Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance and 1miau. Convenient timing or coincidence?

[JollyGood]

It is strange the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance was created as soon as 1miau returned to the forum after announcing he was "dead" and would not return. Remember, there were things he did not want to discuss but made it clear he had to leave the forum.

Keeping that side for a moment, if a member created something akin to the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance it would be dismissed by the majority of members as nothing more than a tool to be used for nefarious activity. When a member known to the community voluntarily states he is leaving the forum for personal reasons and will not return (yet does the opposite several months later), it does raise questions.

Add to that the fact when the first post made since the return was to promote the newly created Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance, suspicions are further compounded.

I see three possibilities here:

1) It is 1miau and the account was not hacked nor sold. His strange conduct cannot currently be explained.
2) It is not 1miau, the account was hacked and the new operator cannot provide a signed message
3) It is not 1miau but the account was sold. In this case, the new operator could be liaising with 1miau to arrange for a signed message to present here

I find the third possibility intriguing because if he does sign a message, it is possible the delay in posting the signed message here was because the current operator of the account was waiting for the original owner of the account to reply to his request or to make a deal. Having said that, it seems highly unlikely 1miau would sell the account:

It's true, I'm leaving the forum on my terms to protect the person behind 1miau. I won't be able to be active in discussions and I can't read your PMs to me. Don't be sorry, Bitcointalk has to offer so much even without 1miau.  

I'll lock this topic now.

If the current operator is an account farmer that had several accounts tagged and wants to use the so-called alliance as cover to fight red tags on his farmed accounts and to give revenge feedback, that dream has basically ended.

He has locked the thread and is not signing a message to prove ownership and is not replying to PMs from those that 1miau was on friendly terms with. It is possible that 1miau deleted all messages from the Inbox and Outbox folders therefore the current operator has no idea what was previously discussed and how to respond to new messages now.

I think the manner in which 1miau left the forum and reasons he cited for leaving are probably enough to justify a belief that he would not return.

[cooinnoo22]

Why not create this thread when you have actually got something incriminating about the user in question (1miau) because for now I see no reason for the thread and beside the user hasn't dropped a signed message doesn't mean he has done something incriminating. You have put out a lot of accusations and suspicious and they are all directed to igniting something bigger. As for leaving the forum and coming back, I think a couple of user here have actually done that like blackhatcoiner if am not mistaken.

[JollyGood]

I did not create the thread because I have incriminating evidence, I created it express the possibilities as I see them. You seem know a lot about the forum for someone using a newbie account  

Anyway, I think you are referring to this thread: Goodbye bitcointalk that was created on 5th December 2023. In his return post on 20th December 2023 in the BlackHatCoiner decided to take a leave from bitcointalk thread, he did sign a message upon his return. As we have all noted, 1miau has not signed a message and inexplicably locked the thread where he was being asked to sign a message.

There is nothing to ignite. If the 1miau account does not sign a message, his account will not be trusted. If the 1miau account does sign a message, people will question why it took a long time to present it as evidence. I could be wrong but in my opinion, just by reading the post history of the account it seems as though it is not being controlled by the person that created it.

Why not create this thread when you have actually got something incriminating about the user in question (1miau) because for now I see no reason for the thread and beside the user hasn't dropped a signed message doesn't mean he has done something incriminating. You have put out a lot of accusations and suspicious and they are all directed to igniting something bigger. As for leaving the forum and coming back, I think a couple of user here have actually done that like blackhatcoiner if am not mistaken.

[un_rank]

...because for now I see no reason for the thread and beside the user hasn't dropped a signed message doesn't mean he has done something incriminating. You have put out a lot of accusations and suspicious and they are all directed to igniting something bigger. As for leaving the forum and coming back, I think a couple of user here have actually done that like blackhatcoiner if am not mistaken.

If a user returns to the forum after saying they would not and starts posting in a different pattern to how they used to previously that is enough suspicion to demand a signed message from them, if they cannot provide any they should be tagged as the account has already been. This is the community's way of protecting the user who built a strong reputation here and was a quality member.

There is a difference between a user taking a break, returning to post as they used to and one that says they are leaving permanently but abruptly returns with a new personality.

- Jay -

[cooinnoo22]

There is nothing to ignite. If the 1miau account does not sign a message, his account will not be trusted. If the 1miau account does sign a message, people will question why it took a long time to present it as evidence. I could be wrong but in my opinion, just by reading the post history of the account it seems as though it is not being controlled by the person that created it.

Duely noted, although am surprised to why the delay in signing message on his account would be a problem or result to the account not being trusted. Haven't you heard of the possibility that someone might have a real life situation that would have he didn't plan for that would warrant him to get such information or data and also their is the possibility that something might have happened to it that he isn't having access to create it, am just sighting possible event that would have cause the delay or you want to tell me now jollyboy that there is no scenario or situation whatsoever that would delay you from signing a message from your account?

[1miau]

I'm aware you are a bit confused and hereby I'm ready to provide a staked message.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm still the original owner, here is a signed message:
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1miau7e4tFSAGR4TkAJ8n32UMm2yLB9EH
HCGwHdEc+8A8DsuIZRKxTPHcfajDZY2ldaEY2/W37lblIQUoU9nCSlkXl+O40FU6f46MX6DaoEZRDJBqTO3nW7U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

No need for speculation, you can remove your negative trust now.

[cooinnoo22]

I'm aware you are a bit confused and hereby I'm ready to provide a staked message.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm still the original owner, here is a signed message:
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1miau7e4tFSAGR4TkAJ8n32UMm2yLB9EH
HCGwHdEc+8A8DsuIZRKxTPHcfajDZY2ldaEY2/W37lblIQUoU9nCSlkXl+O40FU6f46MX6DaoEZRDJBqTO3nW7U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

No need for speculation, you can remove your negative trust now.

Well jollyboy, I guess it's time for the next phase now, which is why the heck did he delay in providing the signed message right ? Or make start up something else like the way the message came is not looking good enough or possibly signed message of the wrong address, so curious to know what's gonna play next.

If there is one thing everyone should know here in the community is that humans aren't robots that have a fixed way of living their life's or a particular pattern everyone can track, sometimes people do awkward and weird things but doesn't mean it's a different personality, well I guess the forum powerhouses have made sure to keep everyone in check like mind reading zombies.

[Kazkaz27]

I'm aware you are a bit confused and hereby I'm ready to provide a staked message.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm still the original owner, here is a signed message:
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1miau7e4tFSAGR4TkAJ8n32UMm2yLB9EH
HCGwHdEc+8A8DsuIZRKxTPHcfajDZY2ldaEY2/W37lblIQUoU9nCSlkXl+O40FU6f46MX6DaoEZRDJBqTO3nW7U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

No need for speculation, you can remove your negative trust now.

Funny how you got welcomed back. Goes to show the suggestion of a Bitcointalk defense alliance triggered the Mob.

Let’s see if they change there unfounded accusations regarding you or their unjust and hastily put negative trust feedback.—I have doubts they will change their tune. That said, it seems like an abuse of the trust system on their behalf.—Huh, isn’t that the exact reason the defense alliance was proposed?

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't want to accuse anyone, but is it really that difficult to sign a message if the account is sold along with the wallet number from which the proof will be signed in the future?

Why am I saying this? Just because for a long time in some Telegram groups of our forum, accounts have been sold with the name "complete set." Everyone can surely understand what will be included in this "set."

Again, I don't want to accuse anyone of selling or transferring the account. I'm more inclined to think that such a well-known account will definitely prove itself in the future because those who regularly communicated with him knew him, which in principle can dispel all doubts about his true resurrection.

[LoyceV]

Let’s see if they change there unfounded accusations regarding you or their unjust and hastily put negative trust feedback.

You really shouldn't trust a signed message without verifying it yourself! Update: this one checks out.

[Majestic-milf]

 

It's true, I'm leaving the forum on my terms to protect the person behind 1miau. I won't be able to be active in discussions and I can't read your PMs to me. Don't be sorry, Bitcointalk has to offer so much even without 1miau.  
 

It's the fact that he's talking in the 3rd person that seems disturbing. More like he's trying to dissociate himself from the character. How will we know if this persona is the same 1miau that left? Honestly, I've not had a prior dealing with him so but I've seen him on the forum but if those who may have had dealings with him are sort of confused if he's the real person or an impersonator, then the rest of us will be  in trouble  ..

[JollyGood]

Accounts sales have involved signed messages (or sales of address private keys) for a long time, they are used to create a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact the account has traded hands. I am not stating that it has happened in this case, not at all. What I am stating without hesitation is that the manner in which the 1miau account returned to the forum to create the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance was a surprise.

Furthermore, by adding co-founders that had nothing to do with the alliance (as well as locking the thread when members were asking for a signed message) did raise questions.

I think there will be some members that simply do not accept what has been stated at face value and will prefer to wait to see how the account is posting before dispelling any concerns.

I don't want to accuse anyone, but is it really that difficult to sign a message if the account is sold along with the wallet number from which the proof will be signed in the future?

Why am I saying this? Just because for a long time in some Telegram groups of our forum, accounts have been sold with the name "complete set." Everyone can surely understand what will be included in this "set."

Again, I don't want to accuse anyone of selling or transferring the account. I'm more inclined to think that such a well-known account will definitely prove itself in the future because those who regularly communicated with him knew him, which in principle can dispel all doubts about his true resurrection.

[Kazkaz27]

Accounts sales have involved signed messages (or sales of address private keys) for a long time, they are used to create a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact the account has traded hands. I am not stating that it has happened in this case, not at all. What I am stating without hesitation is that the manner in which the 1miau account returned to the forum to create the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance was a surprise.

Furthermore, by adding co-founders that had nothing to do with the alliance (as well as locking the thread when members were asking for a signed message) did raise questions.

I think there will be some members that simply do not accept what has been stated at face value and will prefer to wait to see how the account is posting before dispelling any concerns.

You’re just a bad judge of what’s going on imo and I point that out.

Account sales should be against forum rules yet they are not. I advocate for a rule change. — Not ‘forum warriors’ like yourself who spread shade or accusations and ruin reputations with conjecture not facts.

You pretend to be neutral but you’re not.
 
You think people need to prove something to you and they don’t.

It’s your prerogative to be a dick head, force others hands and be wrong in a lot of scenarios that you think the worse about and project upon.

You could apologize for it but you come off as some type of forum detective that never thinks he could be wrong in his opinion and just ‘doing his job’.

It's the fact that he's talking in the 3rd person that seems disturbing. More like he's trying to dissociate himself from the character. How will we know if this persona is the same 1miau that left? Honestly, I've not had a prior dealing with him so but I've seen him on the forum but if those who may have had dealings with him are sort of confused if he's the real person or an impersonator, then the rest of us will be  in trouble  ..

If we want to really make a difference we should target the source.

Apparently, buying or selling an account isn’t against the rules. That’s another area that should change. That said, there’s little point in attacking members with unsubstantiated accusations or highlighting something that isn’t regulated or prohibited by the actual rules. My position is simple: we should push for a clear rule change first. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time—despite the broader implications.

Let’s see if they change there unfounded accusations regarding you or their unjust and hastily put negative trust feedback.

You really shouldn't trust a signed message without verifying it yourself!
Update: this one checks out.

Facts.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Accounts sales have involved signed messages (or sales of address private keys) for a long time, they are used to create a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact the account has traded hands. I am not stating that it has happened in this case, not at all. What I am stating without hesitation is that the manner in which the 1miau account returned to the forum to create the Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance was a surprise.

Furthermore, by adding co-founders that had nothing to do with the alliance (as well as locking the thread when members were asking for a signed message) did raise questions.

I think there will be some members that simply do not accept what has been stated at face value and will prefer to wait to see how the account is posting before dispelling any concerns.

You’re just a bad judge of what’s going on imo and I point that out.

Account sales should be against forum rules yet they are not. I advocate for a rule change. — Not ‘forum warriors’ like yourself who spread shade or accusations and ruin reputations with conjecture not facts.

You pretend to be neutral but you’re not.
 
You think people need to prove something to you and they don’t.

It’s your prerogative to be a dick head, force others hands and be wrong in a lot of scenarios that you think the worse about and project upon.

You could apologize for it but you come off as some type of forum detective that never thinks he could be wrong in his opinion and just ‘doing his job’.

It's the fact that he's talking in the 3rd person that seems disturbing. More like he's trying to dissociate himself from the character. How will we know if this persona is the same 1miau that left? Honestly, I've not had a prior dealing with him so but I've seen him on the forum but if those who may have had dealings with him are sort of confused if he's the real person or an impersonator, then the rest of us will be  in trouble  ..

If we want to really make a difference we should target the source.

Apparently, buying or selling an account isn’t against the rules. That’s another area that should change. That said, there’s little point in attacking members with unsubstantiated accusations or highlighting something that isn’t regulated or prohibited by the actual rules. My position is simple: we should push for a clear rule change first. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time—despite the broader implications.

Let’s see if they change there unfounded accusations regarding you or their unjust and hastily put negative trust feedback.

You really shouldn't trust a signed message without verifying it yourself!
Update: this one checks out.

Facts.

I was quoted, and, therefore, I will answer. It's not for you to teach how to live; many people just ignore your posts because they understand that if you argue with jerks, then besides the fact that it's difficult for people like you to prove something, you can unwittingly turn into someone who talks to the wall.

In the case of the hero of the theme, time will tell again. As for JollyGood, he magically, very rarely, makes mistakes, so yes, we'll all see what happens next.

Apologies? They are appropriate when people do not behave strangely, causing confusion among others by their actions. It would be normal to resurrect and, in a human way, thereby respecting the community, to talk about their psychological problems and not to stir up and create "alliances" or an uprising of the "union of the offended and insulted." Otherwise, if a person ignores such behavior, then by doing so he shows superiority, which means, again, not respect. So there's no reason to be surprised when you see a mirror image.

[JollyGood]

You’re just a bad judge of what’s going on imo and I point that out.

That is your opinion, I think there are plenty of members that would have concluded that you are a bad judge of what is going on because your account as your account is flooded with negative trust.

Account sales should be against forum rules yet they are not. I advocate for a rule change. — Not ‘forum warriors’ like yourself who spread shade or accusations and ruin reputations with conjecture not facts.

Accounts sales are frowned upon, they are not conducive in any capacity to the forum or the members.

You pretend to be neutral but you’re not.

That is your opinion.
 

You think people need to prove something to you and they don’t.

I do not expect any member to prove anything to me.

It’s your prerogative to be a dick head, force others hands and be wrong in a lot of scenarios that you think the worse about and project upon.

Is that the best you can do? If my account was behaving suspiciously and forum members wanted to know if I was still operating it then would be performing a service to the forum and the community (not a disservice). Hands are not being to do anything.

You could apologize for it but you come off as some type of forum detective that never thinks he could be wrong in his opinion and just ‘doing his job’.

What nonsense are you spouting? What am I supposed to apologise for and to whom?

[Kazkaz27]

You’re just a bad judge of what’s going on imo and I point that out.

That is your opinion, I think there are plenty of members that would have concluded that you are a bad judge of what is going on because your account as your account is flooded with negative trust.

Account sales should be against forum rules yet they are not. I advocate for a rule change. — Not ‘forum warriors’ like yourself who spread shade or accusations and ruin reputations with conjecture not facts.

Accounts sales are frowned upon, they are not conducive in any capacity to the forum or the members.

You pretend to be neutral but you’re not.

That is your opinion.
 

You think people need to prove something to you and they don’t.

I do not expect any member to prove anything to me.

It’s your prerogative to be a dick head, force others hands and be wrong in a lot of scenarios that you think the worse about and project upon.

Is that the best you can do? If my account was behaving suspiciously and forum members wanted to know if I was still operating it then would be performing a service to the forum and the community (not a disservice). Hands are not being to do anything.

You could apologize for it but you come off as some type of forum detective that never thinks he could be wrong in his opinion and just ‘doing his job’.

What nonsense are you spouting? What am I supposed to apologise for and to whom?

Oh, this one isn’t about me.—it’s about you.

Simply apologize to 1miau for your misplaced conjecture.



Despite your “good” intentions, you were WRONG.

Your failure to understand, know, or even consider that your rhetoric and the negative trust you placed wasn’t damaging to an innocent member’s reputation—which forced his hand—is why I distrust your judgment. Deleting it doesn’t erase the fact of your action. Showing some remorse and humility would go a long way.

If that’s not possible I can’t say you aren’t a narcissist.

[DireWolfM14]

I think we already have too many threads on this subject, and the last few posts in this one are summed up here:
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=jJg47N5UxCEn8J80

[SuperBitMan]

I think we already have too many threads on this subject, and the last few posts in this one are summed up here:
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=jJg47N5UxCEn8J80

DireWolfM14 this video is funny I laughed so loud.

You are right, the thread opened just for this subject matter is too much and the argument is going on and on, I think we should be paying for argument on this forum .
There’s no point stressing this matter anymore the mod should lock some threads regarding this subject matter to avoid spamming.

[Vod]

Account sales should be against forum rules yet they are not. I advocate for a rule change. — Not ‘forum warriors’ like yourself who spread shade or accusations and ruin reputations with conjecture not facts.

Kaz this has been discussed a few times.  The forum can't enforce it, so they don't restrict it.  The community already polices such cases.

[yahoo62278]

I'm aware you are a bit confused and hereby I'm ready to provide a staked message.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm still the original owner, here is a signed message:
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1miau7e4tFSAGR4TkAJ8n32UMm2yLB9EH
HCGwHdEc+8A8DsuIZRKxTPHcfajDZY2ldaEY2/W37lblIQUoU9nCSlkXl+O40FU6f46MX6DaoEZRDJBqTO3nW7U=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

No need for speculation, you can remove your negative trust now.

Funny how you got welcomed back. Goes to show the suggestion of a Bitcointalk defense alliance triggered the Mob.

Let’s see if they change there unfounded accusations regarding you or their unjust and hastily put negative trust feedback.—I have doubts they will change their tune. That said, it seems like an abuse of the trust system on their behalf.—Huh, isn’t that the exact reason the defense alliance was proposed?

Nobody triggered a mob, stop trying to use shit to serve your own agenda. Hacked or sold accounts with positive trust is what woke DT up. The community is looking out for the community, no-one is attacking for fun.

Anyone with green trust who leaves the forum, especially making it a big deal and announcing it, will be subject to some sort of scrutiny upon returning to the forum for good reason. Especially when they are not coming back and acting like they did before announcing their leave.

Do you realize the sort of financial damage that a trusted account could bring? Depending on the account, someone could steal thousands to possibly tens of thousands of dollars. This is a huge reason why the community is against account sales in the 1st place. Has nothing to do with a mob or bullying.

If 1miau came back acting normal, continued their normal posting, and offered a signed message without delaying for multiple days then people would likely have never batted an eye. Instead they return, make a crazy post, delayed signing a message for 3 days, haven't made 1 post in the German boards where they were extremely active before now, and are just acting weird.

We all removed our red tags upon the signed message being sent, but it still feels odd which is why the account is still littered with neutrals. Some situations might feel like an attack, maybe yours is IDK I have not paid 1 bit of attention to why you were tagged. Honestly never even heard of you til a few months ago. The community is correct to question 1miau IMO though. If proven the rightful owner of the account, then everyone will remove their neutral. Simple as that.