[SCAMMER] Quickseller/ ACCTseller sold me a hacked account

[rugrats]

You wont win. Quickseller/ACCTseller is likely backed by the legendary member Eisenhower34 who is on default trust.

Incorrect. There are special features regarding my hero that others do not have, for example my hero is on default trust and is highly respected within the community

Is there any evidence for this allegation?
If true, it makes a mockery of the entire default list.

[gkv9]

@Quickseller,
What evidence are you talking about? I've been watching that thread very carefully and I didn't find any, link me through quoting the same...

[Quickseller]

I am confident enough that zedicus was planning on trying to scam when he purchased the account that I am willing to offer a bounty of .02 for anyone who can show a PM from zedicus regarding doing business that was received between 16 Aug 2014 and 8 Sep 2014. In order to prove the PM is real, you must either report it and a moderator can confirm it or an escrow can access your account (who we both trust) and can post what was received from zedicus. I will keep this offer open until 11 dec 2014 at 11:59 UDT.

[Quickseller]

@Quickseller,
What evidence are you talking about? I've been watching that thread very carefully and I didn't find any, link me through quoting the same...

If you are looking for evidence that zedicus was not hacked, then I presented it in this post

[zedicus]

Quickseller, I do not have time for your games. To the ACTUAL POINT of this thread.

Did you sell me an account that you knew was being disputed by the owner (or someone who had control over this account in the past)? YES

Didn't this only come to light after it was sold? And this is the problem with buying and selling accounts which both buyers and sellers should be aware of the risks involved. And as Marco said the account isn't ruined because it doesn't have defaulttrust feedback (though the longer you drag this out the more likely it is to recieve some especially since you're now issuing threats).

No, it was ongoing before I purchased this account.

[zedicus]

Quickseller, publicly deny that you do not own ACCTseller and I will rebut your text vomit.


Also please be aware that Quickseller is an account seller so he controls A LOT of accounts. There is probably a lot of shills already in this thread.

[Quickseller]

Quickseller, publicly deny that you do not own ACCTseller and I will rebut your text vomit.

I am sorry sir, but you need to prove your claims, it is not up to me to prove my innocence.

Also please be aware that Quickseller is an account seller so he controls A LOT of accounts. There is probably a lot of shills already in this thread.

You are correct. I do own a lot of accounts but none of them (none that I have for sale) have posed here. Also there are only 9 accounts besides you and me that have posted here, even if they were all my shills, that is hardly a lot. Plus the majority of the accounts that have posted have been neutral to the situation.

EDIT: I also don't need to use shills because my argument is valid and logical.

There does seem to be a bit of signature spam however they are not taking sides

[Superhitech]

Quickseller should show a screenshot of the PM in which you can see the payment address for the account. Zedicus too.

After Zedicus signs this address to prove that he is the real buyer.

I agree. That is a good way to sort this out. If quick seller can post screenshots or ask a trusted member (I'm thinking vod) to log in to his account to verify that he did indeed bought the zedicus account from the original owner.

[gkv9]

Quickseller, publicly deny that you do not own ACCTseller and I will rebut your text vomit.

I am sorry sir, but you need to prove your claims, it is not up to me to prove my innocence.

Also please be aware that Quickseller is an account seller so he controls A LOT of accounts. There is probably a lot of shills already in this thread.

You are correct. I do own a lot of accounts but none of them (none that I have for sale) have posed here. Also there are only 9 accounts besides you and me that have posted here, even if they were all my shills, that is hardly a lot. Plus the majority of the accounts that have posted have been neutral to the situation.

EDIT: I also don't need to use shills because my argument is valid and logical.

There does seem to be a bit of signature spam however they are not taking sides

Lolz, was that for me? You meant to say that I am spamming here and I ain't taking any sides? Seriously? It's not like that... You are offering some bounty to prove that zedicus used to scam you, but remember, if you are trustworthy and most importantly, if you are telling the truth, I will do it for free for you as like everyone here, me too wants to know the truth and we know that none of you both will give your credentials to anyone to prove who's correct and who's not... I bet if you both, Quickseller and zedicus, give your credentials to hilariousandco as he's the staff member here and if he takes the responsibility to reveal the truth out here, then it may sort out the things going on here... Do you both agree with the same, and will you (hilariousandco) please look into the matter personally this time and sort this out, Sir?

[marcotheminer]

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.

As it was a week ago (as I wasn't aware like other managers wouldn't have been)? Yes.

But now? Probably not.

[Quickseller]

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.
-snip-

It is not certain that this is a hacked account. No new information has come out about the sale of this account. The other thread in meta got a lot more attention then this thread has gotten

[marcotheminer]

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.
-snip-

It is not certain that this is a hacked account. No new information has come out about the sale of this account. The other thread in meta got a lot more attention then this thread has gotten

What I meant was: "If I know for certain it was a hacked account..."

[bayuo]

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.
-snip-

It is not certain that this is a hacked account. No new information has come out about the sale of this account. The other thread in meta got a lot more attention then this thread has gotten

What I meant was: "If I know for certain it was a hacked account..."

Quickseller knew the account was hacked!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.msg11674128#msg11674128

[TECSHARE]

If the account was in fact hacked, then Quickseller, knowingly or otherwise sold stolen property. If he never had legal ownership of it to begin with, he has no right to keep the collected funds because there was no valid exchange. The rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Just a quick analogy for you for comparison...
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/must-a-pawn-shop-return-stolen-property-to-its-owner/

He may or may not have known it was hacked, but as far as possession and the law are concerned it doesn't make any difference, he must return the property and the funds, and be more selective about accounts he buys in the future.

[Quickseller]

If the account was in fact hacked, then Quickseller, knowingly or otherwise sold stolen property. If he never had legal ownership of it to begin with, he has no right to keep the collected funds because there was no valid exchange. The rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Just a quick analogy for you for comparison...
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/must-a-pawn-shop-return-stolen-property-to-its-owner/

He may or may not have known it was hacked, but as far as possession and the law are concerned it doesn't make any difference, he must return the property and the funds, and be more selective about accounts he buys in the future.

The account was not hacked, as BadBear confirmed here:

This is a perfect example of why I don't want to restore accounts (for the most part).  While bayuo obviously did control the Zedicus account at one point, and is probably the original owner, there appears to be a pretty good reason he doesn't anymore (I won't elaborate for privacy reasons). Though there really is no way to be positive either way.

Exemplifies perfectly what I was saying the other day about signing addresses not being conclusive proof that the person signing *should* be in control of that account. 

-snip-

Bayuo sold me the account, received money for it and then later claimed it was hacked so he would receive his account back and obviously get to keep the money he received from the sale. Just a pathetic scam attempt.

[TECSHARE]

The account was not hacked, as BadBear confirmed here:

Only he doesn't confirm it wasn't hacked. He explicitly said he doesn't know either way.

I think most people would consider this conclusive evidence:

Well I can confirm that the signed message I received via PM comes from the address he's listed in the cached version of his post. Hence, I can say with almost full confidence that bayuo is in fact the real owner.

@bayuo: I would advise you send theymos a PM with all the information he's requested as stated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0

Please do so in a single PM. If he doesn't respond in a couple of days - send it once more, he does occasionally miss some PMs. I've already PM'ed Stunna so hopefully the hacker won't get any profit from this venture.

[Quickseller]

The account was not hacked, as BadBear confirmed here:

Only he doesn't confirm it wasn't hacked. He explicitly said he doesn't know either way.

He says there is good reason to believe that he shouldn't be the owner of the account anymore. Although yes, he does say that he doesn't know with certainty either way, the preponderance of the evidence does support it not being hacked.

I think most people would consider this conclusive evidence:

Well I can confirm that the signed message I received via PM comes from the address he's listed in the cached version of his post. Hence, I can say with almost full confidence that bayuo is in fact the real owner.

@bayuo: I would advise you send theymos a PM with all the information he's requested as stated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0

Please do so in a single PM. If he doesn't respond in a couple of days - send it once more, he does occasionally miss some PMs. I've already PM'ed Stunna so hopefully the hacker won't get any profit from this venture.

Nope. All that confirms is that he was able to produce a signed message from an address previously associated with his account. Additionally, Light mentions that the signed message is from a cashed version of a thread, which implies that the post that included the address was deleted. I was in communication with him for over 3 days before the account was actually purchased, the bayuo account was created very shortly after the account was sold, so if the account was in fact hacked then the hacker would have needed to gain access to the actual password of the account, not change the password, both send and receive PM's to me without the "real" owner of the account noticing, and then bayuo would just so happen to know which thread an address was posted on despite not being able to search for such address because the post was deleted. Also the "real" owner of the account would have had to not noticed PM notification emails received any time I had sent the account a PM.

Can I ask if you seriously think all this would be plausible? It should also be noted that bayuo claims to employ extensive security measures and claims to have used a very long/complex password. It should also be noted that there was no corresponding report of theft of bitcoin from bayuo and he never reported that he found any malware.

[TECSHARE]

Since Badbear wont elaborate as usual, it really isn't very helpful and doesn't tell us much. Usually signing a message previously used on an account is considered fairly solid evidence of ownership. I don't find it that odd that he used a cached address, he probably used Google, making it quite a simple task to search for.  As far as the emails, I could see some one not checking their inbox for an extended period of time. If his intent was to scam then why wouldn't he prepare a more visible Bitcoin address in a post or set up a pgp key prior, instead of fishing around for deleted posts?

None of this sounds unrealistic to me. Obviously this situation creates issues with telling which accounts are or are not stolen in the future. If it is just one person's word against another's, then what is to stop account sellers from regularly selling stolen accounts and just claiming anyone who complains is just trying to scam? Conversely what is stopping account sellers from scamming? IMO there should be some kind of standard set for this type of situation otherwise this will be a recurring issue, especially after the forum hack.

[Quickseller]

A signed message is solid evidence that an account was owned as of the date the address was posted. It proves that he at one point owned the account, which is undisputed. If you were to sell your account then you would still be able to produce a signed message from any addresses previously associated with your account.

I don't know how many bitcoin addresses you have, however I counted over 130 used addresses in my electrum wallet whose seed was generated only >3 months ago (and which wallet is not the only one I use). If he were to do a google search then he would have needed to know which address to search for.

I remember checking his post history and was unable to find a posted address. If his address or pgp key was more visible then he would be risking being asked for a signed message which would have foiled his plan to scam. He needed an address that could easily be linked back to his account, but only to someone who knows where to look, or to someone who is shown very specific evidence.

I admit that when I purchased the zedicus account, I was very new and that it was a mistake to not get a signed message prior to paying for it, however that does not mean that the account was hacked. The generally accepted standard to prove ownership of an account is to provide a signed message that specifies that the ownership is transferring, then if/when someone comes around to claim the account was hacked, that signed message can be presented to disprove such allegation.

[pekatete]

Quickseller/ ACCTseller sold me a hacked account

• Do you have any evidence that Quicksilver and ACCTseller are the same person?

These scam artists linger on this forum, tend to back each other up and always apply diversionary tactics!  The scam accusation clearly states Quickseller NO Quicksilver ...... Who'd have thought, dogie's number one wingman quite aside from trading in forum accounts (which is a scam of its own right), also scams his customers! You couldn't make it up if you tried.