Topic: Alt in the Crosswise Finance Campaign (Read 542 times)

Oh, I understand you better now. Glad to know we're on the same wavelength.

I understood your post well.  But I loved that "pat on the back" expression so much that I involuntarily remember it when I see the transfer of merits between fairly similar accounts.
As for the accounts, from my post, in addition to the fact that they regularly transfer merits to each other, I did not find any coincidences, it just looks like family or friendly ties. This is where your expression comes in. I also want you to understand me correctly.


You're right. These are cheaters.

@lovesmayfamilis, may be you didn't get my perspective there. I wasn't referring to any other thing there other than application or POA posts. I ain't sure any of those links you shared with us there has application campaigns, except I missed it. What I meant with my earlier disposition was like seeing a trusted poster like you apply to a Chipmixer campaign and then upon seeing your application, I splash merit on it. For me, splashing merit on that application would mean I'm saying, "You deserve to be on that campaign." That's the point I laboured to explain there. I hope you understood it better now?

lovesmayfamilis, I advise you to review another case I found a few days ago as well. I've tagged them, but don't seem to be too affected as they never show up.

I also have my doubt about the user I'm proving in this thread actually cheating on some campaign because so far the manager doesn't seem to care about this. One of them is still green in the spreadsheet even though I've proven them guilty. Apparently negative tag never got in the way of them for get something in a greedy way.

I remember your post. And today, when I met these three accounts, I remembered it, and I thought, could such a transfer of merits be perceived as a "pat on the back"?
I have not yet seen the history of these three accounts, but I am convinced that there will be a story about brothers, sisters, mum, and dad. Nevertheless, yes, patting and cheering, as you say, is very active here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=2900229


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=2999106


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=2178170

Abuse of merit must be fought at the very last moment. For example, if you've already found evidence of a link between accounts. The second point might be of interest to those who are being awarded merits by that account.
And this time you can make sure whether he transferred the merits to his accounts or it will be possible to find other new connections with this account.
This is most often the case when an account is once found to be fraudulent, and the second violation is fairly easy to find.

I like your thinking, thanks for correcting the error in my thinking about the abuse of the merit system. also, at least this can add to my new knowledge.
frankly, I've also seen when users submit merit (POA) on apps in the altcoin section. although that's one of the main contexts I mean besides (POA) in the BTC Application section, but unfortunately I forgot the link.

I see this happen a lot even in BTC paying campaigns and I don't think it's anything close to a merit abuse, though I don't think I've done it (I don't think it's wrong either). I see it as users giving others a pat on the back to show they deserve applying in that campaign. I believe that serves a purpose of vouching, in a way. Imagine a well recognized and trusted member here doing that on an application post, it kind of subtly alerts manager of that bounty that the candidate is good to be accepted in that campaign/bounty. That's the way I see it, nothing more.

Yes, now I see that. most of the data parameters mentioned by the OP. this will lead to a list of old resources & it might be true that some of them are back active (probably because bitcoin price went up)
So according to my personal observations. there is no doubt that many lists of accounts (resources in the past) are starting to wake up from a long slumber.

I love the photo that @marlboroza exposed 

No, it's definitely not proof.  It's more like evidence that could be something or might not be--but props to OP for at least looking out for cheaters, because we all know they're in the walls of bitcointalk like termites.

The merit sending does look a little bit odd, and I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the members involved are alts or are part of a bounty farm, and I'll always have a fondness for this pic:



There's a lot of money to be made in bounties (and in having a ranked-up account), so no doubt there's merit abuse happening.  Whether it's happening with the members named in the OP I'm not sure, but it's definitely something to keep an eye on.

My guess is that TopT3ns has most likely changed hand after I got some evidence of a password change on 10/13/2021 1:46:52 PM based on https://bpip.org/Profile?p=TopT3ns

Some supporting evidence:

• Telegram username change
• Bitcoin address changed
• ETH (BSC) address changed
• Received merit from one of the other account ^{[within the last 150 days]} on a 0 quality post close enough to the submission of an application on a signature campaign with a minimum requirement of 5 merit in the last 120 days.

You might still think that this is an unfounded accusation given that the merit system is not moderated so certain users can spend their merit on random post ^{[worth 0 quality]} even without any prior discussion involving the two account. I suspect it only because it's so weird for these two account ^{[asus09 & TopT3ns].}

---

tazmantasik & flyer88 are alt account that have scammed many campaigns before by arguing that they used the same ATH address to join different campaign.


These two account join the same bounty: ITSMYNE 🚀 Talk NFTs, Trade NFTs 🚀 35k USD worth of tokens Allocated

Number on spreadsheet: tazmantasik [6], flyer88 [185]

Proof:



These two account also join the same campaign: [Open][Signature Campaign] Crosswise Finance | Legendary & Heroes | $85 Per Week |

Spreadsheet number: tazmantasik [64], flyer88 [68].

Proof:

---

I think for some other account that have been proven as alternative account and have gotten a negative tag, I don't need to consider looking for a lot of evidence. Reference to their trust can already prove it all. It's just that managers need to reconsider the participation of these users in the campaigns they manage.


I apologize to everyone who has supported me all this time. Actually I'm not interested in looking for more cheaters because I don't have much ability to get a lot of valid evidence. But some of these account I'm reporting have ruined other users' chance of getting a chance just by registering all their alts. They must be taught a heavy lesson this time.

Merit distribution is insufficient proof to linked accounts; each user has the right to use his or her smerits as they see fit as long as they are not abusing or selling them; the only thing that drew my attention to these users was the manner in which their posts were deleted after sending or receiving (5)merits from each other.  

In addition to the fact that you are going to bring proof of the participation of these accounts in the same company, please note that there is no need to create a separate topic for each company of cheaters.
As you noticed, you found accounts do not have a good reputation, so I think it is enough to define them in a general thread for alternative accounts. Exceptions may be for high ranks, which you doubt.

Just imagine how many cheaters are on the forum and how many threads we would open for each of them.
Therefore, do not try to stand out, neither for your spam reports nor for finding cheaters.
Welcome to this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.3360

And even in it, try to match the general pattern.

Everyone, I will try to clarify these accusation with valid evidence where at this time I have got some concrete evidence to accuse them of being alt. Obviously in my last post there was an ETH address that I could use as solid evidence to be the reason why any manager and DT member could take action against them. I'll be right back for you with clear evidence as expected. Thank you

@_BlackStar, It's hard to understand your post. Please be transparent always. If we need to investigate again after your post then it doesn't worth posting here with a lot of details. The correct posting behavior of an allegation makes a post with all the evidence and we can just verify by clicking or reading your post. This is an incomplete post.

So please write more details once you are accusing someone of alts. If you do not share what you found in the investigation then how we would know? Your above post is still uncompleted to me though it's true.

Thank you for your advice.
As I said above, maybe I can still be wrong with this accusation because all the proof I mentioned in the OP is not enough to accuse that they are cheaters, but I don't expect to make a lot of mistake here because it can damage other people's reputation.

I got a good proof here to be used as accurate evidence that 2 account ^{[flyer88 & tazmantasik]} linked to and joined the same campaign on many occasion.

I hope you want to see it here too: https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=0xb59dd2db3e6d88c5195d723ef4ca79b402f35192

Proof:

Are you willing to change your mind now about some other account?

I've been on the same signature campaign with a number of users here on the forum (if my memory serves me right), this however is not a proof that I am the same person behind the keyboard in most cases and it is not evidence enough to accuse a user of cheating a campaign.

Activity pattern is also not reason enough to accuse other users of being alts as you'll need more proof to support that.

You have presented no proof to conclude these are alt accounts. All I can see is some connection through the merit shared which can never be valid proof as anyone can throw away some merits to anyone for some worst post even. You must share some more proofs which can point out some good connections that prove they are alt accounts.

I'm not an expert in investigating cheaters, but I want to share my knowledge when I first tried to trace a connected account, of course I made mistakes more often: for example, with the parameters of proof of transactions on the wallets address, editing POA, sometimes it can't be used as strong evidence for accusations. but you can use it as additional evidence after you find other connections or strong reasons why the account can be categorized as a connected account. yes, as said by @lovesmayfamilis

At this point,I always consider before making a decision when finding : proof of parameters such as sending services to each other to users in (discussion post).
As far as i know : it can be categorized like ( i like your post , instead send merits +1,+2,+3 etc)
But it's a different story if user A sends merits to user B in an application (POA) maybe can be categorized as abuse merits or maybe I am wrong in interpreting this and there may be many reasons for that. (please correct if I wrong)

In this case, I wouldn't say that BM doesn't care about participants being tagged and joining the projects it manages. Of course there are various reasons for that, for example: maybe BM is busy with other things, but don't be discouraged if your report is not responded to.
I'm sure they will review what you report.

I'm talking about what I know so far about the experience of exposing Connected accounts. What's more, you interested in uncovering bounty cheaters? so welcome, everything will go naturally and i think you have adapted quickly in this forum, i'm sure you can do it.
If what I said is wrong, off topic or even if you and other members find this statement inappropriate, please correct it too, I respect all of you.

OP, but besides your suspicions, there must be some more compelling evidence of the connection between these accounts.
You are not a bad observation, there are indeed some suspicious actions in transferring merits to each other, but this cannot serve as an accusation.
Try researching these accounts for social media sharing, wallet numbers, or other accounts linking them.
Only then will you be able to say that these accounts are breaking the rules. In the meantime, this "evidence" is unfounded.