Topic: Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III (2021 Q2) (Read 172257 times)

We have moved to:

Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List ^{Mk IV}

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-any-one-a-user-generated-list-mk-iv-2022-q3-moderated-5394559

Hope to see you there (read the fine print!)

We have moved to:

Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List ^{Mk IV}

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-any-one-a-user-generated-list-mk-iv-2022-q3-moderated-5394559

Hope to see you there (read the fine print!)

1. SHAHKHAN22 Cheating and abusing campaigns with alt accounts
2. ZAINmalik75

Proof:



[ Archive ]


[ Archive ]

Related Addresses:

Now the account is participating in the subscription company Royse777

Please i am kindly appealing that i am not a bounty cheater with different alts My btt name is Louis.orhewere and my wallet address is 0x6c5AD24e82821bbA7c843dD3031fff291bBD5e91.
Please remove me from red trust thank you

Please my wallet account was hacked. I have a new wallet account now and i want to appeal to be using it and also to be accepted in bounties without being on red trust cause it says i cheated with different alts. Please kindly assist

Please my wallet account was hacked. I have a new wallet account now and i want to appeal to be using it and also to be accepted in bounties without being on red trust cause it says i cheated with different alts. Please kindly assist. I only have one bounty account

Are you referring to the Google Spread Sheet?  This was discussed (yet again) half a dozen pages ago.

I knew it would be a waste of time. https://ninjactic.space/ I think it can help to archive everything.
hence the importance of what @Timelord2067 said, mark the UID that breaks the rules with a neutral or negative tag. it will be of great help in future investigations regarding new accounts created with possible abuse of the bounty campaign again.

Mostly, am agree with the ground rules. I appeal to reconsider this rule, though.

As previously stated and evidenced on reports and investigations made by, well... less-than-handful users, low ranked members sometimes can contribute on a well thorough investigation too. It would rather sounds unfair if they're not allowed to post a well founded investigation, and IMO, borderline exclusivizing high member rank. True that they can --by the ground rule-- post their link on the reputation board, but it would pose a possibility to drown the board with new threads as newbies will create new topics every now and then, disregarding the truth and quality of the said investigation, and thus, poses a threat to drown a more important reputation threads like this very thread itself. Further, it would beat the purpose of this thread --to report known alts of anyone, especially those who cheated forum rules-- if there are several threads with same theme.

My counter-proposal is, in the spirit to make this thread clean --which I'm more than eager to see it be-- to perhaps create two different threads that's "interconnected". Instead of asking newbies to create their own threads, just make one thread specifically to let them report or ask for an investigation for alts. Only after the findings proven to be true, the report is "copied" here, citing and crediting the original reporter. This way, this thread will stay neat and newbie can still participate in contribution to purge this forum from cheaters and rewarded --if that's their utmost intention.

Other suggestion is to allow them to post their reports here for couple of times, and if those findings keep showing a bad investigation like the case of teletalk.org, then they'll be evicted from this thread until 2023[/list]

---

---

P.s.: almost forgot to add this section:

About the concerns of "double findings", although it is true that a serious investigators will firstly make sure their findings are not yet reported here --somewhere in the hundreds of pages of reports-- and although we can argue that ninjastic would help tackled this double findings situation by consulting the username to its searchbox, what do you think about giving more convenience to investigators by compiling a permanent and easy to find easy to read list? The previous two threads has this feature.

I am sure if we make this similar list right now, we'll need probably ten or so reserved slots on the first page --let alone the trouble needed to edit and add new UID connected to the past findings-- so I propose to make the compilation on a spreadsheet, a la bounty spreadsheet, anyone can read, but only "admin" can edit the list. It's easy to look at, easy to track what UID already reported, and easy to add new names below the cells of the already known alt for the case of finding that the said alt made other new ones.

I'll give it about another two days for anyone to ask questions or air their concerns and will then create a moderated version of the Known Alts thread.

Watch this space.

I think that with the naked eye, you can see that these accounts belong to one person. Nicknames are of the same type and the date of registration is the same day. Moreover, all registrations in the bounty mirror each other, within a very short time interval.


1.Wataru Endo    March 03, 2021, 01:01:59 PM
2.Clinton Mola  March 03, 2021, 01:04:12 PM
3.Pascal Stenzel  March 03, 2021, 02:06:01 PM
4.Hamadi Al Ghaddioui March 03, 2021, 02:12:41 PM
5.Josh Sargent March 03, 2021, 11:26:07 AM
5.Michael Zetterer March 03, 2021, 12:50:59 PM
7.Yuya Osako March 03, 2021, 11:06:28 AM
8.Davie Selke    March 03, 2021, 11:10:05 AM
9.Marco Friedl    March 03, 2021, 11:38:15 AM
10.Romano Schmid    March 03, 2021, 11:28:24 AM




Miscellaneous:

cheating bounty programs.

🕵🏻‍♂️ [BOUNTY DETECTIVE] 🔵INCI.FINANCE - 750,000 INCI REWARD POOL🔵
manager @BountyDetective

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gDnZeBrJQbyIW7pu1nbu5saFwvpEezKjiSgI0gjGhbg/edit#gid=1915949857

[Bounty][DARTH] 383,000.00% APY! DARTH Protocol [BEP20] $100k $DARTH 🔥🔥
manager @Murat

[Bounty][AET] 200,000% APY! AETERNA ECO [BEP20] $AET
manager @Murat

🕵🏻‍♂️🔥🔥 [Bounty][STY] 669,212.62% APY! STORM YIELD [BEP20] $STY 🔥🔥
manager @Murat

🕵🏻‍♂️🔥🔥  🚧 [BOUNTY] fLibero | Fantom Libero | Auto Staking Protocol on Fantom Network
manager @julerz12

I couldn't agree more and this comes back to two points I make time and again.  Firstly investigators should thoroughly investigate a UID for things such as social media profiles and wallet addresses - anything that can give away clues of other alts *including* checking trust feedback both trusted and untrusted.  Which leads me straight into:

Secondly, I keep saying that in investigator should mark an alt with neutral or negative trust feedback that way later investigators can see at a glance that a previous investigation has occurred instead of relying on others to do the marking, or appealing to DT to place a neutral/negative on UID's.  Do it yourself!

I have no objections at all. All of these guidelines are already incorporated into my investigative practices by default. I also do not see any drawback in the guidelines. The only thing I would add is a suggestion that prior to publishing a new report, one should first search existing reports to avoid duplicates.

If I where you guys you should also watch those Newbie accounts reporting multiple accounts on this thread because they are also farming merits and I'm sure they are also a account farmer so beware.

Absolutely!

Merit exchanging (or even one way merits), Default Trust (again, either mutual or one way) as well as DT trust, or trust feedbacks occurring in the same 24 hour period (or week in the case of default trust) are all hall marks of alts being used to build up one or more profiles.  An example of this can be seen in my thread: [Investigation] Four users who distrust pooya87, ndnh, aliashraf,gembitz etc

Other examples include registration, or last active dates, posting one after the other in threads (usually attempting to join campaigns) - even spelling and turns of phrases can be markers of alts/connections.

Above all actual use of the same wallets, or wallet addresses not just once but on multiple occasions are solid indicators of two or more UID's being alts.

BUT...

Just because alts use the same wallets/wallet addresses/social media accounts doesn't in itself prove anything unto-wards - like most others, I will mark alts trust feedback page with neutral trust feed back to advise others.

OTOH, two UID's applying for the same bounty / signature campaigns using the same wallet address (or in some instances sending funds from two seemingly separate wallet addresses to the same wallet address) are proof of ulterior intentions and most investigators will mark these UID's with negative trust feedback.

Accounts Connected:(Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue/Active)

1. Class10? ( Banned)
2. taitenik12k  ( Active)

Proof
#PROOF OF REGISTRATION
Forum Username: Class10?
Forum Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/class10-3380037
Telegram Username: @hdhjgjke
Participated Campaigns: telegram
BEP-20 Wallet Address: 0x10e1E8D084385cA96702896b2bB52034C9FB1344

#PROOF OF REGISTRATION
Forum Username: taitenik12k
Forum Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/taitenik12k-3451102
Telegram Username: @taitenik12k
Participated Campaigns: Telegram
BEP-20 Wallet Address: 0x10e1E8D084385cA96702896b2bB52034C9FB1344

Bounty  RN GRID Bounty |12 weeks | 50k ~GRN & $10k USDT {pESCROWED}
Bounty link
Spreadsheet
Bounty manager @CryptopreneurBrainboss

can proof of blockchain transactions or merit exchanges strengthen the evidence we provide?
Most of the accounts that are connected to social media or use the same address, will definitely say their post or bounty report in the copy. even higher ranking accounts delete their posts.
what other proof can we make to show an account with such a connection?

---

---

I'm not trying to lie to anyone. I think you know I mean.

It really doesn't work that way... The fact you have received ZERO merits should disqualify you from any and all signature campaigns.  Bounty posts, and simultaneously claiming from the same campaign are frowned upon and you're never, ever going to get people to change their opinions on that one within this forum.

---

---

There seems to be universal approval to migrate this thread into a moderated thread (something I never thought I'd find myself typing out, but there you have it) .

I do however, feel there should be some ground rules so that there are no misunderstandings about which posts are going to be deleted through moderation.  (Hopefully these ground rules will address @holydarkness ' concerns)

• No "Newbie" or, "Junior Member" can post an investigation in this thread.  They can however post a link (once) to a thread in the reputation section where their investigations can be investigated and analised.
• The only way in which a newbie, or Jr Member can post is if they are appealing NEGATIVE trust being left on their trust feedback page.  (If the post is neutral, then their appeal *may* be deleted)
• Any user of any rank who quotes an entire post then makes a one line comment in response (usually "it wasn't me!" or similar) will have their post deleted.  
  
  Trim a quote e.g.
  
  
  Quote from: (name of investigator)
  ...
• Two UID's  being uncovered as alts does not justify either, or both receiving negative trust feedback.  Unless, of course they have done something such as claiming from the same campaign which is frowned upon by most users here.
• There needs to be a minimum standard of "proof" connecting two or more UID's - e.g.
  
  
  • multiple alts claiming from the same campaign.  In saying this, there have been instances of brand new/newbies using the details of another user to join a campaign.  This may be a case of the newbie copying another users work.  In this case, that does not warrant a negative.
  • multiple users waking up on the same date
• If you merit an investigation, you are asserting that you have verified the contents of the other person's investigation to be correct.
• You cannot post an investigation via an alt, known, suspected, or not known now, but uncovered at a later date.  i.e. choose just one UID you are going to post investigation from.  ^{I'm not sure what action I'll take, but it may involve one, or all alts posts being deleted.}
• If you leave negative trust feedback with a link to a post in this thread, you agree to remove (or change to neutral) any trust feedback found to be incorrect and agree to either remove, or modify with updated information to correct your mistake of a post in this thread in a timely manor.  Should you leave negative trust feedback, or incorrect information in this thread after multiple requests to have that information removed, the post may be deleted, and you may be temp-banned.
• Teletalk.org is banned from posting for twelve months from the date of the first post in the Mk IV thread.

How do people feel about these guidelines?

I'll leave this open for discussion for a few more days.

I am always disqualified from any bounty by brain boss reason being that i cheated with two bsc address. Please i am appealing not to be disqualified again please and i have new wallet address

Don't learn to lie! Look at this
Nothing forbids anyone from contributing to this forum. So do what you want to do.