Topic: Quickseller Gave me a negative trust Without Considering any possibility - page 2. (Read 4535 times)
May 05, 2015, 05:13:26 AM
https://youtu.be/uQZMaG1eO74?t=59
Its no lie what few of the people say. Perhaps, you guys should read the post in the first page , and make sense out of it, than deviating the topic discussion.
May 04, 2015, 01:17:32 PM
Actually, he's just rickrolling the forum. It's too bad he's making light of a serious situation.
May 04, 2015, 12:27:33 PM
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 506
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
May 03, 2015, 11:23:19 PM
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
It is in "Trust Improvement" thread in which theymos mentioned about newly added features.
I made three improvements to the Trust system:
-snip-
Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list. Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network.
Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules:
1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly.
2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded.
3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.
-snip-
-snip-
Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list. Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network.
Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules:
1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly.
2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded.
3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.
-snip-
May 03, 2015, 10:22:18 PM
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link.
Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11193212
LOL! I didn't catch that either, because I modified my quote to not show it.
I even spent 10 minutes searching google.
Above is the post where he replied. I personally wouldn't spend any time searching for answers for that person, I have had him tagged as a spammer for a long time and I doubt he has any actual interest in the answer to any questions he asks.
I personally have also had much better luck in finding things with the forum search as it allows you to search specific threads and specific subs.
May 03, 2015, 10:12:36 PM
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link.
Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11193212
LOL! I didn't catch that either, because I modified my quote to not show it.
I even spent 10 minutes searching google.
May 03, 2015, 10:11:15 PM
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link.
Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11193212
May 03, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
Theymos posted it somewhere, but I don't remember the link.
Actually I found it - it's right here in this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11193212
May 03, 2015, 09:39:51 PM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread).
If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write
~Quickseller
then he is excluded?
Is that actually correct?
Yes. No. of persons who exclude must be greater than number of people who add him. If 1 more person in trust depth 1 add him, 3 people in trust depth will have to exclude him.
Hey, thanks MZ, is this somewhere in the trust thread and I didn't see it? How did you know this?
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 506
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
May 01, 2015, 08:01:39 PM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread).
If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write
~Quickseller
then he is excluded?
Is that actually correct?
Yes. No. of persons who exclude must be greater than number of people who add him. If 1 more person in trust depth 1 add him, 3 people in trust depth will have to exclude him.
May 01, 2015, 04:57:33 PM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread).
If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write
~Quickseller
then he is excluded?
Is that actually correct?
April 30, 2015, 05:38:23 PM
Here is the address he mentioned I am in control of : https://blockchain.info/address/1Fo6Uy8JWnV9SnDM5LBnYA8nnCQgbfbyDT
Click on any transaction , and tell me if you see it being used as an individual user's transaction. And the keys claimed are used only in one transaction.
Click on any transaction , and tell me if you see it being used as an individual user's transaction. And the keys claimed are used only in one transaction.
April 29, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Still sticking to what I said. Isn't it obvious already, that it is an exchange/gambling site/Bitcoin service address ?
The addresses have been used only once, and only for funds transfer outside to another address. It clearly follows an exchange/gambling site deposit pattern.
Even if we stick to what Quickseller said, that common owner behind them, then even with that, no one creates a brand new wallet, creates 3 addresses under it, and imports them together, and only use them for sending money out, ONLY ONCE , so his bitcointalk accounts could be neg repped 3 months later.
3-4 of these addresses which were sweeped, have only one transaction. All you need to do is follow the transactions, and it will become evident that they are from any exchange/site.
And My MAIN ARGUMENT :
If Twipple was actually a scammer, and was ditching the account, why would he request a loan to the only address that will lead to him being tracked, and that too for an amount, which is 1/3rd of the amount, he would have easily got if he sold the account ? It all clearly doesn't add up.
Even the loan amount doesn't move out until 6 days later when it is sweeped out, together with all the addresses.
The addresses have been used only once, and only for funds transfer outside to another address. It clearly follows an exchange/gambling site deposit pattern.
Even if we stick to what Quickseller said, that common owner behind them, then even with that, no one creates a brand new wallet, creates 3 addresses under it, and imports them together, and only use them for sending money out, ONLY ONCE , so his bitcointalk accounts could be neg repped 3 months later.
3-4 of these addresses which were sweeped, have only one transaction. All you need to do is follow the transactions, and it will become evident that they are from any exchange/site.
And My MAIN ARGUMENT :
If Twipple was actually a scammer, and was ditching the account, why would he request a loan to the only address that will lead to him being tracked, and that too for an amount, which is 1/3rd of the amount, he would have easily got if he sold the account ? It all clearly doesn't add up.
Even the loan amount doesn't move out until 6 days later when it is sweeped out, together with all the addresses.
April 26, 2015, 02:05:44 PM
Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have.
I like to be part of this forum and I need to post for this to happen. Putting a paid sig helps me get some money atleast for the time I spend. If you think I am spamming, feel free to report those spammy posts or tell a mod that I am spamming & to ban me.
Then stop posting the obvious, ofcourse I know he could be using TOR/VPN , and so does Theymos or any admins , but there are other reasons I believe he was using a normal IP before based on his posts.
With your unnecessary comments you are just supporting Quickseller, without knowing all the facts.
PS: Get a life, don't just post on the forum to be paid.
As for Blazr's analysis, it was just on the exchange sites. It could perhaps be any Online bitcoin service. its almost impossible to know which one, but all the transactions happening or happened with those wallet addresses do point out that it is not one person's wallet, those addresses have been used only once, and only in that sweep together.
April 26, 2015, 09:27:14 AM
M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.
There is a pattern across more than just the MZ account and Quickseller.
Reason?
Same person?
Partner?
Paid shill?
Spam of someone building the account for sale later?
April 26, 2015, 09:10:32 AM
I'm not saying that what you're saying here is wrong, I just notice you post on threads about Quickseller too often and defending his actions most of the time.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 506
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 26, 2015, 08:10:03 AM
Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have.
I like to be part of this forum and I need to post for this to happen. Putting a paid sig helps me get some money atleast for the time I spend. If you think I am spamming, feel free to report those spammy posts or tell a mod that I am spamming & to ban me.
Obviously TOR/VPN can be used, but I don't think tacoman or me were using that before the negative trust was given.
How can you tell tacoman didn't use VPN/Tor before getting negative trust? It is obvious scammers use VPN/Tor when/before they start to scam.
Also, Twipple had no traces of scam or anything . Its just the address that was posted by Twipple which somehow was related with the address that tacoman posted which I believe both of them were deposit address for the same site like localbitcoins or a gambling site.
Blazr did a great analysis but result was negative (for you). If you can provide proof it is a deposit/withdrawal address of an exchange/gambling site, it will be removed.
M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.
I post what I understand/know. Twipple requested/said theymos to do an IP check and I said it may not work. May I know if there is something wrong in what I said? The post you are referring to isn't derailing or irrelevant.
April 26, 2015, 07:58:29 AM
M Z, why do you always jump on the wagon to defend Quickseller like that? This time you didn't exactly defend him but effectively derailed the discussion with irrelevant posts.
April 26, 2015, 07:55:03 AM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
Now that you have seen this thread, can't you just look at the IP's used and everything to verify I am not the alt that he claims I am ? Kind of feeling ridiculous that even the forum doesn't do anything for such trust abuse that Quickseller is implementing.
You can easily use a Tor or VPN. Also even if a scammer account was sold, negative feedback should not be removed. Proof for this are plausibly manipulated. Many threads will popup if negative feedback are removed for these kind of things. I feel sorry for your loose but you will have to live with it. I suggest you to join a campaign which accepts users with red rating.
Please don't bother commenting to increase your post count for the sig you have. Obviously TOR/VPN can be used, but I don't think tacoman or me were using that before the negative trust was given.
Also, Twipple had no traces of scam or anything . Its just the address that was posted by Twipple which somehow was related with the address that tacoman posted which I believe both of them were deposit address for the same site like localbitcoins or a gambling site.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 506
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 26, 2015, 07:38:19 AM
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network.
Now that you have seen this thread, can't you just look at the IP's used and everything to verify I am not the alt that he claims I am ? Kind of feeling ridiculous that even the forum doesn't do anything for such trust abuse that Quickseller is implementing.
You can easily use a Tor or VPN. Also even if a scammer account was sold, negative feedback should not be removed. Proof for this are plausibly manipulated. Many threads will popup if negative feedback are removed for these kind of things. I feel sorry for your loose but you will have to live with it. I suggest you to join a campaign which accepts users with red rating.
Jump to: