Topic: Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk IV (2022 Q3) [MODERATED] - page 10. (Read 37593 times)

As do I.

As I said to The Sceptical Chymist they are critical of other user's trust feedbacks yet of their own 3,050+ trust feedbacks there are many of the type they are critical of. I have given examples of more than a dozen at a time The Sceptical Chymist has done, so they are not isolated incidents. I have suggested The Sceptical Chymist needs to trim their own trust feedbacks down to about 400 maximum using the ten questions I posed a couple of weeks ago.

This is the type of negative trust feedback others have started threads against me in the past then the DT echo chamber sings in a lipsinc chorus...


A similar post


May I suggest again that you go back and review your own 344 trust feedbacks, please based on my post to The Sceptical Chymist, please?

---

---

With regards to negatives on alts I can only suggest you look back over the last few pages as the issue came up and each of us has chimed in to remind a newer contributor that having alts does not mean they are out to scam.

Any negative trust feedback on alts has been where there is a solid connection for claiming in a campaign etc.

Feel free to review ALL of my ~350 trust feedback and tell me where they are wrong.

3 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

Sifat01
Mix$$01
Mixpip01

Proof:
Sifat01
[Achieve]

Mix$$01
[Achieve]

Mixpip01
[Achieve]

Related Addresses:

Miscellaneous:
These three users have registered the same bounty, used the same wallet multiple times, but i dont think it is a mistake. From my research i think these three accounts are operated by one person.
BOUNTY REGISTERED
Bounty registered; The $DONS. Bounty manager; BountyDetective. Sifat01 is number 122 on Twitter spreadsheet, Mix$$01 is number 788 on Telegram spreadsheet and Mixpip01  is number 0 on Twitter spreadsheet.
Bounty registered; RADA - Making Changes in Football with Blockchain. Bounty manager; julerz12. Sifat01 is number 179 on Telegram spreadsheet, Mix$$01 is number 340 on Telegram spreadsheet and Mixpip01  is number 0 on Telegram spreadsheet.

---

2 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

Gucci12
Siam20

Proof:
Gucci12
[Achieve]

Siam20
[Achieve]

Related Addresses:

Miscellaneous:
These two users have registered the same bounty, used the same wallet multiple times, but i dont think it is a mistake. From my research i think these two accounts are operated by one person.
BOUNTY REGISTERED
Bounty registered; RydeSwap . Bounty manager; BountyDetective. Gucci12 is number 47 on Twitter spreadsheet and Siam20 is number 15 on Twitter spreadsheet.

---

2 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

Swieetboyhood66
Lezyboyhoodson88

Proof:
Swieetboyhood66
[Achieve]

Lezyboyhoodson88
[Achieve]

Related Addresses:

Miscellaneous:
These two users have registered the same bounty, used the same wallet multiple times, but i dont think it is a mistake. From my research i think these two accounts are operated by one person.
BOUNTY REGISTERED
Bounty registered; The $DONS. Bounty manager; BountyDetective. Swieetboyhood66 is number 873 on Twitter spreadsheet and Lezyboyhoodson88 is number 803 on Twitter spreadsheet.

---

2 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

edisonali
Uzzalroy

Proof:
edisonali
[Achieve]

Uzzalroy
[Achieve]

Related Addresses:

Miscellaneous:
These two users have registered the same bounty, used the same wallet twice, but i dont think it is a mistake. From my research i think these two accounts are operated by one person.
BOUNTY REGISTERED
Bounty registered; RydeSwap. Bounty manager; BountyDetective. edisonali is number 467 on Twitter spreadsheet and Uzzalroy is number 477 on Twitter spreadsheet.

Sorry, I missed that post you wrote to The Sceptical Chymist, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.  As for tagging alts of known scammers, of course I'm in support of that, given the evidence linking the accounts is compelling enough that a reasonable person would be left without a doubt.  I left that post in Poker Player's thread rather brief on purpose, because there seems to be this attitude among some DT members than anyone with an undisclosed alt is up to something nefarious.  I find that assumption simply absurd.

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

1. Alex Joe
2. Khalilan

Proof:

[ Archive ]

[ Archive ]

Related Addresses and Telegram Username:

Thank you for your post, it's thoughtful and concise.

I was wanting to respond to something you posted in the poker player thread concerning trust feedback where you mention slapping negative feedback on alts.

Unfortunately, Poker Player locked that thread before I could point out that investigators here in this thread have a policy of negative against alts ONLY where there is evidence the alts have scanned e.g. claiming from the same campaign.

I was also going to suggest in that thread you go back and review your legacy trust feedback posts in the same way I suggested The Sceptical Chymist needs to review their legacy posts - alas, my suggestion to them fell on deaf ears.  

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

1. Dorimon45
2. Btc.06

Proof:

[ Archive ]

[ Archive ]

Related Addresses and Telegram Username:

You've been a member of this forum for almost 4 years, you've made over 6k posts, and have yet to earn a single merit.  But you think it's the recently exposed red-tags that are keeping you from having work opportunities?  Wow.

Two and a half years ago you were tagged for plagerism but only now want to bellyache because you've been slapped for having been identified as having an alt two weeks ago?

To
The Forum administration.
Subject: Application for the red tag remove.

Honourable sir,
With due respect to known Alts of anyone a user generated list MK IV ( 2023 Q2)

My BTT username  Shahinbd has been red tag.
Issa56 team has made a report against Shahibd.
I have announced.I don’t  bounty cheating and lier. I have cleared my BTT name Shahinbd but it is not my userID Xavier pz

Please  see the proof on complaints bounty work link :
Week 6
https://imgur.com/a/hT4s9QC

Week 7
https://imgur.com/a/aOrVcP1

I don’t used her wallets address. See the above screenshot pictures. Please Justice It's and remove my red tag.


I want justice for forum.
Please check it and taken your red tag
and give me a work opportunity.
Thanks

If accounts are found engaging in cheating or doing other shady stuff, it makes sense to give them a negative tag. However, if there are no such issues, a neutral tag would be more appropriate. Just so you know, having multiple alt accounts on the forum isn't against the rules.

the comment you use for the negative tag you provide shows an account connection. whereas having multiple accounts is allowed as long as you don't use them to cheat in the same campaign which is against campaign manager rules. that's what you haven't presented in your catch proof.

That being said, if your capture only refers to account connections that weren't proven to be cheating in the campaign, then a neutral tag is sufficient.
but if you show evidence of cheating in your campaign, you can negatively tag it.

and for proof of the Twitter social media account that you mentioned cannot be evidence of an evasion ban account report. That's because the user @SaimExch is the last user of the Twitter account. and he has been banned. whereas previous users who used the Twitter social media account, @Waleedhaji and @Waleedzain323 have not been banned.

so as long as you can't show cheating by the three accounts, you can change your negative tag to Neutral with a connected account comment.

I can't understand, so you're saying that feedback on the trust page about some accounts having alts should be written in a neutral style? If my memory serves me right, I've come across such reviews in a negative style. So it turns out that this is wrong and you still need to write a neutral feedback?


If that applies to me, I apologize.

There are things that are interesting and suspicious for both accounts, for example: the @virasisog account, it seems he has a lot of dead Alt here, that can be proven from the ETH address used in the Bounty campaign by: @kacakkipri and @virasisog.

And can also be seen from @kacakkipri's trust list.


Proof:

Post by: @virasisog
[ Archive ]

Although between @virasisog and @virasog, haven't found any proof that they are Alt, but I'm a little curious for both of them, a few percent of my hunch leads them to be the same, still without valid evidence the argument isn't straight.

Or we can see something else new about them, to break the hunch.

---

---

On the other hand I can see about @virasog, he sent ETH to @Qunenin, strong suspicion that they are Alt or the account is being sold, it can be seen from the trust that is owned by: @Qunenin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=698772


Proof of transactions that they do.

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x80a893e9503e3e756a78445e4a328db6a1ae297112d4a27b315ae0e7313ec4f2



Post by: @virasisog
[ Archive ]

For that, if we explore deeper, we can get @Qunenin, connected to the Alt account linked to @virasisog above.

for that the proof linked by @virasisog with the Alt above and the proof linked by @virasisog with @Qunenin, can say they both @virasisog @virasog are Alt, since the Alt above and below are connected, looks like additional proof is needed to strengthen the proof both are Alt.

Next time, please start a thread for your fishing expedition and only post in this thread when you are able to present evidence of connected alts.

---

---

light_warrior please read and reply to this post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62485294

I couldn't find a match for the addresses. What I did find is that they both like to write in the Gambling section

https://ninjastic.space/user/virasog
https://ninjastic.space/user/virasisog

Both love gambling and playing it

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17118702
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49308697

Both learned about bitcoin by accident

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17180951
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52734225

Figured out that you can make money on bitcoin at the same age

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16350166
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5399573

Both are just over thirty years old

Virasog is now 32
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16350166

virasisog was in his 30s in 2022, according to him
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60427121

Both prefer poker to other games

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51117886
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16548777

virasog is co-owner of some Brazilian company but couldn't find a match with virasisog on this subject

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16273508

It is clear that all this is subjective. And this information can in no way say that these two accounts are connected.

Continuation from the other locked thread. The connection is definitely solid as part of the farm woke up again and started bumping a scam looking trading signal ANN thread


Accounts that bumped the thread:

Archive - https://ninjastic.space/topic/5456653

OP - Gatyre1
1. BreDvarD
2. PancherSh
3. Aptekary
4. MidnightWolf
5. AngellSky
6. atjiat

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



NEW Diya5588


Proof:






Reporting:

I have marked these user's trust feedback pages with distrust.

Related Addresses:


Miscellaneous:

• More alt accounts from a known bounty cheater.
• Ban evasion.
  

Does anyone know anything about these accounts? They both applied for one of the campaign that I manage, but the similarity of the names does not mean the connection between the accounts.

- https://ninjastic.space/user/virasog
- https://ninjastic.space/user/virasisog

- I took a closer look and I see that their accounts were registered with an interval of 5 days.
- They are both interested in ETH mining.
- Both learned about bitcoin at the age of 25 (both love poker)
- Both admitted that they gamble a lot.
- With an interval of several days (in June 2016), they apply for participation in different campaigns.

Although I did not check the similarity for BTC addresses.

Thanks for your report. I notice you've given these users negative trust feedback but haven't stated what their scam is. Can I just ask what their scam is?

E.g.

If they haven't signed up for the same campaign then the only other thing is you have shown SaimExch in red implying ban evasion. If so, then under miscellaneous you should mention their ban evasion and in your trust feedback also state the ban evasion.

If not, then a neutral trust feedback is appropriate to indicate they are alts, but haven't been found to have scammed.

SaimExch has been active within the last six hours too. (And yes, on bpip.org I can see they are banned) 🚫

Thanks again.

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

1. Waleedhaji
2. Waleedzain323
3. SaimExch

Proof:

[ Archive ]

[ Archive ]

[ Archive ]

Related Twitter profile link: