Topic: DaveF tainting my trust with baseless claims without reading my posts (Read 576 times)

I did, unfortunately...

I was well aware to be very cautious about scams but I got ahead of myself... I can give more details about where I got scammed from and their website and stuff if needed too


First of all, those screenshots are mine. I loaded that corrupt wallet.dat onto my electrum to see for myself before I mentioned it onto this forum in case that file had a virus or something. I made sure to check for malicious code or anything out of the ordinary before loading, of course. I took screenshots of the 'corrupt' message and the addresses this file shows in case. Also, how would there be an already available photo if I had just found that file (at the time of my post regarding that file)?

Again, I did explain how I got that file.
Since DaveF had advised it's best to link where I said such claims or whatnot, here it is: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64087265


Again, At the time of that post, I had no clue what 'trusts' were and how it even worked. Looking back at the thread, I realized I replied to your response claiming you gave me a negative trust - I had no idea what you meant by that at that time, I literally thought you meant you'd consider to whatever I say in the future to be bs or something.

In between that thread and this thread,  I had some stuff going on irl so I couldn't have much time to set aside to participate in this lovely forum but obviously, once I had enough time to log back into this forum and graduated from the 'newbie' title, I see that I have a negative trust which I started to learn a bit more about.

Your statement about my 'aggressive' way to start this thread instead of PMing you don't really make sense to me (maybe it maks sense to others but not me).
Let me explain why it don't make sense to me:
 - I got tagged with a negative feedback.
 - I didn't know about it until months later.
 - This could have gone down two different paths:
    > Do as DaveF mentioned and PMed him about it. <- The problem with this is that why would a person who considers me a 'scammer' believe whatever I say in PMs?
       Tbh, i felt that even if I did PM DaveF, he would just continue to call me a 'scammer' even more because I tried to make him sweep his negative feedback under the rugs quietly.
    > Or start this thread. Now, I already acknowledged I started this thread in a very hot-headed manner but I have changed what I believed should have been changed but nothing else.
       I chose to start this thread so that at least the progress of trying to resolve my undeserved negative feedback is seen by the members of this forum so that it is transparent.


I know that some may think that what I did was rather 'unnecessary' but I'd rather have people think I will take things to this level instead of being called a 'scammer'.

I believe either way, DaveF was going to say something along the lines of 'the negative stays up for now'.
But if I had PMed him, he may have taken that in a threatening way (maybe. Based on how his character so far, seems to be the way he thinks).

I will be removing my negative feedback on his trust and moving it to a neutral but if things escalate further I will be moving it back as a negative (this is not a threat, this is just a statement so anyone wondering why he has a negative again will know why).

I won't be taking this thread down anytime soon since I'd rather be open about this and have this solved openly and not privately. More witnesses the better imo lol

Anyways, this was a rather long response than I expected ngl LOL 

Months after I left the neg tag and after he started this thread.

Loyce, usually I agree with you on most things. This one, too similar to every other scammer IMO. They get called out and then start saying 'It happened to me too, see I'm not bad' or 'It's not what it looks like' or 'I wasn't going to really do that'

Add to that the aggressive way he started instead of a PM, asking me to remove. He just started this tread without even telling me about it, someone else had to let me know it's here. Almost like he wanted it here and hoped I would not see it to explain why I did it.

It's possible I'm wrong, I always admit that. And in a US court it would all be circumstantial evidence.
But for now, I'm going to leave the negative. Can always take it off later.

As we all know, 1 negative from 1 user does not mean much for the most part.

-Dave

There is clearly something about the OP that does not add up. It seems as though instead of accepting his OP that thread did give the impression all those comments about checking the file that were attributed by him alluding it was him that posted a screenshot of the wallet balance (rather than using an already available photo).

The OP is argumentative and evasive when it comes to elaborating further. Did he ever explain how he really got the so-called 30,000 BTC wallet.dat?

CTRL-F gave this:

His words:


Not "I got scammed before" but "I mentioned getting scammed before"

followed by "you decide not to read and make people repeat the same dam crap over and over again"

I looked and could not find it. So that was why I did the search and fully admitted that if it was there I just might be missing it.

I'm human and still could be missing it, but at this point it really does not matter. His lack of willingness to point out where it was said is in my mind just another point against him. Most people if they did say it someplace would be coming back showing me where they said it and calling me a dumbass for not seeing it.

-Dave

He could have been scammed long before he joined Bitcointalk.

So you mentioned getting scammed....

Let's do a search which is what I did....All your posts with the word scam in them:
https://ninjastic.space/search?author=mochi86_&content=scam

Don't see you saying you got scammed at all.

I could be missing it since I am viewing this on a small remote screen but I don't see it.

-Dave

First off, I mentioned getting scammed before, you decide not to read and make people repeat the same dam crap over and over again.


I didn't know that negative feedback has been there for months. Why? Because I have a life and have things to do irl so I don't spend all my time scrolling through this forum like a discord mod that you are. After I got the 'Jr. Member' role, I was happy I'm finally past the newbie label I had and checked my profile; which was when I saw the negative feedback for the first time.

And about the $30 Target gift card thing.

Yes, didn't want to spend $30 with a gift card. If I had it in cash or something, I would have spent it but a gift card is too limited to only wherever it's specified for. I don't have much to buy from target atm since I already have just about what I need so I wanted to save the money or at least sell it off to my friends <- which is what I said, and not that me and my friends were going to spend it 'together'.

Is it wrong for me to try to at least give it a shot here on this forum? Did I break a law for wanting to sell off a gift card I didn't want? Why don't you hop off my shlong and get a life? I didn't do crap to you or cause trouble. but ever since my first post here, you've had some type of grudge or some type of 'against' feeling towards whatever I say or do <- not the right person, mb about this statement.

Me wanting the negative feedback has literally nothing to do with me trying to sell that gift card cuz I could care less but it would also be beneficial is all. Me wanting that feedback gone is because I didn't break any rules and didn't even scam anyone as you claim on your feedback. The false accusation of yours is the only thing bothering the hell out of me, nothing else.


... oml

It was the manner in which you wrote the OP of that thread. There was no line between what you claimed THEY stated vs what you claim you stated. Had you kept a clear distinction between what you claimed from what THEY claimed, then maybe your post in the Found corrupted wallet.dat??? thread would not have been interpreted the way it was.

Well, this is a valid point.

Up until the point before trying to make money from forum members selling then card, it was apparently not a problem but the negative tag started to matter when the notion of selling cards became part of the scenario.

If the story about you going to college and even adding a donation address in your profile is true, if you want to be taken seriously in the forum you have a responsibility to present yourself in a manner that will not alienate yourself to the wider community.

It might be possible to accept that you stumbled in that section of the forum (as you yourself put it) but though not impossible to happen it is difficult to accept the story in that thread about the reasons you gave for trying to sell the $30 card.

And where did you mention getting scammed?




Yet that negative has been there for months and you didn't care about until about it 3 hours after you posted this which was when you stated this topic:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5512468

About wanting to sell a Target gift card that you and your friends did not want.

Can't spend $30 at Target between you and your friends? They sell food, they sell clothes, they sell housewares, they sell pet supplies, they sell cleaning supplies, they sell video games, they sell just about everything. You and your friends could not find anything to buy there?

-Dave

Your profile is the perfect example of why I want to keep my trust rep clean. I see that you're known to be some sort of scam-hunter-type guy, and make sure to give negative trust feedback to warn others of the untrustworthiness of that particular user. However, just looking at your own trust, you've already gotten 2 negative trust feedbacks... I don't know if you disregard them but for anyone looking at your trust and not knowing the context under which you got them, it makes you seem untrustworthy yourself.

Now, a lot of things you've mentioned don't really make sense to me since I don't really know how my overall thread had made anyone conclude that I was trying to scam people.


I am well aware of the many scams that goes about this forum lol. I was bracing myself for anyone to call me out on 'trying to scam others' but I wasn't expecting someone to actually taint my trust immediately like that without establishing any hard evidence against me.

As I've mentioned earlier, I am also a victim to scamming lol... Losing couple grand to some stupid scam was sorta hard to swallow at the time. Which is why I understand if someone were to jump the gun and reply back and call out 'scammer' but at least gather up enough evidence to prove it even if it's an obvious scam, know what I mean?  


Thank you for being realistically reasonable!

You've said a huge load of bullshit that is obviously false about me and that everyone can check because I've never red tagged anyone for shitposting. And the genius is you who comes to invoke a dead person to support your biased conception that one should be lenient with newbie scammers, which he didn't do.

Yes, there are two different concepts when using the trust system.  But, acting like a rent-a-cop, throwing your DT weight around, and being downright abusive to newbies based on your opinion of what is and what isn't a shitpost is not respectable.  You won't convince me otherwise.



Yeah, I see that...


You might as well tag everyone on the internet with that review.  Absolutely genius.  I don't know how this forum lasted so long without you. 

Yes well, they are two different conceptions of the use of trust feedback that are as respectable as each other. JollyGood, lovesmayfamilies or I have, each in our own way, a less lenient approach of dealing with the problem, and taking into account that the three of us are quite often in DT1 one can not say that your opinion on the subject is the majority. We are not the only ones because,  for example, I see condoras giving out red tags much more happily than you in the lending section.

That aside, in this case it smells fishy to me but after reading the thread I wasn't so sure so I opted for the neutral tag instead of the red one.

I'd rather people be conservative with red tags than the opposite.  Too many of the newly promoted DT members seem to be quick on the trigger.  I probably wasn't any different in my early days, which is why I like to review my left feedback from time to time.

Like DaveF, when I first saw the OP's wallet thread I thought he may be trying to promote the site but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.  In retrospect I don't think that's the case.  The OP isn't acting like a scammer.  If he was here just to promote a scam site, he would have been using a throwaway account and would be unconcerned about a red-tag.

There are many of these types of threads where people claim to have found an wallet, and need help recovering it.  Most them are complete with outlandish tales and obvious lies.  Regardless they're obviously not scams, so there's no need for a tag.  Quite the contrary, in most cases it was probably the OPs that were the victims of a scam.  At least this guy was upfront about where the wallet came from.

There are a lot of scams going around on this forum. And making such seemingly ludicrous claims, as you did, may have seemed like the prelude to a scam to DaveF.

But since you did not actually try to scam anyone (as far as I can tell), a red trust might not have been warranted in this case. I would have put a neutral trust such as "user makes untrustworthy/suspicious claims" or something like that.

The community here has been victim to so many scammers in the past that they might understandably jump the gun.

If your assumption is correct that the claim by DaveF is false because THEY made the claim, why does your post not state that THEY made the claim?

Anybody reading that thread would conclude exactly what DaveF has concluded because there are claims made by you that suggest beyond doubt you refer to yourself as the main protagonist making claims made in your thread Found corrupted wallet.dat???:

"So, I've been doing some digging and found a wallet.dat file in the format that seems closest to the way electrum's wallet files are formatted. I've manually looked through the in case, and it checked out alright. I loaded the file onto electrum and like the thread title states, it throws a "corrupted file" error and that I need to derive it from the seed again to restore it. I obviously didn't do it right away since I wanted to see what it held.

To my surprise... whoever originally held this wallet was able to import the Mt Gox address (the one starting with 1Feex) and couple other addresses with jackload of bitcoin... The total that this person held in this wallet.dat is as shown in this screenshot:
https://snipboard.io/Ivjt3y.jpg

Here is another screen shot of the electrum window with the addresses displayed:
https://snipboard.io/tRxerl.jpg"

In addition, there is no reason at all to conclude the images are not from your Electrum wallet because of the way you wrote the OP. Did you ever elaborate on these parts of your OP?

"I obviously didn't do it right away since I wanted to see what it held."

"I will reveal more info of where I got this file and how later as this information seems to be very valuable even if the file may be corrupted."

You make a valid point. I've always been careful with negative tags, and I kinda gave up on "baby sitting" the internet. If people are dumb enough to buy a fake wallet, they can't be helped.

Noted.

In what way is it uncivilized in this situation? As you mentioned, my feedback to DaveF is basically 'meaningless' so in a way, nothing's been done, really. I don't always go for the mindset of 'eye for an eye' in every situation I get into but in this particular one, I believe it was appropriate as no one's getting harmed.

noted.

Indeed.

I understand it's exactly how it works but you don't just blurt out scammer as soon as you 'suspect' they are. Like you mentioned, "with convincing evidence"; where in my thread have I tried to scam people? Did I say someone has to pay me to receive the file? I don't care who has it! It's on the internet for all to find themselves!
I also mentioned that the wallet.dat file was corrupted; which means whoever made that file manually changed addresses to fool others or something. I clearly mentioned that the file was corrupted as I thought that would be a very huge indicator that the wallet.dat is probs just another deadend.

I'm sorry, but how was the original post completely changed? The original wording hasn't been changed and I only updated additional paragraphs as people like you seem to not want to read anything and automatically call in a scam.

Now, the reason I mentioned that quote of mine you used, is because I didn't want to give out false information. I wanted to make sure I got my sources straight and ready to share so that people like you don't say crap about it. However, it seems nothing I say affects the train of thoughts of others lol.

Again, I didn't claim I have access to a wallet with that absurd about of BTC. I literally said I found a corrupt wallet.dat file...
How does one connect 'I found a corrupt wallet.dat file that CLAIMS to hold 300000+ BTC' with 'claiming to have access to wallet with 300000+ BTC'?


Well, if many older users of this forum says that one negative trust doesn't really matter, then I guess I'll have to live with it.
I don't want even a single negative trust as... I don't really know, it just bothers the crap out of me for seeing that '-1' in my trust for a reason that wasn't reasonable enough for me to get a -1.

I don't know what a DT is but ok nvm, I searched it up, DT = DefaultTrust lol


... oml. Look, if I thought to have found that sum of money, why the hell would I announce it to anyone? I wrote that thread on my finding on a corrupt file that claims to have that sum of money.
I don't care if that type of information is old news to you older users of this forum, but it's more of a way for me to document whatever the hell I found. I already know replies like 'Many others claim the same thing, son' in inevitable but to say I'm scamming when I clearly wasn't, is where the line was crossed.


I want my account rep to stay clean because I didn't do anything wrong. Don't you think saying that I'm 'scheming' is a bit to much? I already gave an answer to why I wrote threads like I did to the previous reply above this one (in the blue font color).


I can't change what I've already done but as I have mentioned to LoyceV, I will keep that in mind for the future.

Yep, he's not a prolific red-tag giver as far as I know and he's also a trusted member of the community--even so, we all make mistakes now and then.  Not saying he did or didn't; that's to be determined.


OP, pay attention to the above advice to be "friendly" regardless of how annoyed you might be.  At the very least, don't leave retaliatory feedback before starting up a thread like this.  The only thing that's going to achieve is you getting shit from everyone (as already evidenced by some of the comments) and decreasing the likelihood of getting your issue resolved.  Nobody here respects retaliatory negatives, so when you hand one out it absolutely works against you. 

Considering that the only red tag you have sent in all of 2024 was to LoyceAprilFools for obvious reasons I don't take it as a reason to not red tag someone. Rather it's the opposite, if I see you red tag someone I know there are plenty of reasons to do so but just because you don't do it or don't see reasons doesn't mean it's not justified in my view.

yeah, but you are a nicer person then I am :-)



But if there is / was a plan / scheme to sell access to their 'super secret methods of getting access or something it does serve as a warning.

As I said above will keep it as a neg for now. Will keep an eye on them to see if their posting improves.

-Dave

Most probably he wants his account reputation stay clean due to the nature of what he is posting that needs trust in able to view it seriously(he thinks user will believe on his findings). His account doesn’t aim for campaign rather due to the purpose to attract to whatever scheme he is planning in the future that related to this huge BTC findings?.

~

On the side note, neutral feedback is much better since he doesn’t share any info that will give risk to other user.

He sounds like a dreamer, thinking he found 20 billion dollars on the internet. Lol.
It doesn't make sense to load wallet.dat into Electrum.

For what it's worth: I would not have tagged him for this.

If anyone cares, here is a link to the original text of the post:

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6408/64086137.html

So you 'found it' and when were called out on it changed your post.
Not even a minor edit the post was totally changed.

You even had this in it


So yes you claimed to have access to a wallet with 300000+

So no, the neg trust stays for now.  

Don't see what the big deal is, unless you were planing to join a signature campaign it does not really matter. And it's only one negative, most people don't pay attention to just 1 it's when you get more then that it matters.

As for the people mentioning the retaliatory negative feedback. That is an issue for the mods to decide, personally I don't care if it's there or not since they are not on DT so most people will not see it and I'm sure others at this point will probably give them a ~ in their settings so they will probably never get to DT.

-Dave

+1
DaveF is a good member and rarely gives unfair negative trust but since scammers claim to have access to wallet.dat he might be wrong with that negative trust.
Also don't forget that you tried to search for these files.

Anyway the only one who can remove it is DaveF, so lock this topic, be friendly, send him a message with this topic link and the matter will be resolved.
I trust him and I don't think he is biased in his judgments.

Your "threat" is meaningless, you're not on DT. Look at this Untrusted feedback for example: it's meaningless.

That's quite uncivilized.

You're still missing the point. The relevance of feedback is (more or less) based on whether or not "the community" trusts the judgement of the user who left it. I couldn't care less about the retaliatory feedback you leave, as long as it doesn't show up by default.

That's something

You can of course still change that. Use the edit button and correct mistakes.

Welcome to adulthood, where life is full of disappointments

Lol. That's exactly how it works. With convincing evidence, of course.

---

---

You see now how all the "drama" you create distracts from what you were trying to accomplish?

Before I start off my response, I want to mention:
- I did rename this thread
- I did edit my original post
- This response — like basically all my responses — is descriptive asf so please do not respond with topics I have covered here. Thank you in advance!




With all due respect LoyceV, I put a negative feedback in hopes of him realizing what he's done. <-- If DaveF is willing to be cooperative in resolving this issue, I will be removing the feedback so things are back to how they were. If not, I have no choice but to keep it there.

I do believe everyone's familiar with the term 'an eye for an eye'? That's the thinking process I had. Now, it seems that such esteemed forum user as yourself don't really agree with what I have done here, but I can't really change my ways just because an highly respected user told me to.

^I will, however, keep what you said in mind in case such a case happens in the future.


Now, I didn't just start this thread so I can just yap my butt off about the issue. I will admit, I was in a very flabbergasted position at the time of starting this thread and had just let my emotions take over on expressing the issue; I now see I should have maybe taken a more civil approach.

Mind you, I am still in uni, and well... I don't really like how my generation(GenZ) acts but it gets the better of me at times — like these — where it comes out and I say/act in ways I didn't intend to.




JeromeTash, I understand that fully. I am well aware myself on how 'vigilant' this forum is about scams but I would kindly ask you to take your time to read what I had posted that our fellow user DaveF seems to find as 'suspicious'. Why, you may ask, should you take the time to? Because I clearly mentioned everything everyone needs to know INCLUDING where I got the files and everything.

I'm surprised you say this to me but not to the older users of this forum. Here's my take on it (let me know what you think on it too, thank you!):

Just because you think someone's a scammer does not mean you get to immediately label them as one. I, for one, am NOT a scammer. Hell, I've been scammed a couple of grand by a bitcoin scammer. I understand the hate for scammers. HOWEVER, if you are quick to label someone as a scammer when they really aren't, aren't you responsible for making their start in this forum a miserable one?


As for this, I mistaken this forum for forums like Reddit or something LOL That's my fault; I forgot that this forum's more old-school hehe

In this forum, people look out for scammers and suspicious chaps, so it's no surprise that you received a negative tag. If you are not sure about something. It's better you ask. What you are trying to do and also sending that retaliatory feedback will not help at all

Also, mods do not delete such threads unless if you maybe move it to archival board but... the reference is already there.

2 users above me made good suggestion, i would recommend OP to follow their suggestion. Anyway, i believe OP doesn't deserve the negative trust where OP's behavior is different than usual scammer or shady user on this forum.

So you thought the best thing to do was leaving retaliatory negative feedback? You should read my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

That's not how things work around here. Mods don't just delete threads, and you don't get to make conditions for them.

The foul language isn't helping your case. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

If you want to get help on this problem I suggest you change the title as most people here are paid to post and if they think they are spending time on this thread trying to help you solve the problem and their posts are going to be deleted you are disincentivising them. So I'm not surprised no one has responded to this post yet. Better change the title to something that sums up what it is about and when it is resolved you can lock the thread, bottom left.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64087265

This response was where I gave the website link and extensive info about my findings just so everyone knows.

Fellow user DaveF seems to have tainted my trust by falsely accusing me of 'Claiming to have wallet with 300000+ BTC'.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64086137 This was my thread on me FINDING a website's directory holding a corrupted wallet.dat file (in which THEY claimed that it holds 300000+ BTC) that I shared the link and everything so everyone else can investigate it on their own instead of pinning me for false information.
HOWEVER, DaveF seems to be so giddy to not even read my extensive fvking explanations and just assume I was trying to scam the people of this forum. I find this very outrageous and that the mods do something about this.

I understand that this forum probably has a section dedicated solely for getting issues like these resolved but I want everyone to know that what our fellow forum user DaveF did is not acceptable and completely absurd.

As the title states, mods, you may delete this thread AS LONG AS this outrageous issue is resolved and DaveF's false negative trust feedback gets removed from my profile. <-- As noted by esteemed users of this forum, I will be taking this claim back.

Summary:
I didn't claim to have a wallet with 300000+ BTC, I simply stated that I found a site which directory held a corrupted file which claimed that, not me. DaveF seems to not read for shit and claim false accusations. I understand that there may be a section of the forum dedicated for getting this resolved but I need everyone to know that falsely accusing someone without reading anything they wrote it completely absurd and outrageous.

^I understand that foul language don't solve crap but if I'm being honest, I only used it to this extent to express how I felt. I will take it back tho