Topic: PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller, Take 2 - page 10. (Read 4396 times)

Well sure, there are lots of similarities in the way people use language and words and phrases, but the odds of someone using the same very unique phrases or spelling errors is astronomical and the more similarities we see the more likely it becomes that one and the other are the same and I've spotted a lot of alts like this. Basically, we all know that you're QS but there's obviously no smoking gun so you're going to try hide behind that. It's like knowing someone committed a crime because it has all the hallmarks of that person and they were spotted at the scene of the crime and have the motive, but there's no DNA evidence to seal the case and certainly not enough to stand up in court so they go free on a technicality.

BTW, I always had an inkling you two were one and the same as you just start to see these things when you spend so much time on the board, but it was all but confirmed for me when I noticed both you and QS reporting posts with the exact same phrasing. The odds of that happening between two random people is very rare and obviously not something someone else can mimic. QS also does a certain thing on all of his accounts as do you which I'm not going to give away because it's an easy habit to change but it's always the first thing I look for when I see one account that has all the hallmarks of QS. I honestly don't know whether you just see this board as too lucrative to leave it alone and do your best to try rank up an account to maximise earning potential here from whatever avenues you can, or there's something more sinister going on and you've always been trying to build up to a long con or something. I'm sure many others here wouldn't have given a shit about any other accounts you had and you could have easy rebuilt your reputation over time but the way you behaved and tried to take anyone and everyone down just because they had someone you didn't like on their trust list turned a lot of people against you and makes me not trust you at all and that's why most people here are unforgiving of you.


Most people have words they get wrong frequently even if they're native English speakers, and especially just turn of phrases and mannerisms that you pick up over time. It's actually hard for people to register themselves but others often notice it and over time things start to stick out even more.


It's really not just the words though, it's the overall behaviour amongst other things. Users who sign up here and head straight to Meta and and get involved in forum politics always stand out as likely being alts and often people blatantly having knowledge of things that you would only know from being here a while sets alarm bells off. The words and phrases are just another piece of strong evidence, but yes, one or two similarities wouldn't mean much but when you put it all together it becomes pretty compelling. I wasn't even aware of the things that have just been presented in this thread but I always suspected they were the same just from other things I observed. Sure, probably technically not enough to condemn someone over but I'd bet a bollock they're the same.


Well it's pretty obvious. Money and probably trust. It's also not that hard to rank up if you know what to do and where to fish for merits, much like mday was doing, and PN7 is doing pretty well in the merit and rank stakes. Sure, it takes a bit of time and effort but the outcome can be very rewarding, especially if you can get on a high-paying campaign and I'm sure he has his eyes set on the holy grail that is Chipmixer.


The people who he's attacked seemingly give a shit. I don't really care either either and let him have that account for all I care, but I don't blame them for attacking him any chance they get either because that's exactly what QS did and he launched a pretty merciless attack on anyone who he felt wronged him and they're seemingly returning the favour and unwilling to let it go like he did.

I would just say move on to both sides but I don't think either will be wiling to do so so this sort of tit-for-tat will likely continue on for ever.

No.

Why would you think we are the same person?

Are you Suchmoon?

I feel like this is a trick question. You said they were "two red blooded murrrican hicks", so obviously they aren't the same person.


Not at all. I'm saying that nobody uses all of those terms except for them.


How are you deciding what is common versus what is uncommon? Because a big number appears next to the number of Google search results? Thats even less scientific than what me and suchmoon are doing.


That's not the phrase used by Quickseller, so why would I care about that? "All forms" aren't relevant, only those used by Quickseller. I feel like you are failing to grasp what I am doing at a fundamental level.

Are you still claiming that your phone suggested "passphraise" and "maximum benefit of the doubt" or have you moved to some other straw man argument? I never claimed that all words/phrases listed in the OP are incorrect. Nor did nutildah as far as I can see. Some are clearly misspelled, some are just rare.


Near admission... what does that even mean? Don't go full Quicksy on us, speak in full sentences.

---

"passphrase" is about as Bitcoin-ish as it gets. The correct spelling has been used by ~7000 users on this forum. Don't start arguing now that this being a commonly used word the chance of it being accidentally misspelled the same way by two different users is greater.

You asked for numbers, I gave you numbers, you're still refusing to show any numbers of your own, so it's becoming a bit of a one-sided argument.

---

(emphasis mine)

These threads are great and all, but in spite of you all L.A.R.P.ing as Nazi hunters or something do these kind of threads serve any purpose? Have you considered getting a life?

can you qualify that data? if there are 5 word combinations on bitcointalk that only 2 people share, does that somehow prove they are alts? how do you account for coincidences? what are the actual scientific standards for this kinda shit (if they exist)?


yes, i believe that's true. i'm glad you're willing to concede that. i can't really verify the data either, so i'll have to take your word for it.


that's a point of contention for me. if some combination of expressions is more common in general internet usage but less common on bitcointalk in relative terms, anomalies will appear more severe in your data than they should and the likelihood of coincidence increases.

take this extreme example: two red blooded murrrican hicks from north carolina (go panthers!) join an internet forum mostly comprised of brits/euros. these two share several linguistic similarities/phrases and worldviews in common because of their southern hick upbringing. to the rest of the forum, they both stick out like a sore thumb. are they the same person?

this is the logic of your claim: "so few people on the forum use these terms that anyone who does use them must be the same person". you see how that's fallacious/circular reasoning, right? it's not self-evident.


common general usage makes it difficult to rule out coincidences in your narrow data set. see above.

expressions/idioms are also tricky because you should be capturing all forms, otherwise you're not truly representing their prevalence. eg for "sow discord" you should be including users like:


etc etc

anyway, good luck PrimeNumber7. some people around here are obviously itching to burn you at the stake.....

Let's dissect a couple of these assertions as I think its inaccurate to say I am presenting evidence in "bad faith."


First of all, we're talking about "common expression" as in common on the forum; not what is yielded as a Google search result. On the forum, there's exactly 8 instances of "maximum benefit of the doubt" that can be found, 4 belong to QS and 1 belongs to PN7. Not exactly a "common expression."


Yet on the forum, there's only 13 accounts that have ever used that phrase, and 2 of them are QS/PN7. 13 users out of thousands.

None of the examples provided are "common", though some are more common than others.

Isn't it though more relevant that all this new evidence , is on top of the previous claims submitted ?   And actually no , this amount of unique word combinations when compared to 2 distinct forum members the odds of them matching are extremely low! if none whatsoever. ( add that to the previous claims and what are the chances of it being simply a coincidence ? )
And honestly this is simply my input as someone who has never dealt with most likely any of you participating in this thread . So there's 0 interest of me taking anyone's side on this matter .
Simply my input after analyzing the claims OP has made , and yeah , I agree with OP 100 %.

I am sure there are plenty of other unique word combinations that, when paired together, are used by exactly two distinct forum members. Further, you appear to be padding your numbers with word combinations being used correctly.

Further, with the near admission of puppetry used in this thread, I would question your claim of lack of involvement in this thread, and this one...

As I've said before, to me the issue here is the thoroughly deceptive way Quickseller is trying to sockpuppet his way into whatever it is that he wants to achieve - to earn from sig campaigns, or to regain his DT "powers", or to prove that account farming is cool... who knows.


I can't speak for nutildah but I personally don't particularly care for any specific outcome other than perhaps not wanting to have QS/PN7/etc in DT. Unfortunately with the DT1 inflation and random selection it's almost inevitable that he'll get in at some point.

How everyone else interprets the presented information is up to them.

---

Some totally unscientific numbers to complement the nice rainbow diagram above:

-                           |passphrais|immidiatel|boarder|rodger ver|monitory|underlying root cause|sow discord|maximum benefit of the doubt|
----------------------------|----------|----------|-------|----------|--------|---------------------|-----------|----------------------------|
passphrais                  |-         |2         |3      |3         |2       |2                    |2          |2                           |
immidiatel                  |2         |-         |11     |2         |3       |2                    |2          |2                           |
boarder                     |3         |11        |-      |5         |6       |2                    |2          |2                           |
rodger ver                  |3         |2         |5      |-         |2       |2                    |2          |2                           |
monitory                    |2         |3         |6      |2         |-       |2                    |3          |2                           |
underlying root cause       |2         |2         |2      |2         |2       |-                    |2          |2                           |
sow discord                 |2         |2         |2      |2         |3       |2                    |-          |2                           |
maximum benefit of the doubt|2         |2         |2      |2         |2       |2                    |2          |-                           |

Each number shows how many different users used each pair of words/phrases. 2 means it's just Quickseller and PrimeNumber7. So out of 28 possible combinations 21 are unique to those two accounts. I couldn't find a quick and easy way to make a 3-dimensional one but there is only one triple combination that has more than those two users. Beyond that (4 or more out of 8) it's only QS and PN7.

I think I know the potential rebuttal to that. Those words and phrases could have been picked in such a way that only those accounts are matched. But since I know for a fact that's not what happened this is sufficiently convincing for me. Others are free to do their own research although aside from some verbal gymnastics there doesn't seem to be much interest in that.

"transparently" was excluded as it's too context-sensitive.

Yes, he is, and that's the point: if you're not an American English native speaker its a bit harder to judge what phrases and misspellings are common versus uncommon.


But will you find all of those shared with QS/PN7? Would you even find more than 3 of the 9 examples provided? There's a big difference in odds between guessing 3 correct numbers in a lottery and 4.

There's a pool of users for each individual phrase/word/mistake. The odds of a user residing in a pool with another user go down considerably when filtered by subsequent pools. The pools vary in size from containing liberally 1/8th of all forum users (probably closer to 1/20th, hence they are all "uncommon") to 1/50th, 1/100th or even lower.

Let's just say all pools contain 1/8th of all active forum members for the sake of argument: by the 5th example, you're down to 1 in 32,768 members. And if you cross-reference this with the sections they post in and their total number of posts, it further narrows down the remaining list of members by a considerable degree (perhaps less than a handful).

This Venn diagram example isn't perfect as it would require 3-dimensions and circles of unequal sizes to more accurately portray the overlap of users and words, but it demonstrates the decreasing amount of chance users have with residing in areas of large amounts of overlapping circles.



Quickseller resides in the very center of this diagram. The number of users who fall into all 8 circles (share the same 8 phrase/misspelling similarities) is extremely small. As a matter of fact, I would contend that he only shares it with PrimeNumber7, but I'm welcome to be proven wrong.

Why does it all matter?

I would absolutely find a similar analysis yielding similar results to be valid comparing any two forum members, regardless of their reputation. However, I would only consider it worth publishing on the forum if one of them had a multi-year reputation of being deceitful, dishonest and harmful to other members.

You should only trust PN7 as much as you would trust QS.

Rats.. You caught that edit?
I noticed at the last minute while comparing myself to the "both hard right Republicans" checklist bit, therefore the edit..


Frame him for what purpose? To ruin the QS account reputation? lol
Maybe try to frame him as a ban evader or actually scam to frame him as an actual scammer other than the self-escrow gig?

iirc not too long ago QS denied being an alt of another account on the basis that he did not want to be liable for the actions of the other account, and it was generally believed that his denial was true.. (Not digging for it)
A denial from the QS account in this case would likely actually put more doubt in my mind that PN7 is QS and this refusal to answer is just technicalities..

Not denying here is more evidence he is QS to me, similar to, and as is, the discreditation of SM referenced and seen above..


All we have so far is one red tag from lauda, which I doubt will stop PN7 from being paid for a signature..
Is the goal here to stop PN7/QS from being paid for a signature? Or just to make sure QS is being watched for something actually serious?

As I have alluded to previously I think one of the only dangers of QS is in his mastermind if he did actually put effort into trying to pull off a big scam..
But I don't see where QS has ever tried pulling off any big scam, and as time goes on, it becomes only less likely in my mind..
Heck, if PN7 is indeed QS he didn't really put much effort into obfuscating his posts to not be caught now did he? Maybe it is even an experiment of his to see if he will be allowed to post cleanly under a new account..

I think QS signature posting under a relatively cleaner account is quite harmless, and now it is well known and will be well watched..
I understand to most here that QS is absolutely unredeemable in their eyes, so I won't even ask what the requirements of such would be, but I guess that I will dangerously admit that I myself do see some value in users like QS and TOAA, in the fact that they keep everyone on their toes, and force them to toe the straight-and-narrow line, because others are jumping at the opportunity to expose wrongdoing of rivals.. (Is "wrongdoin" a QS or TOAA word?)
It has some good in the big picture from my perspective..

Actually related to my last post on the concept of the....
The false accusations don't fly do they? The free market works..

Another interesting dynamic I see happening is that it used to be that every sock was QS, and then lately every sock was CH, now is it going back to every sock is QS again?

I think it is probably QS but what are you all going to do about it? And what do you think should be done about it?
Maybe that should be the title of a thread.. "What should be done about PN7 probably being an alt of QS?"..
Lit up red or just plenty of neutrals?

I'm sorry that you can't hear me laughing at your demands for scientific research after you said natural language processing is "junk science".

LOL.. I know right? That whole post screams Quickseller to me, that exactly what I would have expected, he's given up now, so he doesn't care again and will just try... try... again.. Like a failure he is. :Joy:

Remember kidz.... This motherfucker half doxxed me for no reason whatsoever afaict.

Come on out Quicksy - Let's go a round like the old days, eh?   Bump my dox thread by your alts? No? Okay, well find something, you are fucking boring my ass you stupid scamming piece of shit trump-trash...

what’s that? No? Crickets.. No? Anything?

I am reviewing this post as the search patterns suggested by others in this (and part 1 thread) yield a wider number of posts than the ones I found, hence the findings I made did not take into consideration other avenues of inquiry which would result in a far different conclusion.

I won't be able to examine this in full today, but it is the only thing I am currently working on.

---

Just as a side question for others, why was tspacepilot's research on Master-p widely accepted, but phrase usage being cited here isn't?

Your bullshit about two phones being broken the same way is approaching the infinite monkey theorem.

Your attempts to discredit me are heartwarmingly familiar.

I guess the acceptance of this kind of evidence depends on who is being accused, however it could also be a case of the OP not agreeing with:
I will say up front that Suchmoon has been making innuendoes of the underlying connection for months. I also have good reason to believe he has been trying to get some people who are active in handing out tags to notice this connection "on their own". This leads me to believe the evidence is not strong (see OP), or has the potential to reflect poorly on Suchmoon for some reason.

Some of the examples in the OP reflect proper English usage, and as figmentofmyass mentioned, indicate bad faith by the OP (or maybe Suchmoon, I don't know).

I like to read the forum from my phone, and will sometimes post from my phone. When I post, I will often accept predictive text that my phone suggests. I have noticed that many forum users go to extremes to 'secure' their forum accounts, including not using their phones, so maybe the chances of two forum users making the specific mistakes are small, but this question would be invalid because the population of forum users includes a small population users who post from their smart phones that may have caused the mistakes in the OP (when they are actually mistakes). A scientifically valid experiment would need to control for input device if the input device (aka keyboard, or phone) may play a role in the errors. Further, there may be other small groups of distinct forum users who make other specific spelling errors.

I would ask the OP if he (or Suchmoon) can cite any scientific research that validates the use of common spelling errors to identify common authorship? If so, the research would be, at best, mixed on the subject.

A+ for the effort, D for reading comprehension:


Now... if you're implying that PrimeNumber7 is trying to frame Quickseller - this would be a very interesting twist.


Thought so.