Well, as it turns out, the user’s biggest contribution to the forum was either personally to wield a fraudulent spam sockpuppet army—or by his own admission, to be involved with others in ICO-bumping, i.e. fraudulent paid spamming.
Can we get a summary list of all accounts involved? Will make it easier to make something like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54219192.
I might do it on weekend, but if anyone has time and will, please do.[...]
There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here.
Unedited quote: A general denial of having a multitude of sockpuppets bumping ICOs, coupled with an admission to having been “involved in bumping business”, i.e. involved in paid spamming—and not only a total lack of remorse, but a defiant, self-righteous assertion of a purported ethical duty to protect his allegedly existing ICO-bumping fraudulent spam accomplices:
Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?
I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time )
Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future.
Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions.
Whereupon I am hereby acting independently, and separately from marlboroza’s Reputation thread. I have not requested any other person’s support prior to creating this thread. Although I am relying on marlboroza’s thread as to fact, that thread discusses trust issues, and this thread appeals to the administration to review the “hacker1001101001” case for the following reasons:
- Separate Argument A for a ban: I presume that the leniency granted to the user for his blatant violation of the forum’s strict anti-plagiarism rule was based on the false premise that the user was allegedly a good contributor who perhaps made a naïve mistake. Whereas the user’s actual major contribution was spamming—and the user was obviously not naïve as to his plagiarism offence, given that he was deeply involved in other wrongdoing.
(N.b., I do not buy the general argument that a newbie user may naïvely plagiarize without realizing that it is against the rules. Plagiarism is wrong. Schoolchildren who get busted for plagiarism are punished for cheating. Nobody has any excuse for not knowing that it is wrong to rip off somebody else’s words, and pretend they are one’s own. It is akin to an argument that newbies may not know that theft is wrong. However, since an ICO-bumping paid spammer was obviously never naïve or innocent, this argument need not be reached here.)
Since the leniency for plagiarism was based on a false premise, it should be reviewed and reversed, resulting in a permaban on the user including all of his past, present, and future accounts. It is a well-established principle that bans apply to the person, not merely the account. - Separate Argument B for a ban: ICO-bumping is spamming per se. Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence. I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question: “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand? (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)” The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”
I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers. As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.
Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period. ICO-bumping has always violated the forum’s anti-spam rule on its face, by the definition of the word “spam”; and anybody who may potentially allege a failure to understand that `ICO-bumping == spamming` would be either lying, or mentally retarded. - Investigative suggestion: The forum’s administrators (and global mods?) have access to IP evidence. If the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths is so careless with leaving around blockchain evidence, then it is probable that he did not properly hide his IPs when sockpuppet-spamming.
N.b. that unconnected IPs for different accounts would not prove a negative, since it would be trivial for anyone smart to [deleted so as to not give an instruction manual on how to evade IP checks]; however, positive linkage of accounts by login and/or access IP addresses would be strong evidence that the accounts are all sockpuppets. Morever, it would probably be more efficient for admins/staff to review the IP logs than to wait for marlboroza to continue painstakingly sifting through blockchain evidence.
This evidence is only relevant to including the user’s alts under the same ban. It is irrelevant to the matter of banning the user, who is an admitted spammer previously temp-banned/sig-banned for plagiarism.
Prior discussion of the “hacker1001101001” ban appeal:
You are English-speaking people so hate plagiarism, and here you cover the offender.
This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?
You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist?
This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?
You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist?
I have no complaints about punishment, it is really cruel but fair.
QFT. Well, I speak English, and I do not excuse the offender!
Although to my knowledge, forum admins and staff did not publicly state the reason for granting leniency to the user, the opinion of many people supporting such leniency was that the user had allegedly made good contributions. I don’t want to pick on iasenko here, although I disagree with him; I will simply quote his post as representative of this line of thinking, because he stated his opinion clearly and concisely:
He has many scam investigations and accusation against shady projects with plagiarized whitepaper or fake team. So he was doing quite good for the forum. Just see his last started topics and you will see what I'm talking about.
It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment.
It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment.
The reason for the 2019 ban of “hacker1001101001”:
Snip
I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.
I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.
The user’s excuse for plagiarism:
Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know.
I just don't remember when I did this shit!
I just don't remember when I did this shit!
Dagnabbit. Plagiarist’s Bingo (forum thread) needs support for, “I just don’t remember when I did this shit!”
In the thread about his ICO-bumping, the user’s evasiveness and excuses for his spamming evoke the Rules of Spam.
In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs, blacklisted from their careers, and retroactively stripped of their academic degrees for plagiarism.
Surely, an enormous forum spammer and his whole sockpuppet-spammer army do not deserve mercy—not for plagiarism, and not for spamming.
Acknowledgments
This thread would not have been possible without the tireless investigative work done by marlboroza, the investigation by Lauda which brought marlboroza’s investigation to my attention, and support and contributions from too many people to list succinctly without risk of inadvertently missing somebody. I must thank everybody who performs such investigative chores in the interest of protecting the forum community against the type of implosion when net.abusers take over.