I don't approve of accounts being sold, especially with the advent of the merit system. Having said that, I'm not sure that an account should be red tagged just because it has been purchased. I think some sort of alert stating that the acoount had changed hands might be more useful. Of course if the new owner abuses the account, then red tagging may be necessary. Also., I believe that positive trust should be reset to zero, as the trust referred to the previous owner.
This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.
Topic: Gleb Gamow account was sold Proof - page 4. (Read 2856 times)
Everyone saying that every account selling accounts get tagged is wrong there is currently a legendary member trying to sell an account in the auction board but not one really cares about that because it's not someone who is as well known as Gleb.
I am not going to argue that the tag is not justified but to anyone claiming anyone would of got this treatment is wrong. Only The Pharmacist seems to be consistent in tagging people who sell accounts. Everyone else is just looking to slay a giant.
Here is the thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sr-member-account-4441505
I am not going to argue that the tag is not justified but to anyone claiming anyone would of got this treatment is wrong. Only The Pharmacist seems to be consistent in tagging people who sell accounts. Everyone else is just looking to slay a giant.
Here is the thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sr-member-account-4441505
"Good" members of the forum shouldn't be trying to sell their accounts for any reason even if they're desperate for money. People can use their rep for all types of nefarious activity because they have a certain amount of trust. This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer. He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it, but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
Maybe, Gleb thought he wouldn't be able to pay the loan. In this is right to assume at least he wasn't willing to borrow the money that he knew several members would be queuing up to give him, and then default on it. 
I think it is a shame that good members of the forum should have to lose the benefits of their previous support for the forum. Here is my suggestion for a possible solution that does not result in the transfer of the account, and its possible degredation as a result.
A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.
A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.
"Good" members of the forum shouldn't be trying to sell their accounts for any reason even if they're desperate for money. People can use their rep for all types of nefarious activity because they have a certain amount of trust. This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer. He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it, but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
I think it is a shame that good members of the forum should have to lose the benefits of their previous support for the forum. Here is my suggestion for a possible solution that does not result in the transfer of the account, and its possible degredation as a result.
A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.
A respected member operates a signature rental business, and he can prepay for a 3 month ( say) rental to help to relieve immediate financial stress for the member with difficulties. The promoted products shoul not be bounty or airdrops, but should be reputable businesses. This will avoid the degredation of the members account. This will not be a loan, so as long as the member continues to contribute to the forum, he will not have to repay the advance.
Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
The way I see it, suchmoon offered this for 3 reasons:But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
1. Help Gleb out with $600
2. Prevent the account to be bought by someone else
3. Make your head explode
Let me go on the record to say that if Gleb ever needs $600 again I call dibs on his account just to prevent it from falling into wrong hands and to preserve its post history.
Let's watch digaran's head explode now.
I'd say all 3 goals have been reached!Let's watch digaran's head explode now.
I don't believe suchmoon had any other motive to "buy" the account, as it obviously has no monetary value to him.
Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?
No one cares about your tag,bruh! And who are you talking to? But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?
Let me say this now and here: if suchmoon agrees on locking the account, I will remove my red tag on him. lets be honest suchmoon has tried to help Gleb.
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?
But she/he could've helped him simply by lending him the money, what suchmoon did was accepting a DT2 account as a sort of collateral, clearly suchmoon didn't trust Gleb enough. is that what suchmoon good for? to blatantly accept an account(DT2) as a collateral?
Lock the account and I will change my tag in to neutral because of whatever good suchmoon has done for the community. fair enough?
Suchmoon should be given negative trust. It is setting a dangerous precedent if we allow high ranked users to break the rules of this forum.
What's this "dangerous precedent" that is being set here?Suchmoon offering to lend Bruno money for an indefinite amount of time, meanwhile securing the GG account, so it cannot be sold or used for any possibly malicious action, is that it?
The way I see it, suchmoon helped a bitcoiner in need and eliminated a possible risk with their decision.
If suchmoon uses the account in any way (be it signature campaigns, any other posting, trading, or in the worst case leaving feedback), then yes, this is a problematic situation that should be addressed.
But as long as suchmoon's control over the account simply means they are locking anyone else (either Bruno or a possible buyer) from using the account to cause harm, I do not see the problem/danger here.
I'm fine with Gleb being helped out considering his contributions to this forum over the past few years. I was reading digaran's opinions on the situation and it does seem a bit unfair considering account buyers/ sellers always get tagged.
I suppose this isn't really an account sale considering the Gleb account won't be used in typical fashion of an account transfer.
I'm fine with account selling so I don't have a problem with it personally I was just going by the rules of this forum.
Suchmoon should be given negative trust. It is setting a dangerous precedent if we allow high ranked users to break the rules of this forum.
What's this "dangerous precedent" that is being set here?Suchmoon offering to lend Bruno money for an indefinite amount of time, meanwhile securing the GG account, so it cannot be sold or used for any possibly malicious action, is that it?
The way I see it, suchmoon helped a bitcoiner in need and eliminated a possible risk with their decision.
If suchmoon uses the account in any way (be it signature campaigns, any other posting, trading, or in the worst case leaving feedback), then yes, this is a problematic situation that should be addressed.
But as long as suchmoon's control over the account simply means they are locking anyone else (either Bruno or a possible buyer) from using the account to cause harm, I do not see the problem/danger here.
That isn't a sale. That's a rental/pawn. OP didn't post proof. That remains true.
Yes that is a rental/pawn. alright.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gleb-gamow-account-was-sold-proof-4476580
That isn't a sale. That's a rental/pawn. OP didn't post proof. That remains true.
Gleb would never sell his account(s). Never.
Joking aside, the OP is an asshat. No proof.
Errrr Read This:Joking aside, the OP is an asshat. No proof.
That somebody right now is me and I'm quite confident I was dealing with Bruno:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211259
So from my point of view the timeline is this:
1) Bruno needs money, makes the ill-conceived decision to sell the Gleb Gamow account.
2) Some sales action takes place, including PMs, but I don't believe the account changes hands.
2a) I can't explain the changes in posting style though Bruno is known for elaborate trollery so...
3) Unable to sell the account Bruno enrolls in a sig campaign to make money.
4) PMs get published, Bruno gets red-tagged and loses campaign revenue.
5) I make an offer to prevent the account from falling into malicious hands should Bruno decide to sell it again.
6) Bruno takes me up on my offer and now I temporarily control the account. When/if Bruno gets it back I will state so publicly.
Even if I'm wrong about some part of this, the fact is the account is in my hands. I'm fully aware of the irony given my stance against account sales and sockpuppetry and the aforementioned impossibility of proving account ownership but I've already stated I won't be using it for anything so it will be really easy to see if I'm telling the truth or not.
Hopefully this puts an end to the drama. Given the circumstances it seemed to me like the best way out. I would appreciate if you could remove neg trust as I don't believe Bruno deserves it but that's really up to you.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211259
So from my point of view the timeline is this:
1) Bruno needs money, makes the ill-conceived decision to sell the Gleb Gamow account.
2) Some sales action takes place, including PMs, but I don't believe the account changes hands.
2a) I can't explain the changes in posting style though Bruno is known for elaborate trollery so...
3) Unable to sell the account Bruno enrolls in a sig campaign to make money.
4) PMs get published, Bruno gets red-tagged and loses campaign revenue.
5) I make an offer to prevent the account from falling into malicious hands should Bruno decide to sell it again.
6) Bruno takes me up on my offer and now I temporarily control the account. When/if Bruno gets it back I will state so publicly.
Even if I'm wrong about some part of this, the fact is the account is in my hands. I'm fully aware of the irony given my stance against account sales and sockpuppetry and the aforementioned impossibility of proving account ownership but I've already stated I won't be using it for anything so it will be really easy to see if I'm telling the truth or not.
Hopefully this puts an end to the drama. Given the circumstances it seemed to me like the best way out. I would appreciate if you could remove neg trust as I don't believe Bruno deserves it but that's really up to you.
Gleb would never sell his account(s). Never.
Joking aside, the OP is an asshat. No proof.
Joking aside, the OP is an asshat. No proof.
That somebody right now is me and I'm quite confident I was dealing with Bruno:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211259
So from my point of view the timeline is this:
1) Bruno needs money, makes the ill-conceived decision to sell the Gleb Gamow account.
2) Some sales action takes place, including PMs, but I don't believe the account changes hands.
2a) I can't explain the changes in posting style though Bruno is known for elaborate trollery so...
3) Unable to sell the account Bruno enrolls in a sig campaign to make money.
4) PMs get published, Bruno gets red-tagged and loses campaign revenue.
5) I make an offer to prevent the account from falling into malicious hands should Bruno decide to sell it again.
6) Bruno takes me up on my offer and now I temporarily control the account. When/if Bruno gets it back I will state so publicly.
Even if I'm wrong about some part of this, the fact is the account is in my hands. I'm fully aware of the irony given my stance against account sales and sockpuppetry and the aforementioned impossibility of proving account ownership but I've already stated I won't be using it for anything so it will be really easy to see if I'm telling the truth or not.
Hopefully this puts an end to the drama. Given the circumstances it seemed to me like the best way out. I would appreciate if you could remove neg trust as I don't believe Bruno deserves it but that's really up to you.
I've left a neutral tag refering to your post (and quoting it now for reference as well), contact me in case the situation changes in any way and I'll make sure to adjust my feedback based on the new situation. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211259
So from my point of view the timeline is this:
1) Bruno needs money, makes the ill-conceived decision to sell the Gleb Gamow account.
2) Some sales action takes place, including PMs, but I don't believe the account changes hands.
2a) I can't explain the changes in posting style though Bruno is known for elaborate trollery so...
3) Unable to sell the account Bruno enrolls in a sig campaign to make money.
4) PMs get published, Bruno gets red-tagged and loses campaign revenue.
5) I make an offer to prevent the account from falling into malicious hands should Bruno decide to sell it again.
6) Bruno takes me up on my offer and now I temporarily control the account. When/if Bruno gets it back I will state so publicly.
Even if I'm wrong about some part of this, the fact is the account is in my hands. I'm fully aware of the irony given my stance against account sales and sockpuppetry and the aforementioned impossibility of proving account ownership but I've already stated I won't be using it for anything so it will be really easy to see if I'm telling the truth or not.
Hopefully this puts an end to the drama. Given the circumstances it seemed to me like the best way out. I would appreciate if you could remove neg trust as I don't believe Bruno deserves it but that's really up to you.
I did not know about it, although I knew that this functionality existed in such forums. Is it possible for him to use this function when he receives a request to rescue hacked or blocked accounts?
Is there any record of when the PM was viewed by a third account?
Is there any record of when the PM was viewed by a third account?
Only admin has access to PMs without anybody reporting them, global mods could only see a PM if you report the PM and select global mod as the viewer.
Please refrain from this kind of question asking on such topics.
just wondering, if Hilariousandco can see the PM of the user, then he can find from the AGLD pms, who bought this account?
Who are the potential buyers of this account.
Should not we publish and red tag all the potential buyers of this account, including OP?
AFAIK global mod can only see reported PM. theymos is the only person who's able to see all PMs.Who are the potential buyers of this account.
Should not we publish and red tag all the potential buyers of this account, including OP?
I did not know about it, although I knew that this functionality existed in such forums. Is it possible for him to use this function when he receives a request to rescue hacked or blocked accounts?
Is there any record of when the PM was viewed by a third account?
If I lose my account I'll just start over.
You'd start over perhaps you'd also ask Blazed and dooglus to include your new account on DT2 as well so that you could roam the forum and tag whomever you want, buy any account and expect us to trust you on your words.
Suchmoon has at least one old address 1A8DePhATaFEyNBJpuybCA8oYUUZEgUraP (https://web.archive.org/web/20140403105622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771), if you still have access to it you can sign a message with it...although I don't consider this mandatory.
Nice job, thanks. I found it also posted in one of my threads:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/discontinued-cryptoday-mining-revenue-stats-scrypt-scrypt-n-x11-x13-514242 (post has been edited but last edit was 3 years ago).
Message (one line):
This is suchmoon 2018-06-17. I control bitcointalk accounts "suchmoon" and (temporarily) "Gleb Gamow".
Signature:
HM71xTAaD8xyx7ciTaPTmKLBp7Y7Rzm9uQ5MIdhUJh6ZVUPtz2mAEsiyI/4BS5ZQVDnsSnHSWWBw4ur5UjzgxAU=
I don't think this is the attitude someone on DT should have.
If your account gets compromised then it's free to scam people out of anything. You might not put value on your own account, but someone else would.
If your account gets compromised then it's free to scam people out of anything. You might not put value on your own account, but someone else would.
Well, I would obviously post a warning if I ever lose the account and would request it to be banned/removed from DT/red-tagged etc. But I hear what you're saying. Will fix that soon.
Otherwise, when you report the account being hacked, most will think you're just a newbie who has a issue with you and won't do anything to act on changing your trust.
Jump to: