Topic: @PrimeNumber7 is an alt account of @Quickseller - page 3. (Read 2173 times)

I don't think there's any answer that will help PN7: if he says yes, he gets tagged to pieces, and if he says no, people won't believe it. So there's nothing to win and only things to lose.

It's a simple question with a simple (for an honest person) answer. Answering a yes/no question with "there is proof" and trying to turn this against me is very typical for you... what's next, thinly veiled threats of doxing? Comments about expecting mothers?

I'm not involved in account sales and I'm not the OP. Your turn. Are you Quickseller?

On the contrary, some empowered users have severely lax standards of DT operation well past the threshold of this example..

Not that I agree with it, but it is what happens..

Maybe I should ask you if you were involved in any of this before I got the rule actually enforced. Maybe I should ask you if you are the OP. Can you prove it?

Bullshit. If you want to prove something, you must present evidence. Someone refusing to deny something that is baseless is not evidence of guilt. The only thing that has changed is someone has told you, without evidence, or even claiming to have evidence that I am that person.

I agree..
He would not be lone among the company of other previously account-selling and even sock-escrowing users who are still now very reputable, but who have taken different paths or who have displayed different dispositions..
These are not irredeemable actions if a good path to redemption is taken or are just past flaws in an otherwise trustworthy user behavior..

I am unaware of any seriously heinous crimes committed by QS other than not knowing when to put down the shovel to stop one's self from digging a deeper hole..

This was the final nail for me[1] given the behavioral patterns of dancing around simple yes or no questions. You are Quickseller.

---

[1] Apologized. Post has been fixed. Don't ask me for evidence as I need not produce evidence for something like this (unless I publicly try to pursue others to believe this too, which I won't bother with), and neither does anybody else.

The way Quickseller is trying to sockpuppet his way back into what he calls "power" positions of the forum is fundamentally dishonest. That's all there is to it, regardless of any narrow justification of his individual actions or out-of-context subjective interpretation thereof.

If he had admitted back when he was caught that escrowing for sockpuppets is wrong and account trading is shady at best and genuinely changed his ways since then - I'm quite certain that 4 years would have been plenty of time to rebuild his reputation. IIRC he never even admitted that Panthers52 is his alt and fairly recently tried to discredit the methods used to out him. He's still trying to justify account trades. He brags about his covert sockpuppeting.

So this whole discussion about insufficient proof of PN7 being Quickseller's alt serves him very nicely. Not surprising when even the most obvious sockpuppets are allowed to evade their bans (I'm mean like WTF... what's the harm of banning that asshole even he is not korner, if all he does is impersonate a massive troll? but I digress) but in the long run this blatant abuse erodes the faith of honest users. For all I know that might be the ultimate goal of scammers like Quickseller.

---

It's a yes or no situation. Are you Quickseller's alt?

Good to hear. I concur.

I have stated multiple times that I have no interest participating in forum related drama and I refuse to participate in nor respond to baseless speculation that has no evidence. I have not seen anyone even claim to have evidence.

It is the onus of the accuser to prove their case, not on the accused to prove their innocence. In America, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Silence is not evidence of guilt, in general it is best to stay quiet when accused because anything you can will be used against you, anything you say will often be twisted to have its meaning changed.

Asking someone to respond to evidence they have not seen is almost always going to end up making the person responding look dishonest or deceitful because they cannot speak to the specifics of the evidence but would be judged as if they knew and understood the evidence.

This thread is reminiscent of Soviet Russia or Communist China, or of the McCarty era. This thread is the first of two by newbies who are talking about me or some interaction involving me on the same day.

Here's the thing: the forum "rules" aren't really rules at all, and you can't really develop an understanding of their interpretation and execution unless you have years of experience with the forum. Its not a matter of being smart and meticulous -- its a matter of being wise and experienced.

Regardless, PN7 (QS) doesn't know the rules as well as he thinks -- accounts will only be temp banned for message spamming if several other users report them for message spamming. Its not inaccurate to say that the forum operates in a "squeaky wheel getting the grease"-type fashion in that only if there is an overwhelming demand for something will it happen (and sometimes not even then).

Double-regardless, PN7 is Quickseller by way of evidence not necessarily yet introduced publicly on the forum. So to answer your question, no, PN7 did not do so similarly.

This is primarily why I haven't flagged him yet to reiterate the flag that Quickseller has. If his intentions are honest, and by that I mean behavior that was described in your post, then he wouldn't have acted the way he did so far. What he should have done is come forward, apologize, make his alt account publicly known and start properly posting from it ("turning over a new leaf") . Would his new account be spared of negative ratings? Probably not, but I for one would be much more hesitant to do anything (tag or flag) about it had that been the way this played out.

I will not yet address any of the evidence about PrimeNumber7.  I should examine it later; but frankly, I have thus far avoided it, for reasons that should soon become clear.

I will therefore only address the points raised in this thread thus far—starting with my general observation of a forest that has been missed whilst scrutinizing trees.

---

For my part, I would be very concerned about PrimeNumber7’s identity if he starts trading under that name, or worse, running an escrow service.  I am also concerned any potential use of alts by Quickseller for DT-influence purposes (as, upon information and belief, I suspect that he has done before).

But otherwise...

If Quicksy wants to express his general opinions or engage in technical discussions without weighing his words under the baggage of a deservedly ruined reputation, and if he wants that so much that he’s willing to expend great effort to build a high-reputation account from scratch, then I would not knee-jerk shoot that down.  Anonymous or pseudonymous publication is often used exactly for the reason of divorcing an opinion from its author’s reputation—thus encouraging objectivity, and avoiding inappropriate ad hominem arguments (or avoiding inappropriate appeals to authority, for authors with a high reputation, as was done with “Publius” and the American Federalist Papers).

That is an important principle, with a long and important political history; the ideals of cypherpunks as to anonymity and identity are only the latest installment in that history.  And if I try to think of valid reasons for an undisclosed alt account, that comes up at approximately #2 on an extremely short list.  (#1 being for people living under tyrannical régimes to do potentially dangerous political activism, while still maintaining a “normal” identity—and #3 being those mysterious sock accounts which occasionally bust huge scams.)

I speak mostly as to opinions about technology, society, politics, etc.  However, more generally, we also recently saw a concrete example of what happens when Quickseller-stench clouds a discussion about an unrelated topic.  Quickseller raised a flag on an odious scam account, and explained his flag with arguments which were objectively correct.  Lauda had sufficient objectivity to see this, and supported the flag despite being perhaps Quickseller’s very worst Evil Nemesis on the forum.  A flamewar promptly ensued, wherein smart people whom I otherwise respect were reaching for patently absurd arguments to rationalize opposition to the flag.  I cannot imagine any reason for that, other than desire to oppose Quickseller himself.  I don’t want to potentially restart that tempest in a teapot by linking the thread; I think everybody posting here knows what I refer to.

If an unknown Quickseller alt had raised that flag, would the reactions have been the same?  I think not!

Now, generalize that problem to encompass PrimeNumber7’s involvement in discussions of politics and technology.

---

If Quicky is trying to get in on a plum signature campaign, I think that’s a matter for the sole discretion of the campaign manager.  Bring your evidence to the campaign manager’s attention.  I usually have no opinion about how someone else runs his business, as long as it’s not producing spam or promoting scams.

I think the best campaign managers will know how to best weigh any factors that may affect their own reputations and their clients’ reputations, if things go wrong and the whole thing blows up in their faces.  They are not newbies; and they should know as well as I do what may happen if a Quickseller alt with a new face turns over a new leaf, then later suddenly reverts to the same old behaviour that made him historically the forum’s most-distrusted user.

---

Not so.  In the general case, “but so-and-so did not deny it!” is a classic Quickselling fallacy.  Although it may not be fallacious in the face of compelling evidence plus the absence of any possible good-faith motive to ignore a charge, silence qua silence is weak evidence at best, and certainly not the “best proof”.

This is not to suggest that PrimeNumber7 should not reply; I wish he would.  I just can’t help but remember that there are so many accusations I myself have never explicitly denied, e.g.:



There are many potential good-faith reasons for a policy of neither confirming nor denying alt-identity accusations which are actually false.  I am not saying that PrimeNumber7 actually has such a reason:  Rather, I simply say that his silence should be discounted, and should not be a factor affecting one’s judgment either way when examining hard evidence.

---

I also couldn’t help but notice that exactly this form of argument has been thrown at me many times by Quickseller and others.  It is not evidence; and smart, meticulous people should not be punished for being smart and meticulous.

In my case, I was on-and-off casually lurking for years before I created an account; and before I started posting, I devoted quality time to reading old threads to find the lay of the land.  As a result, as of today, people tend to not even realize that I am still a relative n00b on the forum.  (Activity level gives a hint.)

Did PrimeNumber7 do similarly?  That is a sincere question, not a rhetorical expression of opinion.

---

I disagree with that.  I never forget; and I don’t forgive, if somebody’s actions were so despicable that I adjudge him to be a bad person (i.e., I judge him personally and not only judge his actions).

Although I am not generally in agreement with him, I think that C. S. Lewis said it best when he argued that “[the] essential act of Mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient....  As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice”.  (The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 1949.)

Really, please, reframe the question in terms not of “forgiveness”, but of pardon:  Is Quickseller worthy of a pardon?  Really!?

If you want to be merciful, save your pardons for the rare instances in which basically good people make errors in judgment that contradict their general characters.  Not for someone who was caught red-handed in rank dishonesty, even outright theft (self-escrow is theft by deception of escrow fees!), and then subsequently spent years remorselessly waging a personal vendetta against those who had the least tolerance for his criminality.

Leopards don’t change their spots.  Good people are still fallible mortals, who may occasionally foul up.  If they make a serious error in judgment, they will pay the price of serious consequences; but they still are who they are, and the concept of pardon exists for a reason.  Bad people may sometimes put on their best behaviour, after years of getting whipped bloody in their attempts to get revenge for being caught.  Either way, all feel-good fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, it is very rare, arguably impossible, for the character of a person to actually change.

I have recently noticed from Quickseller himself a pattern of behaviour which, at its surface, suggests that he may be trying to “turn over a new leaf”.  But of course, it is exactly the same pattern of behaviour which would be shown by a longtime scammer who finally admits to himself that he lost the old game, and thus starts up a new long con to inveigle his way back into people’s good graces.  Which is by far more probable?  See above.  And Quickseller is certainly shrewd enough to pull off a long con; much though I have sometimes ridiculed him, I do not underestimate him!

If this assessment seems harsh, well—that is the problem with being criminal:  You lose people’s trust, and you can never get it back.  More importantly, it is the criminal’s problem, not mine or yours.  If he suffers the long-term natural consequences of his own dishonesty, then that is his just deserts; and nobody should feel sorry for him.  (Interestingly, PrimeNumber7 has made some posts which lead me to think that he does not approve of bleeding-heart liberal policies; perhaps he may agree with me here?)

---

At this juncture, I think it’s warranted to point out that the infamous self-escrow scam hasn’t been the only reason to distrust Quickseller.  Although he’s an order of magnitude smarter than the typical shill (a low standard = “faint praise”), he used to spout vicious nonsense as if he just bumbled over here from /r/btc, e.g.:


I have not yet read many of PrimeNumber7’s posts.  Has he commented on the fork wars and BSV, i.e. the logical continuation of a long-term attack on Bitcoin that began not later than 2015?

---

Well said.

I do not propose to “give a second chance” to Quickseller, much less to attempt the fool’s errand of deterring potential wolves by educating masses of sheep.  (I make the obvious metaphor with due apologies to wolves, noble creatures unlike human criminals.)

If (if) it is adequately proved that PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, then this is an unusual case that will require wise judgment indeed, to proactively prevent the new account from ever doing what its owner did with the old account—without preventing the new account from being used merely to engage in rational discussions without ad hominem attacks where there is no potential for fraud, if that is what the new account actually does.

Life is complicated, people are complicated, and potentially shutting PrimeNumber7 up on grounds of alleged Quickselliness may be an error in judgment.  This is a subtle, unusually complicated case, and should be treated accordingly.

I must also observe that such handling will not set a dangerous precedent, or make any loopholes for more ordinary cases.  How many scammers build a clean Sr. account with high earned merit before anybody even notices?  If PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, I believe that this is the first time such a thing has happened; and it will probably be the last such instance seen for a very long time, perhaps the last ever.

That happened a day before this topic was created.

Ha, that's fuckin hilarious... He distrusts the OP... 

Thanks TL,

Fuck QS and all his alts.

Speaking of Quickseller:

---

PrimeNumber7:

I don't think it's necessarily the majority, but their numbers are large enough to make "the internet" in general and "crypto" in particular a scammers' paradise. Most people just aren't ready to be their own bank.
We can't make the internet safe, so I still hope education will make (some) peoples realize it's their own responsibility to be careful who they trust.

There's a strong economic deterrent, or well there was (not that much anymore) for this. The incentive that The Pharmacist, I & co. created by going after account sales is that the people actually try harder to integrate (or well, try not to get caught being a shitposter with a bought account that quickly), which is better than the former. Other than that, there's no way to estimate the data on effectiveness (or lack thereof) of either approaches.

---

What some of you guys seem to refuse to accept is that a super majority of people are naive, slaves, sheep. This is reality, fact, indisputable. No amount of education and "let them learn the hard way" will fix this inherent nature of most of humanity. Therefore, I choose an active deterrent rather than praying and hoping for the best. Standing by and watching harm that I could have prevented be inflicted to users makes me no better than the perpetrator.

You're right on the scam-part: A fool and his money are soon parted, and there are many fools in crypto.

If I look at Scam Accusations, most scams have nothing to do with account sales. That's why I mentioned spam as a possible consequense of account sales.
You could of course argue this is because account sales are heavily frowned upon, and instantly tagged, so cause and effect could very well be in the right order

Liberalism has damaged your mind if you consider that as a win. It's all fine and dandy until someone gets scammed, but hey at least they didn't shitpost after they bought the account. Come on, re-adjust your risk-reward assessment.

It's just a matter of time before I turn mine into a negative. Off-chance for a flag too now, but the likelihood increases with each passing, silent, day.

There is no chance for shitposters get acceptance from professional managers in good campaigns. You are right, even if one buy one good account, and get acceptance to join in one campaign. Maybe he will be kicked out after 1 or 2 weeks as a consequence of post-quality decrease. Professional managers will do easily to see such suspicious chances.

Another minus point is: Building a good account is a challenging so is it worth to sell it for $200 or $500. I don't think there are people want to do this. If I have a good Hero member account, I can earn $500 after 10 weeks so I will never destroy my account after spending 2 years to build it up.