Topic: Old Accounts That Have Likely Been Hacked/Traded (Read 2006 times)

Plento

1. Changed password on October 17, 2024
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=301111
2. Changed email address on the same day

3. Old bitcointalk account, registered on March 24, 2014 starts posting bounty reports on July 18, 2021 after lengthy posting gaps
4. After the the recent change in password and email, account is now back with making locked ANNs in Digital goods as well as trying to participate in contests in games and rounds

I believe the account is after scamming users here as some members have already complained

One of the locked ANNs

Some of the complaints
A.
I am going to tag and flag the account on the grounds of locked ANNs.

Here's an account that woke up on Oct 14th to make some breathtakingly stupid posts:

spacelab - registered May 20, 2014

This account originally belonged to a developer who made something called BurnCoin in 2014. They were a native English speaker:


Account may have first changed hands in 2018. Its present owner couldn't string a sentence in English together to save their life:


Totally void of reason, logic or original thought. Simply stunning:

Folks, October 06, 2024, Yesterday (October 16, 2024) and today (October 17, 2024) forum time have had the highest number of accounts waking up according to the seclog

When I add newbie accounts, the list is enormous! And those three days standout in the last 30 days. I am 100% sure someone or a group of people is/are waking up their farms or stolen account
I just sampled through a few accounts and some are banned while other even feature in this thread made by jokers10 - Farm of Combo campaign rule breaking accs

So if you are looking to bust the account farmers/ stolen accounts, look no further than those 3 days, they could probably continue waking up more

seclog (only ranked up accounts) - https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php (https://archive.ph/CwaV8)
Seclog (including newbie accounts) - https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php?all (https://archive.ph/3Dnea)

Let's connect all the posts that were created for this character
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64479330

Just noticed this guy churning out some real bangers (already neutral tagged by lovesmayfamilis).

CroverNo01

Date Registered: September 09, 2013

Almost a 9-year posting gap between 2014 - 2023.



Original owner was a UK-based seller of mining equipment. New owner can barely type English.

The account was registered in 2014.

fullhdpixel

https://bpip.org/Profile?p=fullhdpixel

The original account owner was involved in creating websites. He has several of them.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7533501

He was also the creator of a project that he wanted to sell on the forum. In his topic, there is a single Bitcoin wallet address in 2014, which the current account owner can confirm to prove that the account is his.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5989363


Posting in announcements of alternative coins ends in 2015, not counting the only post in 2017.

https://ninjastic.space/search?author=fullhdpixel&board=67

I see a break in posting for two years, after which a different writing style begins and joins the company signature.



Since 2017, the person has never returned to the topics he discussed earlier. I do not believe that after two years you can change for the worse, completely change your interests.   

Waiting for your response over here.


Please don't shitpost in my thread. As a matter of fact, please don't post in any of my threads. Thank you for your cooperation.

https://buffy.mlpforums.com/imageproxy/ResponsibleUnripeBlueshark-size_restricted.gif.9051b6c0e83db6f10601a13d5add75c1.gif

You've made a good list of criteria to possibly spot an account that has changed hand, because if we should only use one thing to spot them out wouldn't have been enough, let say "the posting gap"

Someone may leave the forum for one or more than a year due to obvious reasons and come back after some years but still the original owner,  therefore, combining a lot of things such as you have listed makes brain. Another way to possibly spot them out is posting pattern, basically the local board and other discussion board will/may change differently from where the original owner usually post.

It's actually quite simple. I've seen your posts from the very beginning, and I trust nutildah's opinion and also adhere to the version that you are not the original owner of the account. However, because I can't prove it directly, I remain in doubt, and I don't see the point in discussing it further. There are many doubts about your transfers of merits to accounts that also have an early registration date. I think that this account is not your only one. But again, until there is direct evidence, there is no point in discussing it. However, everyone has a different opinion, and for JollyGood, it always takes a little longer to agree to do something.

Not exactly positive. @JollyGood tricked here.

Importantly, I had struggled for more than 3 weeks of time for convincing @nutildah to remove a previous tag and on the exact same day @JollyGood started this. I am not seeing this was just a co-incidence. (@JollyGood waited and started their part just after end of one long debate; in fact @lovesmayfamilis hinted about this here).

I assume this that they are altogether not ready to revert back their stand (which will defame the power of their investigating skills or something) so tricking one way or other.

Sorry, I am not getting the point of need of separate topic. Why not the root-case and the resolution cannot be on the same topic.

You both made a needless drama over a minor matter.
A neutral tag that informs us that the account is managed by the same person is completely redundant. I wouldn't waste time leaving such a tag, which in the end can only cause additional, unnecessary drama and debate.
@TheGreatPython, The discussion about the neutral tag, which confirms that you are the original owner, is also exaggerated, especially since this tag can be considered as positive-neutral.

If there is something else behind everything, then open a separate discussion, although I am not sure how interested the other members will be in participating.

Perhaps this could be the first time, someone stands out and asking a justification for your trust feedback. Otherwise, when someone tries to keep their reputation up, that will not sound like suspicious overreaction to you.

Same efforts need to be shown when someone appeals. You cannot go on your own way. If you are not ready to explain your stand, then obviously you will find the situation as derailing.

This is out of coverage of this topic.

Yes, I have not earned lots of merits. Please note, this got nothing to do with account ownership

If my posts are bad, please remember there is a report option with every post. (Again nothing to do with ownership).

Yes, I am not into any campaign, again, it would be too good at least you explain what it got to do with my account ownership.

I am not answerable to guess work. (Still nothing to do with the context of this topic).

---

@nutildah tried this gimmicks way to make their post look like constructive but nothing to do with the context of the whole topic.

At least as per the criteria of this topic:

Simply, when we are into account trade related debate, there will be no need to talk about the quality level of my posts.

I asked about why focusing on off-topic things to @nutildah in multiple times within this topic here and here and here. But, they ignored and sidestepped.

---

Now, you also counting my post history's quality level against my account ownership. (Let me learn if I am missing anything here).

If this is the real sense you are using that word means, you do not need to count that particular post while leaving a comment in my trust page. You are contradicting yourself. Your claim of sense of using "purport" with that particular post is not matching.

There will be no need of continuing our discussion when you are ready to explain your stand. No topic is meant for only reporting but includes all related things as well.

This is probably the last post in this thread regarding your highly suspicious overreaction to a neutral feedback and derailing a thread that had a lot of effort put in by nutildah and others including lovesmayfamilis.

Having said that, I would like to mention this particular post because I agree with it:

You don't earn a lot of merits because your posts are bad, and that's probably the real reason why you're not in any campaign. I'm gonna guess your posts are bad because you operate several accounts simultaneously & you churn out the bare minimum to meet campaign requirements.


The word purporting has multiple meanings when used as verb vs noun: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/purporting

the meaning or sense of something, as of a piece of writing or of what one says: the general purport of the message.

I do not mind rewriting the neutral feedback if you insist but you should reopen the locked thread to discuss your feedback and not pollute this thread any further.

Yeah, because like the subject-line of this topic reminds, the evidence here being showed up are not final but only Likely. It means, if you have pints to defend, then you may go for debating.

Thank you for your opinion, moreover thank you very much for finding time to leave your opinion, this type of participation will help balancing a healthy environment across this community, otherwise we will have only biased verdicts.

This is now becoming a debating thread.
This thread supposed to be a similar thread like AI reporting thread if I am not wrong. All I wanted to see a signed message from an old address from that guy and he did it. Now, if you still have doubts, you may leave a neutral which JollyGood did. But you should have a point why you are leaving that.

OP, if you disagree with the feedback, create your own reputation thread and invite JollyGood to join if he wants (You seems created a thread, but it's locked). If other community members think he is not right and overreacting, he might get some DT exclusion. But if community thinks he is right, you are likely to get more feedbacks.

I did the maximum available method to prove my ownership. But in your comment, you sound like I have manipulated to pretend like.

Simply, why not your comment could be like "he signed a message to show ownership", instead of "he signed a message purporting to show ownership".

FYI:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/purport

Can you elaborate on what seems unconvincing to you?

Yeah, I can sign but what changes it will bring?

Also, I like to ask what makes you feel like purporting instead of actual?

Thank you for posting this because it is interesting indeed. Maybe he will address your post.


 

I am not convinced with your term purport in my reputation page. For revising this, what should I need to do.