Troleybüs/Eal F. Skillz/Pandacoin

[OrangeSeller]

Marco sent the wrong amount (overpay)
Macro ask for return of the overpay
Trolley don't return it
Trolley deserves a red trust
If he is Eal then he ruin his staff rank with 0.05
And Marco needs to pay the overpay from his pocket
Mistake from him for sending an overpay amount

This concludes all
Stop the drama

[Quickseller]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

[redsn0w]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

[Quickseller]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

[redsn0w]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

[Quickseller]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

I would personally send the excess amount back because I would want to maintain my relationship with my trading partners. However if you send Bitcoin to someone then it is that persons property barring some prior agreement to repay amounts.

There is also a claim that the funds were confiscated from the bit-x account and if this is the case then it would be 100% Marcos problem. This is also another example as to why payments should not be sent to a website account.

[TrianglePythagoras]

I personally don't trust staff members with alt accounts that aren't known to the public.

[redsn0w]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

I would personally send the excess amount back because I would want to maintain my relationship with my trading partners. However if you send Bitcoin to someone then it is that persons property barring some prior agreement to repay amounts.

There is also a claim that the funds were confiscated from the bit-x account and if this is the case then it would be 100% Marcos problem. This is also another example as to why payments should not be sent to a website account.

Thanks for your opinion, you will do this because you are honest.

I personally don't trust staff members with alt accounts that aren't known to the public.

Thanks also to you for your opinion, I trust only the honest users and it seems that him is not honest (not only about the question of the funds |0.055 btc| but also for the postive trusts given between his "alt accounts").

[shulio]

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

if i am Eal F skilz, i will send it back, and get it done, it is not worth to risk the title of staff just for a small amount of 0.05, which is like ~$15, but Eal risk his position with this small amount and also if Eal dont return it, someone needs to pay it back to bit-x, which is Marco, because he was the one who sent the excess funds

[maku]

I personally don't trust staff members with alt accounts that aren't known to the public.

So the problem is that you would never know if someone have alt accounts when he will cautious enough. It is not  so hard. From the other hand, some people do not care about disclosure of their own alts. But this is matter for another discussion.

[Blazed]

I think Marco pretty much nailed these guys. I thought something like this was the case when Eal dropped me a negative for nothing that had to do with him. Going to see if he responds...guessing he will not though.

Edit: Left all 3 of these guys negative feedback...I will remove if proven wrong.

[cakir]

This is Obvious Retaliation of Marcotheminer

Let me tell you why this is retaliation.

First of all everything started with Turkish Member yussuf89's account has been stollen.
Turkish board moderator Eal tried to defence Zeki (a.k.a real owner of the hero account) and said that Zeki should keep the account because of hacking and he shouldn't pay the loan back. Zeki and marcotheminer decided to sell this hacked account to cover the loaned money...
As you can see marcotheminer has a negative trust from Administrator Badbear "Traffics in stolen accounts " https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=147773

Then marcotheminer wanted to retaliate Eal so started this thread. I know that Eal and Troleybüs are different people, Eal has nothing to do with this accusation. But marcotheminer thinks otherwise.

Anyway, What does revenge seeker marcotheminer say?
In the beginning he said that: "Troleybüs owes him money" You can see that on the reply subject's of this thread: " Re: Troleybüs/Eal F. Skillz/Pandacoin Owes Me 0.055 BTC ". For one week marcotheminer wanted bit-x's money for himself He changed it when I warned him: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10649918#msg10649918

After that I remembered the first month of this sig campaign. Marcotheminer had overpaid me too. And I told that over 20 hours ago. Check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10650103#msg10650103

It has been nearly one day, neither marcotheminer nor bit-x contacted me for refund which I said that to refund is ok for me.

What should we understand from that? marcotheminer doesn't care about bit-x's money; he's only thinking to get back at Eal (who's unrelated) in a childish mood.  If he cared about client's money he should've asked me for refund too. Also Troleybüs and marcotheminer had agreement to correct marcotheminer's fault. Troleybüs already stated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10594132#msg10594132
Instead of marcotheminer act loyal to his agreement he started a childish war against Eal.

Also marcotheminer expanded this childish war against some of Turkish board members;
pandacoin is also another person whom gave yussuf89 (hacked account) negative trust, than he deleted it when marcotheminer and zeki have agreement.
karatma1 is also another person, marcotheminer tried to block his acceptance on a sig campaign: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973949.msg10641841#msg10641841

[hilariousandco]

The retaliation seems to be coming equally from both sides and predates this accusation and it's obvious you've both rubbed each other up the wrong way. Regardless of whether eal and trollybus and pandacoin and others are alts or just friends they have obviously conspired to abuse the feedback system and retaliate against others that have had run ins with eal or vice versa. This retaliatory feedback from these Turkish accounts has happened at least three times on people in this thread alone and there's at least one other I know of that hasn't spoken up. The accusation by marco is petty and doesn't really seem like a scam to me but obviously he's taken the opportunity to get a one-up here for previous quarrels and negative feedbacks received and I can't really blame him. This is what happens when you get into petty spats and egos are involved because both parties are always trying to take the other down and will uncover any dirt they can no matter how petty to come out the victor.

[troleybüs]

If I owe Bit-X they should PM me. I don't get any PM from them since 26 February. I'll pay them if they send me their address with a signed message. All my life I live with my honor. I don't owe anybody. Even that is not my fault I'll pay them and clear my name. This is my only account here, I don't have any alt accounts. Real people that know me in Turkey can confirm that.

They read my message but don't answered, I'm still waiting.

I get a reply from Bit-X:

Send me your BTC address with signed message please. I want to clear this mess.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970157.msg10666475#msg10666475

Campaign funds go to the campaign wallet which Marcotheminer has given. So please return there.

0.055 BTC sent.

[shulio]

If I owe Bit-X they should PM me. I don't get any PM from them since 26 February. I'll pay them if they send me their address with a signed message. All my life I live with my honor. I don't owe anybody. Even that is not my fault I'll pay them and clear my name. This is my only account here, I don't have any alt accounts. Real people that know me in Turkey can confirm that.

They read my message but don't answered, I'm still waiting.

this concludes this scam accusation, troley need to return the overpay amount, then it is all set
Bolded a few points , this is about  0.055 btc overpay from bit-x campaign , if there is a discussion about Eal's using alt or leaving trust to himself , it can be discussed in another thread

[troleybüs]

this concludes this scam accusation, troley need to return the overpay amount, then it is all set

I sent funds to this address.

Very well, then please send back 0.055 to 1DwsNFJnXFSFtXP7M2q4rVczLyTqNpz1pb.

Why was he banned?

[cakir]

I've got a pm from Bit-x.com. Here it's:

If the company asks their 0.02 BTC I can send it back directly to bit-x.

Campaign funds go to the campaign wallet which Marcotheminer has given. So please return there.

Provide me fund address please. I don't have time to check it.

Anyway I've found out Troleybüs sent back to this addres: 1DwsNFJnXFSFtXP7M2q4rVczLyTqNpz1pb
I've sent 0.02 BTC to this address too.
Here it is: https://blockchain.info/tx/f15b52bafcc7fb8ab9e106ac713890f3f3efb2503bb1f2ac2b21daf8121bc3cf

Also, I suggest forum members not to join marcotheminer's sig campaigns.
Because he doesn't do his job well, he overpays, makes a deal with overpaid member and then kicks out from campaign and asks for refund.
He got banned because of spamming, which is not allowed by forum rules
at least 2 of his campaign members got banned because of spamming. (madness: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976685.0 and fildza: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976914.0 )

I also suggest bit-x.com to change their sig campaign manager. obviously marcotheminer is not capable of handling this kinda operation.

edit:  I also wonder that; will he kick out himself from his own signature campaign?

[shorena]

-snip-
edit:  I also wonder that; will he kick out himself from his own signature campaign?

Sorry for the OT reply, but marco was banned for PM spam not for post spam. Apparently he was advertising the bot to others running a signature campaign.

[cakir]

-snip-
edit:  I also wonder that; will he kick out himself from his own signature campaign?

Sorry for the OT reply, but marco was banned for PM spam not for post spam. Apparently he was advertising the bot to others running a signature campaign.

I don't think that is the only reason why he got banned.
As far as I follow marcotheminer also spammed other signature campaigns to get more participants. Also he had an obsession about being the 100th page's first poster and keep posted same gif repeatedly.

All of those posts were deleted.

[arallmuus]

-snip-
edit:  I also wonder that; will he kick out himself from his own signature campaign?

Sorry for the OT reply, but marco was banned for PM spam not for post spam. Apparently he was advertising the bot to others running a signature campaign.

seems a bit off topic but here is the rules of this from which Marco put in the OP

-snip-

Rules:

- All users who receive valid negative trust and/or are banned for spam or likewise during the course of the campaign will be denied payment.

EDIT : it seems like both cakir and troleybus returned it back to bit-x, so this scam accusation can be close