine you used, is because I didn't want to give out false information. I wanted to make sure I got my sources straight and ready to share so that people like you don't say crap about it. However, it seems nothing I say affects the train of thoughts of others lol.

Again, I didn't claim I have access to a wallet with that absurd about of BTC. I literally said I found a corrupt wallet.dat file...
How does one connect 'I found a corrupt wallet.dat file that CLAIMS to hold 300000+ BTC' with 'claiming to have access to wallet with 300000+ BTC'?

So no, the neg trust stays for now.  

Don't see what the big deal is, unless you were planing to join a signature campaign it does not really matter. And it's only one negative, most people don't pay attention to just 1 it's when you get more then that it matters.

As for the people mentioning the retaliatory negative feedback. That is an issue for the mods to decide, personally I don't care if it's there or not since they are not on DT so most people will not see it and I'm sure others at this point will probably give them a ~ in their settings so they will probably never get to DT.

-Dave

Well, if many older users of this forum says that one negative trust doesn't really matter, then I guess I'll have to live with it.
I don't want even a single negative trust as... I don't really know, it just bothers the crap out of me for seeing that '-1' in my trust for a reason that wasn't reasonable enough for me to get a -1.

I don't know what a DT is but ok nvm, I searched it up, DT = DefaultTrust lol

He sounds like a dreamer, thinking he found 20 billion dollars on the internet. Lol.
It doesn't make sense to load wallet.dat into Electrum.

... oml. Look, if I thought to have found that sum of money, why the hell would I announce it to anyone? I wrote that thread on my finding on a corrupt file that claims to have that sum of money.
I don't care if that type of information is old news to you older users of this forum, but it's more of a way for me to document whatever the hell I found. I already know replies like 'Many others claim the same thing, son' in inevitable but to say I'm scamming when I clearly wasn't, is where the line was crossed.

Most probably he wants his account reputation stay clean due to the nature of what he is posting that needs trust in able to view it seriously(he thinks user will believe on his findings). His account doesn’t aim for campaign rather due to the purpose to attract to whatever scheme he is planning in the future that related to this huge BTC findings?.

I want my account rep to stay clean because I didn't do anything wrong. Don't you think saying that I'm 'scheming' is a bit to much? I already gave an answer to why I wrote threads like I did to the previous reply above this one (in the blue font color).

OP, pay attention to the above advice to be "friendly" regardless of how annoyed you might be.  At the very least, don't leave retaliatory feedback before starting up a thread like this.  The only thing that's going to achieve is you getting shit from everyone (as already evidenced by some of the comments) and decreasing the likelihood of getting your issue resolved.  Nobody here respects retaliatory negatives, so when you hand one out it absolutely works against you.  

I can't change what I've already done but as I have mentioned to LoyceV, I will keep that in mind for the future.

[LoyceV]

Considering that the only red tag you have sent in all of 2024 was to LoyceAprilFools for obvious reasons I don't take it as a reason to not red tag someone. Rather it's the opposite

You make a valid point. I've always been careful with negative tags, and I kinda gave up on "baby sitting" the internet. If people are dumb enough to buy a fake wallet, they can't be helped.

[JollyGood]

If your assumption is correct that the claim by DaveF is false because THEY made the claim, why does your post not state that THEY made the claim?

Anybody reading that thread would conclude exactly what DaveF has concluded because there are claims made by you that suggest beyond doubt you refer to yourself as the main protagonist making claims made in your thread Found corrupted wallet.dat???:

"So, I've been doing some digging and found a wallet.dat file in the format that seems closest to the way electrum's wallet files are formatted. I've manually looked through the in case, and it checked out alright. I loaded the file onto electrum and like the thread title states, it throws a "corrupted file" error and that I need to derive it from the seed again to restore it. I obviously didn't do it right away since I wanted to see what it held.

To my surprise... whoever originally held this wallet was able to import the Mt Gox address (the one starting with 1Feex) and couple other addresses with jackload of bitcoin... The total that this person held in this wallet.dat is as shown in this screenshot:
https://snipboard.io/Ivjt3y.jpg

Here is another screen shot of the electrum window with the addresses displayed:
https://snipboard.io/tRxerl.jpg"

In addition, there is no reason at all to conclude the images are not from your Electrum wallet because of the way you wrote the OP. Did you ever elaborate on these parts of your OP?

"I obviously didn't do it right away since I wanted to see what it held."

"I will reveal more info of where I got this file and how later as this information seems to be very valuable even if the file may be corrupted."

Fellow user DaveF seems to have tainted my trust by falsely accusing me of 'Claiming to have wallet with 300000+ BTC'.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5496715.msg64086137#msg64086137 This was my thread on me FINDING a website's directory holding a corrupted wallet.dat file (in which THEY claimed that it holds 300000+ BTC) that I shared the link and everything so everyone else can investigate it on their own instead of pinning me for false information.

[goldkingcoiner]

There are a lot of scams going around on this forum. And making such seemingly ludicrous claims, as you did, may have seemed like the prelude to a scam to DaveF.

But since you did not actually try to scam anyone (as far as I can tell), a red trust might not have been warranted in this case. I would have put a neutral trust such as "user makes untrustworthy/suspicious claims" or something like that.

The community here has been victim to so many scammers in the past that they might understandably jump the gun.

[DireWolfM14]

I've always been careful with negative tags, and I kinda gave up on "baby sitting" the internet. If people are dumb enough to buy a fake wallet, they can't be helped.

I'd rather people be conservative with red tags than the opposite.  Too many of the newly promoted DT members seem to be quick on the trigger.  I probably wasn't any different in my early days, which is why I like to review my left feedback from time to time.

Like DaveF, when I first saw the OP's wallet thread I thought he may be trying to promote the site but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.  In retrospect I don't think that's the case.  The OP isn't acting like a scammer.  If he was here just to promote a scam site, he would have been using a throwaway account and would be unconcerned about a red-tag.

There are many of these types of threads where people claim to have found an wallet, and need help recovering it.  Most them are complete with outlandish tales and obvious lies.  Regardless they're obviously not scams, so there's no need for a tag.  Quite the contrary, in most cases it was probably the OPs that were the victims of a scam.  At least this guy was upfront about where the wallet came from.