Bought an account , and received a negative reputation a month later

[Twipple]

Hi, This is an accusation against Ume https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366936

I bought this account from him this month. Obviously, I am wiilling to provide all the proof for it.

I would request Quickseller to remove the negative trust that he has put on it. This account was posted by Ume in an auction.


Also, before it was sold to me, Ume sent a PM to the ButterZone begging for money , and I was banned from the forum for a week for that.

I can obviously, provide proof for it, but am outside. I have asked Ume to clear it up . Sent him a message.

Also, I am requesting Quickseller to remove his negative trust.

[Quickseller]

I received the following PM from this account

Hi Quickseller. I bought this account from Ume, and now see a neagtive trust for it.
As far as I know, this account was given as a loan ,and defaulted on it.

I was not able to find any evidence of this account being given as collateral for a loan in the relivant time period.

[hilariousetc]

Ume was banned earlier for a couple of weeks. So is he an alt of tacoman71?

[Twipple]

Quickseller have a look at this please  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941505.0

Also have a look at the posts referenced in there.

[Quickseller]

Ume was banned earlier for a couple of weeks. So is he an alt of tacoman71?

From the looks at it The Twipple account posted 15ZX2yUZio9HeSWUeWubxznQyaYcYFBFzB here on Jan 25, which is the address that connected the account to tacoman71. From the looks of it, almost exactly 60 hours later (5 days, which was the term of the loan), the twipple account started spamming short one liners, starting on Jan 30.

I see that someone mentioned that Ume was banned on Feb 1, however it looks like twipple stopped posting from Jan 31 to Feb 7. This is roughly the time that Ume was not posting so I think it is reasonable to say that Ume did not evade his ban via twipple.

However the tx that funded the loan was made on Jan 25 @ roughly 6 PM forum time with a public note (via blockchain.info) saying the loan was due on Jan 30 @ 6PM (forum time?), which is roughly the time the twipple account starts posting again. It is also before this transaction, which was made roughly 3 hours after the loan was due, which implies that twipple never spent the money until after he said he would repay the loan, which implies he was lending to himself. The transaction that spent the funds from the loan connected twipple to tacoman71.

The fact that both Ume and twipple stopped posting and resumed posting at roughly the same time (during a ban) links the two accounts together. The fact that the twipple account started posting on Feb 7 means that twipple likely was controlled by ume as of Feb 7. The fact that the security log does not show twipple changing his password within the last 30 days implies that it was not sold in the last 30 days (which includes feb 7).

I am not going to remove my negative trust for twipple, I am however going to add negative trust for Ume, for both likely lending to himself to build up trust for himself and for being a likely alt of tacoman71

[lolled]

Ok, I am going to have to jump in. I posted the scam accusation against Ume. I figured he was doing some shady stuff on the forum.
After I saw him post Twipple account for sale, I thought he never gave the loan to Twipple but hacked the account himself.
I instead bought the account of Twipple from him, to check if Twipple had gotten his account back or he didn't. Ume also managed to get his trust removed for some reason, and no one believed me on that thread.


SO Quickseller,your analysis on Twipple is wrong. I don't know why Twipple had posted that address. But just so you know, the amount didn't move out of that address till Feb 1st,  which was after the loan was due. there might be something else that is missing that Ume might have tried to pull off.




As for this " The fact that both Ume and twipple stopped posting and resumed posting at roughly the same time (during a ban) links the two accounts together. "

As soon as I bought Twipple, I looked at the messages and in the Outbox, there was a message to Butterzone begging as a friend. Don't know why Ume was doing that . Just 2 days later, Twipple was banned for that message for 7 days. And Ume was banned to for some other reason, which a Moderator can clarify.
Ume also received a negative trust because of that thread of mine, and  for giving trust to himself through an altaccount ,but he convinced the person who gave him the trust to remove it

[hilariousetc]

Ume was banned for shitposting. The recent thread by dumbum asking about a ban for unsubstantial posts + sig ad is him.

[newflesh]

Twipple stills owes me btc for graphic design work I did for him over a year ago. When I stopped replying to his PMs he tried contacting me via his alt account BitShopper:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=188396

More proof:

My username for the site is: twipple

I love the site, it's great. Easy to use, addictive and it actually works.
Managed to turn 0.1 into 0.7 in just 45 minutes of play.

Good job!

Not sure if this is relevant to the thread, thought I'd post it up anyways

[Quickseller]

Ume was banned for shitposting. The recent thread by dumbum asking about a ban for unsubstantial posts + sig ad is him.

So this thread is from Ume? Looking at both Ume and twipple, I see both their post seems to be very short and insubstantial.

I don't exactly have a lot of experience in getting banned, but I don't think you receive notification for the exact reason for the ban, but rather a much more general reason (e.g. what rule was broken). I also understand that generally speaking, the lowest ban period is going to be 7 days, so if twipple was banned two days after ume was banned, then it wouldn't be able to post again until 2 days after ume started posting again, however they both started posting on the same day.

I don't think lolled is credible/trustworthy enough to believe he is a separate person from ume, so I don't think him posting is sufficient to have the trust removed. If he really did buy the account and Ume wants to be credible then he should refund lolled whatever he paid for it

[lolled]

Ume was banned for shitposting. The recent thread by dumbum asking about a ban for unsubstantial posts + sig ad is him.

So this thread is from Ume? Looking at both Ume and twipple, I see both their post seems to be very short and insubstantial.

I don't exactly have a lot of experience in getting banned, but I don't think you receive notification for the exact reason for the ban, but rather a much more general reason (e.g. what rule was broken). I also understand that generally speaking, the lowest ban period is going to be 7 days, so if twipple was banned two days after ume was banned, then it wouldn't be able to post again until 2 days after ume started posting again, however they both started posting on the same day.

I don't think lolled is credible/trustworthy enough to believe he is a separate person from ume, so I don't think him posting is sufficient to have the trust removed. If he really did buy the account and Ume wants to be credible then he should refund lolled whatever he paid for it

I don't have to be trustworthy for that .The reason Ume at first got a negative trust was because of the thread I created. Why would I create a thread with so much information for just getting my own account a negative rep ?

I wouldbe fine with Ume refunding me for it. I will await his reply on this.

[Quickseller]

Ume was banned for shitposting. The recent thread by dumbum asking about a ban for unsubstantial posts + sig ad is him.

So this thread is from Ume? Looking at both Ume and twipple, I see both their post seems to be very short and insubstantial.

I don't exactly have a lot of experience in getting banned, but I don't think you receive notification for the exact reason for the ban, but rather a much more general reason (e.g. what rule was broken). I also understand that generally speaking, the lowest ban period is going to be 7 days, so if twipple was banned two days after ume was banned, then it wouldn't be able to post again until 2 days after ume started posting again, however they both started posting on the same day.

I don't think lolled is credible/trustworthy enough to believe he is a separate person from ume, so I don't think him posting is sufficient to have the trust removed. If he really did buy the account and Ume wants to be credible then he should refund lolled whatever he paid for it

I don't have to be trustworthy for that .The reason Ume at first got a negative trust was because of the thread I created. Why would I create a thread with so much information for just getting my own account a negative rep ?

I wouldbe fine with Ume refunding me for it. I will await his reply on this.

The reason Ume has negative trust is because he is a likely alt of tacoman71. The negative trust the ume first received was removed because of however it is back on now because of the reason stated above.

The fact that ume does or does not take back the account has nothing to do with me

I am not sure why you would buy an account that you thought, and had some level of evidence was hacked.

[lolled]

Ume was banned for shitposting. The recent thread by dumbum asking about a ban for unsubstantial posts + sig ad is him.

So this thread is from Ume? Looking at both Ume and twipple, I see both their post seems to be very short and insubstantial.

I don't exactly have a lot of experience in getting banned, but I don't think you receive notification for the exact reason for the ban, but rather a much more general reason (e.g. what rule was broken). I also understand that generally speaking, the lowest ban period is going to be 7 days, so if twipple was banned two days after ume was banned, then it wouldn't be able to post again until 2 days after ume started posting again, however they both started posting on the same day.

I don't think lolled is credible/trustworthy enough to believe he is a separate person from ume, so I don't think him posting is sufficient to have the trust removed. If he really did buy the account and Ume wants to be credible then he should refund lolled whatever he paid for it

I don't have to be trustworthy for that .The reason Ume at first got a negative trust was because of the thread I created. Why would I create a thread with so much information for just getting my own account a negative rep ?

I wouldbe fine with Ume refunding me for it. I will await his reply on this.

The reason Ume has negative trust is because he is a likely alt of tacoman71. The negative trust the ume first received was removed because of however it is back on now because of the reason stated above.

The fact that ume does or does not take back the account has nothing to do with me

He was given a negative trust because I pointed out that user geforcelover belonged to him , and was used to give Ume a alt account positive trust.



"The fact that ume does or does not take back the account has nothing to do with me" It doesn't ,but the facts are clear that Twipple has been purchased by me, and is no longer affliated with the scammer, and this should be enough for you to remove the negative trust on Twipple.
Your negative trust is on the assumption that Twipple used the same address  in the past, and it might actually have been a reason , why he took a loan . But it defaulted, and came into control of Ume , and it was sold to me.

[lolled]

I also just read the taco was hacked by someone which is the reason why it got the rating . May I ask why did Twipple got related with that ?
In your trust rating you say :

tacoman71 posted the address 1Fz6xXind3Kovsw4ArW6u7oMXRZTUSBj1G (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=812533.msg10239935#msg10239935) which signed https://blockchain.info/tx/bfd3ec181aeae8abd8da9e63f6c4772ff8fceb6d4c0f3472cac66b6c77649353 that was also signed by 1Fo6Uy8JWnV9SnDM5LBnYA8nnCQgbfbyDT and Twipple posted 15ZX2yUZio9HeSWUeWubxznQyaYcYFBFzB https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=924856.msg10255801#msg10255801 which signed d515a082b1df9b515e8f826cae84f41629183f26575bd014ba3d32ecddc9b633

But Twipple posted a fresh address never signed to anything before : 15ZX2yUZio9HeSWUeWubxznQyaYcYFBFzB

So how is it related  ?

EDIT: Signing an address is new to me, will have to read about it.

[Quickseller]

The reason I think they are one and the same is because twipple did not start posting until almost exactly until the loan was due, then stopped posting at almost the exactly the same time that ume was banned, and resumed posting at almost the exact same time that ume was likely unbanned. Additionally the funds from the loan were not spent until after the loan was due.

Additionally, the posting style of both accounts is very low quality and spammy.

[lolled]

The reason I think they are one and the same is because twipple did not start posting until almost exactly until the loan was due, then stopped posting at almost the exactly the same time that ume was banned, and resumed posting at almost the exact same time that ume was likely unbanned. Additionally the funds from the loan were not spent until after the loan was due.

Additionally, the posting style of both accounts is very low quality and spammy.

Well , Like I had already said before, here is the explanation to that.

1. Twipple takes a loan from Ume, and gives his account as collateral. - During this time Twipple was a Member status

2. After the due date is over, Ume created this thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941098  
asking if its fine if he sells Twipples account  as he didn;t pay back on loan.

3. Ume , then created an auction for selling an account : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941258
He realized, that he would get a better price for selling the account if he got it to a full member status. And he made some posts after seizing the account .

4. I contacted Ume , and bought Twipple's account, and right after I bought it, I saw a message sent to TBZ before I bought it begging for money. I just ignored it, and a day later Twipple got banned for 7 days due to Begging.

Here is a picture :
https://i.imgur.com/aQqEP15.png

The message above inthe picture  shows that Ume contacted TBZ at a time , hourse before he sold and gave me the account details (2nd picture in the link above. )
Ume was banned for some other reason, and Twipple got banned due to begging  ^

It happened at the same time as a coincidence, and can be confirmed by a mod.


5. I was the one who created the scam accusation against Ume, and its funny, that I am the one paying for it.

I am off for work, and will wait for Ume to reply when he is back online .

[Quickseller]

The reason I think they are one and the same is because twipple did not start posting until almost exactly until the loan was due, then stopped posting at almost the exactly the same time that ume was banned, and resumed posting at almost the exact same time that ume was likely unbanned. Additionally the funds from the loan were not spent until after the loan was due.

Additionally, the posting style of both accounts is very low quality and spammy.

Well , Like I had already said before, here is the explanation to that.

1. Twipple takes a loan from Ume, and gives his account as collateral. - During this time Twipple was a Member status

No, as shown above, Ume and Twipple were likely the same person before the loan was taken out.

2. After the due date is over, Ume created this thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941098 
asking if its fine if he sells Twipples account  as he didn;t pay back on loan.

Agreed, however I still argue that they are the same person the entire time.

3. Ume , then created an auction for selling an account : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941258
He realized, that he would get a better price for selling the account if he got it to a full member status. And he made some posts after seizing the account .

I won't dispute that.

4. I contacted Ume , and bought Twipple's account, and right after I bought it, I saw a message sent to TBZ before I bought it begging for money. I just ignored it, and a day later Twipple got banned for 7 days due to Begging.

First you said it was banned after two days, I have shown that they were banned at the same time, now you are saying it was banned the next day. Which one is it?

Here is a picture :
https://i.imgur.com/aQqEP15.png

that proves nothing.

The message above inthe picture  shows that Ume contacted TBZ at a time , hourse before he sold and gave me the account details (2nd picture in the link above. )
Ume was banned for some other reason, and Twipple got banned due to begging  ^

It happened at the same time as a coincidence, and can be confirmed by a mod.

Nope. And how would you know the reason that Ume was banned? lol(led)

5. I was the one who created the scam accusation against Ume, and its funny, that I am the one paying for it.

If you seriously think that you could create a scam accusation against Ume one day and then the same day try to buy an account from him and seriously think it is not involved in some kind of scam then I am sorry but you are an idiot.

I am off for work, and will wait for Ume to reply when he is back online .

Right, "he"

Either way. Just because you purchased an account that was involved with a scam and/or associated with a scammer does not mean that any negative trust that results from such scam should be removed.

[botany]

If you are talking about Ume, you should have a look at this.
He got away by claiming that his account was hacked.

[Dumbum]

Hi, This is an accusation against Ume https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=366936

I bought this account from him this month. Obviously, I am wiilling to provide all the proof for it.

I would request Quickseller to remove the negative trust that he has put on it. This account was posted by Ume in an auction.


Also, before it was sold to me, Ume sent a PM to the ButterZone begging for money , and I was banned from the forum for a week for that.

I can obviously, provide proof for it, but am outside. I have asked Ume to clear it up . Sent him a message.

Also, I am requesting Quickseller to remove his negative trust.

Hi guys . I m Ume .

Just wanted to clear somethings .
(I'm replying from mobile cant add refrences)
First of all i started loaning sone btc to users with collateral but as the user twipple came in asked for loan when his member status was (member) he asked me for loan of .05 or so cant remember . After the due date of paying i created a thread .saying help me what to do with his account he did'nt contact me never spends the money which i lent . So what should i do they all said sell his account . But i did like 10 posts and still it remain on member level . After with the current owner of twipple paid me upfront without using escrow and i release details (twipple was not me )
@lolled did you bought account using alt ?

I never hacked or scammed any person here .

@quickseller you know that i made a mistake only i gave rep my self you said to remove i did . But after that i never gave loan to anyone because i thought i dont have enough reputation or experience .

I never beg here for anything . Never scammed anyone . For being good on this forum you get neg trust thats not fair .

[lolled]

If you are talking about Ume, you should have a look at this.
He got away by claiming that his account was hacked.

Well thats what I have always been saying. I still don't see why Quickseller would neg rep, when clearly I bought the account.
If I took a loan from Twipple(as Twipple), I would just get back the possession of the account by just paying back. Not defaulting and then hoping to buy it back.

[lolled]

1. Twipple takes a loan from Ume, and gives his account as collateral. - During this time Twipple was a Member status

No, as shown above, Ume and Twipple were likely the same person before the loan was taken out.

No they were not. Look at the posting history . I can give an escrow or you access to the account, and you can see all the messages of the Twipple account, to see Twipple and Ume are not the same person. Twipple defaulted on a loan, and that is how Ume got it.

4. I contacted Ume , and bought Twipple's account, and right after I bought it, I saw a message sent to TBZ before I bought it begging for money. I just ignored it, and a day later Twipple got banned for 7 days due to Begging.

First you said it was banned after two days, I have shown that they were banned at the same time, now you are saying it was banned the next day. Which one is it?

Does it  matter ? Finding faults in statements that don't matter ? I don't remember if it was a day or 2. I jsut remember it getting banned during that time period. Its not even relevant in this context, but you are just saaying this to find lies and making your point strong through an argument that doesn't matter.

Here is a picture :
https://i.imgur.com/aQqEP15.png

that proves nothing.

Really ? It does prove, that Ume used the account for begging before I bought it from him.