Topic: 100% of Quickseller's Flags are false. (Read 805 times)

False accusation archived: http://archive.fo/wsCi6



What does source mean to you ? Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1046791

Even Lauda has now conceded his methodology in constructing flags was incorrect:

[Archive]

It is not plagiarism, we are discussing QS's tags which you claim they are 100% false, all flags are linking the same topic, besides, xtraelv placed source - which is not needed anyway because source is already in your thread.

OP should instead spending time on ad hominem's and off topic posts spend some time to edit this thread which is very misleading, unless it does not suit OP's agenda to show that flags are active and not false.

I mean, whole thread should be redacted with latest information OP has received.

(post archived http://archive.is/hRdsh#selection-11132.8-11132.11)

xtraelv's post [Archive] is a lowly cut and paste of another post without any attribution and is being passed off as his own research.

Let's call it what it is - plagiarism by xtraelv.

I've supported all of them except sergiom (I couldn't find the linking evidence) but that account is banned anyway.

They are only low priority - most of the accounts have not been active for years (but could be re-used later)

They were all tagged with negative feedback by at least 2 DTs already for the same issue with other supporting links.

Most of the accounts were named after the ponzis that they were representing.

NextPonzi - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nextponzi-410356
NextPonziV2 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nextponziv2-412768
fastponzi - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/fastponzi-413326
bit-dividends - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bit-dividends-496639
bit-dividends.com - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bit-dividendscom-434420
Crypterest - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/crypterest-487999
CryptoSplit - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptosplit-503558
InvestCryptos - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/investcryptos-507340
BtcGains - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/btcgains-351936
BitcoinPonzi.io - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoinponziio-412415

Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1046791

Known scam sites he ran:
#NextPonzi - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/35btc-invested-nextponzicom-weekly-reset-100-automatic-130-payout-921851 - Looks like they scammed for ~12.5
#PonziFast v2 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=938671.0;all - looks like they scammed for ~2.6
#bit-dividends.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=947235.0;all
#Crypterest.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1002314.0;all
#Cryptosplit.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016501.0;all
#InvestCryptos - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032537.0;all
#BTCBackers - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=824055.0;all
#BTCgains - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761797.0;all
#BitcoinPonzi.io - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927412.0;all

I don't mind it was QS who made the accusation - if it is valid I'll support it.
Although it is not immediately clear - all the evidence is in the thread. Supported also by negative feedback tags by at least two DTs.

The reason I stress my point is because there have already been incidents in which an account is shady (or even affiliated with scams) to which feedback was not given out of inconsequentialism.

The account would later do some bullshit farming in Games & rounds or Off-topic and then sidestep back into the light to scam some Newbies.

---

I have the same opinion here as I do with spam: the more you fight, the easier it will get.

I suppose so but there's thousands of scammer accounts out there...  I'm not wasting my time dealing with such low level / banned / inactive accounts, especially when the evidence against them isn't particularly strong or well laid out.


Flags read:


Not strong enough evidence mentioned in that topic for most flags. He should do things correctly or not do them at all.

I seem to have used my "due intelligence" before supporting those flags, if you see majority of the accused accounts post history they are in one way or the other connected to some ponzi or scam, most of them are shady anyways. It's worth supporting flags against this fraudsters than attacking the person who created them IMO.

Having less posts or being an inactive account doesn't mean it's not helpful to warn newbies about them, rather what you are advocating for looks like an unnecessary clog of drama, but whatever.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do we just ignore low-post or inactive accounts? Because "age" carries weight to it and Bitcointalk is rife with scams, there is no telling when the account might reactivate.

Better to be proactive regardless of the user.

The majority don't have supporting evidence that such and such is an alt of his main target, that is why they are false. Anybody can accuse anybody of being an alt, but without evidence to support a claim, they are simply claims.

Anyone with "due intelligence" should question unsupported claims.

In addition, many of these accounts haven't been active since 2015, and only have a dozen posts or less under their belt. Seems like an unnecessary clog of information, but whatever.

By looking at the evidence and some discussion in the topic linked to the flag, I am inclined to think that all of this accounts are high risk to deal with.

Flags supported.

I was talking about that test flag created by theymos. By the way, nice meeting you here too. I have seen you around but I guess we never had this chance to exchange words. Anyway it's done. 🤪

Feel free to support them if you feel they are correct:)

I don't see any of those flags started by QS false, he has linked a well organized thread about the risks of dealing with TheGambler and his alts here, which would convince anyone with due intelligence to believe he is at high risk of trading with that person.

Even the accused accounts are already red trusted for scamming, so I think the type 1 flags started by QS are good at it's place.

Probably - Normally I only frequent the Scam Accusation and Reputation threads (and occasionally the Currency Exchange section).  Pleased to meet you.

You have been sleeping all those days? 🤪

I can do that too, you know!
Timelord opposed this flag:


 

---

---

Update topic, this line is false:


That ponzi thread linked by QS raised enough red flags and that should be more than enough to support it. And...



"Due largely to the factors mentioned in topic (scammed people) I believe that anyone dealing with account Plutonium is at high risk of losing money."

You don't see red flags in that thread?   Ok, why don't you oppose these flags then, the same way you opposed flag against GP?

Go ahead, oppose flags created against scammer(s).

How many times one has to mention word Ponzi until it become valid for you? 3 times? 4? 10?

marlboroza is using reverse-enginering to make the flag fit the accusation...

[quote author=marlboroza link=topic=5165940.msg51855060#msg51855060 date=1563369648]
I don't see it the way OP see it. I'll pick one random flag (Plutonium):

Ponzies are mentioned in that topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1046791.
[/quote]

The only two times the word Ponzi are mentioned in the Opening Post by Quickseller is in this first paragraph:

[quote author=Quickseller link=topic=1046791.msg11275421#msg11275421 date=1430686502]
TheGambler has run many HYIP/ponzi sites over the years. Research into his identity has caused me to believe that he has been running scam sites since at least 2012, however I think they probably go back to ~2010. He is known by some as moreia, by others as Spoodermen, he seems to think his "main" account is TheGambler. He has scammed at least 15 BTC on bitcointalk, however the amount is likely at least 4 times (by my guesstimate) as much considering it is difficult to know the exact amount he scammed on most of his HYIP/ponzis. He has been described by some as the plague to the community, he is a serial scammer.
[/quote]

Quickseller lists Plutonium as an alt, but makes no connection between the accused (TheGambler) and Plutonium. (and he's already "guestimating" ... not offering facts)


What Quickseller actually said was:


The "he" being the subject of the op - TheGambler.  There is no breakdown of which user allegedly did what much less offer proof of connections.


Again, marlbaroza is using reverse-enginering logic to make the flag fit the accusation.  Quickseller hasn't proven the connection between the subject of the thread and those he claims are alts, so the flag was ... "If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed."

Given marboroza has already started a thread asking us to distrust him it's little surprise he has only now gone back and supported the flag all these weeks later.  He doesn't have anything to loose by supporting a flag that was created incorrectly.



by my guesstimate Quickseller, trigger happy to be seen to have mended his ways has created a flurry of Flags, then has read the fine print and has stopped creating flags in the hope no one would notice the thread supporting the flags does not hold up to scrutiny.

---

Somebody feel free to PM @theymos to come have a look at this thread... and feel free to audit my own Flags (if you-know-who) hasn't already tried it.

I don't see it the way OP see it. I'll pick one random flag (Plutonium):

Ponzies are mentioned in that topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1046791.
This thread is mentioned in topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906261.0;all
Indeed, guests and everyone, because Plutonium is ponzi scammer, as it is visible in thread linked above.
Connection between other accounts might or might not be true (I did not check everything yet) but this is irrelevant for this flag. Relevant factor is that they are ponzi scammer which is, again, mentioned in QS's thread. Evidence of scamming exist.

I actually see flags that should be supported, not bashed.

Thanks for the information - As I said in the quote, I had endeavoured to find the name ky94PjDw in that thread, but it wasn't mentioned, hence the observation in the OP.

---

Post three of Your thread you are told that the person used a mixing service which is a dubious response in itself, however your OP does not cite any references as to where you've come to the conclusion the names listed are alts.  The thread was created over three years and two months ago:


Last edited


post five disgraced koshgel is massaging your ego to which in post seven you are wanting others to press charges then from then on it's down to your alts such as ACCTseller to help kick an empty tin can around the playground at lunch time.

---

Quickseller isn't anyone's friend except his sock-puppets.  His thread is stale having come to life this year after he created his twenty flags with this as his first post since the flags were created.


No doubt because the "PD" in your own area have heard it all before? 

---

After kicking the tin can around for 36 hours this is the last post:


And not one of the 98 posts connects the twenty flagged users to each other.

100% of Quickseller's Flags are false.