Quickseller removal from default trust list

[Quickseller]

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Indeed he is, good catch.

A significant number of the recent posts about default trust are scammer alts, I even have reason to suspect one a while back was an alt of TF, though I can't confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow, I tough for sure that he was using tor and he made this thread because he was upset that he lost the "tor tax" because the account was essentially ruined from my trust.

[Mt. Dox]

I even have reason to suspect one a while back was an alt of TF, though I can't confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Very interesting...

[hilariousandco]

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Indeed he is, good catch.

A significant number of the recent posts about default trust are scammer alts, I even have reason to suspect one a while back was an alt of TF, though I can't confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow, I tough for sure that he was using tor and he made this thread because he was upset that he lost the "tor tax" because the account was essentially ruined from my trust.

Not all scammers use tor and have to pay the fee. Plenty of free proxies around or could have just used his own IP. Also, people can be still caught using tor as has BadBear has caught users several times.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I see that bright guy but without any reference it's one word against the other. There should be more proof to such accusations.

Accusations usually are made in 'Scam Accusations' but Canadianbitcoins didn't scam him, so it's not a good idea to post there IMHO. If it was in a thread, it would be easy but it was done via PM. Like Quickseller said, if you or anyone want to know more details/verify it, it can be done using a trusted person or Global Moderators.

Hope you aren't spamming for that sig.

   -MZ

[funtotry]

This is a new account with only 5 activity so I really would just trash the account and start over, but also on the otherhand the negative feedback is not just since he didn't actually scam you or anyone. Maybe he lost interest in the account, maybe he gambled his money away, I have no idea, but something like not sending money to an escrow, or not buying something that you agreed on buying (changed his mind etc.) has no grounds for accusing of scammer.

You're wrong! -ve trust feedback can be rightly handed over EVEN IF a scam didn't actually happened because rules stated: "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." (see below)



OP fleeing the deal w/o further communication could be both a miscommunication or the common scammer behaviour. Also, Quickseller seems to have access to BTC-address of OP that were previously associated with a known scammer.

This is a new account with only 5 activity so I really would just trash the account and start over, but also on the otherhand the negative feedback is not just since he didn't actually scam you or anyone. Maybe he lost interest in the account, maybe he gambled his money away, I have no idea, but something like not sending money to an escrow, or not buying something that you agreed on buying (changed his mind etc.) has no grounds for accusing of scammer.

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Additionally agreeing to use escrow and then disappearing once escrow is setup is a common tactic that scammers use, as they hope their counterparty decides that they don't want to "wait" for escrow

+1. Even IF We value your words a PM dump could be good for truth sake as well to allow other forum members to fully understand the situation.

I never knew you could leave negative feedback if you THINK there is a scam, that sounds a bit weird to me because it justifies leaving negative feedback because of grudges. Well on that note then if you think he's a scammer then go ahead and leave the feedback, I don't really care.

[hilariousandco]

I never knew you could leave negative feedback if you THINK there is a scam, that sounds a bit weird to me because it justifies leaving negative feedback because of grudges. Well on that note then if you think he's a scammer then go ahead and leave the feedback, I don't really care.

A system that only marked scammers after the fact wouldn't be very good and certainly wouldn't prevent any scams from happening in the first place. If people leave feedback due to grudges it will look very bad on them and if they're on default trust they'll likely be removed. They may even get negative themselves if they're abusing the system in such a way.

[funtotry]

I never knew you could leave negative feedback if you THINK there is a scam, that sounds a bit weird to me because it justifies leaving negative feedback because of grudges. Well on that note then if you think he's a scammer then go ahead and leave the feedback, I don't really care.

A system that only marked scammers after the fact wouldn't be very good and certainly wouldn't prevent any scams from happening in the first place. If people leave feedback due to grudges it will look very bad on them and if they're on default trust they'll likely be removed. They may even get negative themselves if they're abusing the system in such a way.

I think that they should actually use a neutral trust on grudge and if there is STRONG evidence that the user might actually scam, for example a ponzi investment, hyip, newbie asking for loan without collateral, stuff like that, you can leave negative feedback.

[hilariousandco]

People usually do leave neutrals for that sort of stuff, but sometimes their anger can get the better of them, especially when neutrals don't really count as anything other than a warning to those who are interested.

[Neonecrox13]

This is a new account with only 5 activity so I really would just trash the account and start over, but also on the otherhand the negative feedback is not just since he didn't actually scam you or anyone. Maybe he lost interest in the account, maybe he gambled his money away, I have no idea, but something like not sending money to an escrow, or not buying something that you agreed on buying (changed his mind etc.) has no grounds for accusing of scammer.

You're wrong! -ve trust feedback can be rightly handed over EVEN IF a scam didn't actually happened because rules stated: "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." (see below)



OP fleeing the deal w/o further communication could be both a miscommunication or the common scammer behaviour. Also, Quickseller seems to have access to BTC-address of OP that were previously associated with a known scammer.

This is a new account with only 5 activity so I really would just trash the account and start over, but also on the otherhand the negative feedback is not just since he didn't actually scam you or anyone. Maybe he lost interest in the account, maybe he gambled his money away, I have no idea, but something like not sending money to an escrow, or not buying something that you agreed on buying (changed his mind etc.) has no grounds for accusing of scammer.

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Additionally agreeing to use escrow and then disappearing once escrow is setup is a common tactic that scammers use, as they hope their counterparty decides that they don't want to "wait" for escrow

+1. Even IF We value your words a PM dump could be good for truth sake as well to allow other forum members to fully understand the situation.

I never knew you could leave negative feedback if you THINK there is a scam, that sounds a bit weird to me because it justifies leaving negative feedback because of grudges. Well on that note then if you think he's a scammer then go ahead and leave the feedback, I don't really care.

Quickseller left negative trust on my account when it was hacked. If it wasn't for that then I may have not noticed that someone else was using my account. I do think though that you shouldn't leave someone negative trust unless you can confirm either its a scam or some other illegit reason. But just because someone decided to back out on a loan don't mean it was a scam. Maybe they thought harder about it and changed their mind idk, but I think neg trust shouldn't be left because of that. Neutral yes, but like someone said that don't change anything either.

[Quickseller]

People usually do leave neutrals for that sort of stuff, but sometimes their anger can get the better of them, especially when neutrals don't really count as anything other than a warning to those who are interested.

well he is HBOGo who is now a serial scammer

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Indeed he is, good catch.

A significant number of the recent posts about default trust are scammer alts, I even have reason to suspect one a while back was an alt of TF, though I can't confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow, I tough for sure that he was using tor and he made this thread because he was upset that he lost the "tor tax" because the account was essentially ruined from my trust.

Not all scammers use tor and have to pay the fee. Plenty of free proxies around or could have just used his own IP. Also, people can be still caught using tor as has BadBear has caught users several times.

well if he didn't have to pay the fee then he would have little reason to get upset that I gave negative trust to his account.

[hilariousandco]

I think busting their scams or another account is likely enough to sufficiently piss them off.

[Quickseller]

I think busting their scams or another account is likely enough to sufficiently piss them off.

even a free zero post account? I would think he would just move onto creating another brand new account and repeat.

I guess it is possible that he was in the middle of a transaction when he was trying to scam when I gave him the trust.

[hilariousandco]

I think busting their scams or another account is likely enough to sufficiently piss them off.

even a free zero post account? I would think he would just move onto creating another brand new account and repeat.

I guess it is possible that he was in the middle of a transaction when he was trying to scam when I gave him the trust.

The six minute wait between posts is enough to annoy most people. Wouldn't it annoy you if your accounts kept getting ruined one after the other? It's bound to piss them off. All scammers get irate when people foil their scams. They put a lot of effort into this shit.

[Grand_Voyageur]

@Neonecrox13, @funtotry

In my understanding -ve trust feedback was also fully justified since was not born out from grudges but BTC-address was linked by evidence to known scammer SellingHBOGo.

A PM dump can be done if you do not value my word over the OP's.

It should however be clear that the OP did abandon a deal as he essentially admitted to doing so:

=snip=
Additionally it should be clear to everyone that the OP is not a newbie account as he went straight to meta when he saw that I gave him negative trust.

I would say on good authority that the OP is likely an alt of SellingHBOGo or if not then someone pretending to be him, although at this point I am not able to publicly say why. This is not speculation and such conclusion was made using BTC addresses that are known to be "owned" by SellingHBOGo

Like I said above I have it on good authority that he is SellingHBOGo

Indeed he is, good catch.

A significant number of the recent posts about default trust are scammer alts, I even have reason to suspect one a while back was an alt of TF, though I can't confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Quickseller]

I think busting their scams or another account is likely enough to sufficiently piss them off.

even a free zero post account? I would think he would just move onto creating another brand new account and repeat.

I guess it is possible that he was in the middle of a transaction when he was trying to scam when I gave him the trust.

The six minute wait between posts is enough to annoy most people. Wouldn't it annoy you if your accounts kept getting ruined one after the other? It's bound to piss them off. All scammers get irate when people foil their scams. They put a lot of effort into this shit.

yes I agree that the 6 minute rule is very annoying. But he was not making any posts. I believe it had zero posts when I gave him negative trust so making a new account would make it so he was just as far from being released from 6 minute jail.

[hilariousandco]

You still have to wait to send messages and then when you create or log into the account(s).

[erwin45hacked]

You still have to wait to send messages and then when you create or log into the account(s).

not to mention the rule of maximum 5 pm for an hour, that combined is pretty much annoying

[Superhitech]

You still have to wait to send messages and then when you create or log into the account(s).

not to mention the rule of maximum 5 pm for an hour, that combined is pretty much annoying

I agree, when I was a newbie I was so annoyed by this. Sadly, there are too many scammers/spammers, so this is done to prevent spam.

[funtotry]

Yea I found the 360 second thing REALLY annoying, I guess its for the good of the community though

[Muhammed Zakir]

Yea I found the 360 second thing REALLY annoying, I guess its for the good of the community though

It is better than the newbie jail. Newbie jail was a worst thing and it made most of them left this forum.

   -MZ