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

[KWH]

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.

........

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.

...........

When I returned, I was asked for a signed message which I promptly gave. It's only reasonable.

[JollyGood]

As you stated, the crux of the issue is that 1miau returned to the forum in a peculiar manner that caught the attention of DT members. Some decided to place precautionary red tags because he did not sign a message when requested by multiple members. When the message was signed, the red tags were removed.

There is nothing wrong that process yet the Kazkaz27 account has a different opinion because of long standing grievances of his own. He received multiple red tags for legitimate reasons/concerns and since then has used the Reputation board at every opportunity to post about DT members. 

The Kazkaz27 account clearly does know and understand how much damage a stolen/hacked account can cause here, that is precisely why he is behaving in the manner displayed. Check his feedback. He is seeking attention in the knowledge that his negative feedback will not be removed therefore is happy to post about so-called forum injustices.

As a message has been signed, it seems pointless to keep this thread open even though questions remain.

~

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.

[JollyGood]

I decided against posting this in the other thread as it would be off-topic but I am unlocking this thread to allow debate.

I think the general consensus is that a message has been signed from a known address of 1miau therefore the negative tags were removed but as there is still suspicion, some neutral tags remain.

Here are some of the reasons why many believe the account is no longer controlled by the person that created it. Before making a comeback to the forum on 23rd April 2026:

- the 1miau account never used the word "ment" instead of "meant":

https://bitlist.co/search?content=meant&author=1miau&date_min=2016-05-21&date_max=2026-05-03&limit=20
https://bitlist.co/search?content=ment&author=1miau&date_min=2016-05-21&date_max=2026-05-03&limit=20

- the 1miau account never used the word "joine" instead of "join":

https://bitlist.co/search?content=join&author=1miau&date_min=2016-05-21&date_max=2026-05-03&limit=20&sort_by=date_asc
https://bitlist.co/search?content=joine&author=1miau&date_min=2016-05-21&date_max=2026-05-03&limit=20&sort_by=date_asc

I am sure more discrepancies will be found and the suspicions associated with the account will remain. The possibility that the original owner/creator is still using the account cannot be dismissed nor can the possibility he sold the account as a message was signed and that does not indicate it was hacked.

[LoyceV]

The possibility that the original owner/creator is still using the account cannot be dismissed nor can the possibility he sold the account

What better way to protect the person behind 1miau than creating confusion by letting someone else use it? Giving away access including the private key to a staked address has happened before. He literally said the person behind the account won't be active anymore:

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.

This is my Reference post for neutral feedback, so I'll add some quotes:

Unfortunately, I have to announce 1miau is dead.  It already died few days ago but don't be sorry. 1miau had a good time here on the Forum and Bitcointalk will stay to be relevant even without 1miau.  

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 could be the account changed hands before this topic already, and the real owner clarified things a bit in the last post. The password wasn't changed, so 2 people could have access. None of this makes much sense.

[Rating Place]

It's good to see that the community changed the trust from negative to neutral.

Kazkaz27 can be using this case as a whole instead of just this single case. It's self serving on our parts, but the only ones that will complain are those that are wronged.

[JollyGood]

What better way to protect the person behind 1miau than creating confusion by letting someone else use it? Giving away access including the private key to a staked address has happened before. He literally said the person behind the account won't be active anymore:

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.

Something is wrong about the whole situation related to him returning to the forum. The part of real relevance was him stating that the person behind the 1miau account will not be active any longer. If his intention was to never return, he could have monetised the account by selling it. It is pure speculation but the questions and doubts are there because of legitimate concerns.

It could be the account changed hands before this topic already, and the real owner clarified things a bit in the last post. The password wasn't changed, so 2 people could have access. None of this makes much sense.

It probably would have remained a perfectly acceptable explanation had the account remained inactive. The fact he returned after a brief hiatus even though he explained why he was never going to return, is not enough to arise strong suspicion but his uncharacteristic conduct since returning has caught the attention of several members.

[DireWolfM14]

It could be the account changed hands before this topic already, and the real owner clarified things a bit in the last post. The password wasn't changed, so 2 people could have access. None of this makes much sense.

It's also worth noting that the account never went into hibernation, and therefor never "woke up."  Someone as been actively logging into the account periodically to keep it from becoming inactive.  The same thing had been happening with the alt account, which logged in as recently as February 3rd and only went into "inactive" state yesterday.

[AB de Royse777]

The whole 1miau thing is a surprise as long as a confusing thing too. My takes are:

- There were no need for the topic "1miau has died" even if that was a joke.
- The topic "Bitcointalk Defensive Alliance" hurt a lot of members ego. Bitcointalk does not like self declared authoritative attitude.
- 1miau account came back, signed messaged using the staked address (with some unnecessary attempts) but still members are not convinced.

I am not advocating for 1miau but I am confuse:
- If the bitcoin signed message can not prove anything then why we need it?
- How would this new 1miau knew that he had close relation with GazetaBitcoin, icopress and added them as the founding members of the alliance?
- First thought. If 1miau willingly gave away his account to anyone he trusts including the private key then why would you distrust his judgment if you already trusted him?
- Second thought. We will never know if someone forcefully (stolen, hacked) took the account and the private key (unlikely) but we are making our conclusion with this second thought before anything else. Why negative judgement always wins over positive?
- If 1miau is the real 1miau, how would you verify it's him?

I feel we all need to stake a video footage for all of us from now on, forget about staking a bitcoin address. If something like this happen to any of us, we can record another video with the current date and post it to verify the account ownership. Unfortunately, I also feel there will be a lot of us who will think the video sent for verification was AI generated.

[LoyceV]

~all valid questions~

Exactly Your questions confirm my point:

None of this makes much sense.

Meanwhile, on the German board:

Ein bisschen weniger toxisch hätte ich das willkommen zurück schon erwartet und irgendwie kann ich die Skepsis auch verstehen, um Betrug zu vermeiden.

Google Translate:

I would have expected a slightly less toxic welcome back, and I can somehow understand the skepticism to avoid fraud.

TL;DR: don't say you're dead if you intend to come back. And don't come back after you said you're dead.

[AakZaki]

- If the bitcoin signed message can not prove anything then why we need it?

I think the doubt arose because of the length of time he signed his Bitcoin address and when it was signed for the first time it was invalid, How could a person who has obtained more than 7000 merits still be wrong just the matter of signing a Bitcoin address.

It even seems as if he is better than this "Member" account who signs his Bitcoin address with a single post.

The doubt wasn't just about signing his Bitcoin address, but many other doubts were raised, as other friends have said in previous posts.
If you're confused, I'm also confused as to why it has to happen. 

[PrivacyG]

- How would this new 1miau knew that he had close relation with GazetaBitcoin, icopress and added them as the founding members of the alliance?

A long private message history is one way to find out.  Other wise I do not know about icopress, but I know Gazeta translated a lot of his topics and often interacted with him on my local Board.  I was not surprised to see his name on that initial list.

, forget about staking a bitcoin address.

When things can not be linked to an identity it can be both blessing and a curse it seems.  Truth is.  I can hand you right now one of my Private Keys and let you sign any message you want for me, all this takes is a private message with some characters in it.  I agree with Loyce, if you want to mess people up it this a very damn good way to do it.

Now I wonder, if 1miau wanted '1miau to die' then has he even received what he wanted?  The volume of discussions around his name looks like 1miau is not going to die too soon at all.

[MaxMueller]

TL;DR: don't say you're dead if you intend to come back. And don't come back after you said you're dead.

It sounds like someone saying, “Finish the job,” after someone has failed in a suicide attempt. Feels wrong to me.
Maybe his intention was not to come back. Maybe he's changed his mind, just like it happens to someone here every day. As someone who is active almost exclusively on the local German board, I'm happy to see any well-known user come back or become active again, because the signal-to-noise ratio has really gotten worse lately.

To add some facts from local german:
- 1miau has always referred to himself—or rather, his avatar—in the third person; that is not an indication of external control
- One of his first actions was to distribute merits in Der aktuelle Krusverlauf; the activity and merit distribution are similar to his cooldown phase before he "died". I took that merit distribution as a subtile way of saying, “Hi, I'm back.”
- I came across the “Defensive Alliance” while looking through his posts. When I DM'd him to ask what he was trying to achieve with it, he replied in German that he wanted to prevent any expected attacks, ironicly the opposite happened.

My interpretation:
There are obviously some users who want to silence 1miau as a critical voice against their interests. The conflicts apparently took such a toll on him that he decided to leave the forum. After taking some time to recover, he reconsidered his decision, returned, and first attempted to form a defensive alliance to protect himself from unwarranted attacks. This triggered the hostile actors, who immediately went on the offensive, to silence him again. To me, this paints a complete picture.

Someone who sees himself as a critical but neutral observer should, in this regard, not join the haters in demanding the next piece of irrefutable evidence, but rather examine the strength of the evidence on the side of the accusations. Currently, I see nothing there that goes beyond circumstantial evidence and speculation. A good reason to apply the presumption of innocence.

[AB de Royse777]

A long private message history is one way to find out.

Someone with no experience on this forum will never realize there is this way. I have no idea how busy 1miau was but certainly when I look into my private message history, I even struggle to find a message that I received or exchanged a few weeks ago. My inbox has 257 pages of message and outbox has 199 pages of message. If I am not wrong then each page contains 20 messages.

[bullrun2024bro]

The post on the German board sounds nothing like 1miau. It’s just MaxMueller who is convinced, everyone else isn’t (they were best buddies before 1miau left).

Just check the latest posts in the German topic. Nobody who dealt with 1miau for the past few years actually believes it’s still the same owner.

[MaxMueller]

The post on the German board sounds nothing like 1miau. It’s just MaxMueller who is convinced, everyone else isn’t (they were best buddies before 1miau left).

Just check the latest posts in the German topic. Nobody who dealt with 1miau for the past few years actually believes it’s still the same owner.

You shouldn't be spreading your lies all over the board.
Given the facts presented so far, no one can seriously know whether it's the old @1miau or not. To point out that there is no evidence to back up those serious allegations must be valid.

Incidentally, you don’t speak for the majority of the German board, but only for yourself and, at most, a few other users who have been engaged in a personal feud with @1miau since the corona pandemic due to differing political views. If you look at the number of monthly active users, that's less than 5%.

You might also want to mention your feud with me. The fact that you’ve already apologized for your defamatory lies about me doesn’t make your statement any more credible.

[bullrun2024bro]

You’re a pathetic forum warrior who took 1miau's agenda after he left.

And it tells a lot that you are the only one speaking up for him.

It’s actually pretty funny since half of the board thinks you’re his unofficial alt account anyway.

For everyone else, read the German thread. No longterm member believes the comeback story.

[Kazkaz27]

I find some relevance between this thread and another https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5568108.0 worth considering.

[MaxMueller]

It’s actually pretty funny since half of the board thinks you’re his unofficial alt account anyway.

It’s actually pretty funny that you’re insulting your friends by implying they’re that stupid.

The truth is that the quality of the German section has dropped dramatically, and the few remaining high-quality posts are getting lost in the noise of signature post spam.
If fighting for better quality is a bad thing, then I plead guilty. Fighting for lower quality tells a lot about you and its fun to see that you indirectly admit that only few selected users share your opinion.

We can take our feud elsewhere. I think readers have got a sense of the infighting and the "toxic" climate in local german where you and @1miau have been antipoles for a long time.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I'm not going to do it—at least not for now—but I think there's a good reason for a red tag as we can see on the neutrals on his profile. For now, the user isn't participating in signature campaigns, posts occasionally, and doesn't seem interested in engaging in financial transactions on the forum. So, neutrals, seem OK.

But looking at the case, as someone who usually assigns a (subjective) probability to situations, I think there’s well over a 90% chance that the person managing the account isn’t the original user. The other possibility is that he might have hit his head or something, which would explain the change in his behavior. 

[LoyceV]

Given the facts presented so far, no one can seriously know whether it's the old @1miau or not.

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know already? If it would be me, I'd make sure I post enough so everyone can have enough "material" to really compare posts.