Topic: Quickseller is a dangerous person to deal with - avoid (Read 3223 times)

Everybody who supports the flag against quickseller believes he is "dangerous to deal with." If its not because he's the kind of person who believes its OK to self-escrow, its because he's the kind of person that will accuse a highly-reputable campaign manager of embezzling campaign funds based on nothing but speculation, and then join one of that manager's campaigns under an alt account.

Did you ever apologize about that @Quickseller? I can't tell from the Scam Accusation you posted.

Please. I'm letting you go and never return to this thread. If you have a meta complaint there is a board for that. Thank you!

Time to let it go.

---

---

Most of the posts in the last day or two or this thread have all been of the type "they started it, therefore I have the right to continue it on as I please - and I WILL! - RRRReeeeeeee !!!!!".

This is not healthy for the Forum.

As DireWolfM14 mentioned, dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately....and I'd go so far as to say he's always burning a short one, because if my pathologically-constricted memory serves me correctly, he's been snippy with me a couple of times in threads about Ledger wallets, which I know he's not a fan of.  But I mean come on, QS.  You've been here a long time, and I know you've got a much thicker skin than this.

This is true, unfortunately.  I think a lot of us like a little drama mixed in with all the technical discussions and shitposts, as it makes this joint a little more lively--that's certainly true for me, as long as I'm not the center of the drama, but that hasn't happened for a while, and even then it was just some bitching by a group of zero-value members who I tagged years ago.

Man, if all the unhealthy threads got locked, where would all the fun come from?

tl;dr: If timelord didn't have double standards, he wouldn't have any standards at all.

This thread is unhealthy and needs to be locked.

Sure, if someone is acting in bad faith, it might not be unreasonable to attack first. However, I don't think I was acting in bad faith. Others have noted that the questions I was bringing up were reasonable questions.

Overall, I agree with the point that attacking someone else is not a good idea and it tends to be a sign of weakness to not be able to separate the person from the argument and sometimes to become too emotional about some kind of criticism that has happened that was not really an attack but was merely a criticism.

Surely, if the other person has attacked first, then it would be a lot more acceptable to attack back, but maybe still not necessary to get down into the off-topicness of person rather than substance. 

I know that sometimes I will attack others.. but my own rendition of those situations is that in my head I have concluded that they have attacked first, and maybe I had already given them sufficient chances on the discussion of the substance (or we have a prior relation)..  Anyhow I believe that I mostly will only attack after I feel that I have been attacked first and after a certain amount of attempts at addressing the topic..but I do understand and appreciate that there are some arguments and discussion topics that are not real and genuine talking points.. so in that regard sometimes there might be some instances in which I had determined that a pre-emptive attack might come in useful, even though I do not consider myself to have such a habit,.... at least not regularly.. but I could see how sometimes preemptive attack can be useful...  sometimes. perhaps?..

Is it? "His" project? Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see why you keep repeating this.


The first sentence can be considered an opinion and it would be for others to judge (e.g. via trust exclusions). The second is just plain false.

Doesn't stop you from repeating these fallacious claims as facts.


I do believe that you are dangerous to deal with, on the basis of facts listed in the OP. Note that I did not put your run-in with dkbit98 into the OP - I may reconsider if you resort to your usual shenanigans like doxing - so my opinion about it shows nothing of what you're implying. It's not trolling that makes you dangerous. It's your deceptive, purposeful, malicious actions that go far beyond forum disagreements.

He is acting like a shill in attacking anyone who questions his project. Anyone capable of keeping an open mind will see this. Unfortunately, you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at things objectively. To you, everything is about which 'tribe' someone is in.
This reaction shows this thread (opened by you) is personal in nature, and that you do not actually believe I am "dangerous" to deal with.

Yeah, but than I would make Bitcointalk forum a much more boring place than it is now, and I honestly don't have all the answers on his tech question he got after few minutes of reading documentation.
I think that Mercury team is going to thank QS more than me (alleged shiller and ponzi promoter) for finding major BUG in their open source code, heck maybe they will even pay him few bucks even in some defi shitcoin if he prefers them now.

Quicksy asked a question about dk's involvement, got an answer (not involved, which you can believe or not but you can't claim that there was an attack in response to that question) and then proceeded to talk about ponzis etc. Those were not questions at all, insinuations at best. Should dkbit98 have taken the high road here? Yes, probably. But the fact that he didn't doesn't make him a shill or otherwise responsible for bugs/backdoors/exploits that may or may not exist in that wallet.

And Quicksy keeps saying that dkbit98 is a shill with no proof of that, and made some other claims that are provably wrong, so at this point I would very much doubt any of his "technically astute" claims in that thread. That's what shit-stirrers like him do, put a few smart-sounding wikipedia words into a soup of bullshit and pretend that it smells like roses.


There you go, it's completely on-brand then

So is Quicksy's incessant trollfuckery.

Haha.  Okay, but if that's your idea of "epic" I think you need to get out more often.


I'm well aware of Quickseller's reputation and the feuds that he's fostered, but none of that has any bearing on the questions that he asked.  Regardless of who asked the questions, if they're legitimate and pertinent they deserve measured responses.  I do agree with Quickseller that the way you reacted does indeed raise more questions.  I'm not doubting anything you said, I believe you that you're not involved and merely following an interesting project.  But again, your reaction was a bit odd.

Ah you are the Windows guy who created that WIN topic in Bitcoin section... that was epic I must admit
I never said that you shilled anything, IQ remark was obviously regarding Windows11 reduced performance for AMD chips (known fact), not about anyone personally, but I don't want to go more off-topic with that.
Sorry if I offended you in any way, it's true that I can have those days, but I don't want to have bad blood with anyone.

I agree that QS is good tech guy but he is much better liar, and I have full right to suspect anything he writes because of his scamming history.
I am sure that suchoom, babo, nutildah, marlboroza, yahoo62278, The Pharmacist and many others can say more about him than I can.
Some sadly people passed away so they can't speak anymore.

The questions about dkbit98‘s involvement in the project came after his attacks. I don’t think it is u reasonable to conclude that dkbit98 is shilling for the project based on his attacks. The initial questions were reasonable as you note. In addition to the conclusion of dkbit98‘s inconvenient, attacks on someone asking basic questions should tell onlookers they should be asking more questions.

dkbit98 had a history of attacking people that disagree with him. See his interactions with Lucius, HCP,    ~DefaultTrust, and I would not be surprised if there are others.

I see things differently.  Assuming no posts were deleted from that thread, it appeared to me that dkbit98 refuted QS's comments based solely on his reputation.  QS's reputation aside, I've always thought of him as somewhat technically astute, and his questions in that thread were valid.  Perhaps the question about about dkbit98's involvement in the project was a loaded one, I don't know.  Even if it wasn't I can see how dkbit98 might have interpreted it that way.

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.  Maybe I deserved it, I was shilling spyware, after all.

My bad, I didn't know that talking about reputation is causing this kind of side effects  

It's not funny, it's just facts and link that anyone can found in his profile reputation.
I am not angry at all at him, I wish him all the best in his life, and I am sorry if I offended his majesty or if I said anything wrong about defi projects.

Hey, if you have something to say about my thread, say it to my face

I think it's a good idea to move the grievance here, instead of continuing the trollfeed on the tech board.

dkbit98, I would just roll with this and let it slide off you like water from a duck's buttocks.  Maybe Quickseller is in a bad mood or on his period.  Don't get slick with sweat and anger over this, because it's just words.  A few of us have had beefs with him and other members of the forum just like you and QS did, and the best thing to do is not to escalate it--it'll never end otherwise, and it's just not worth the time and mental energy to argue continuously over something that to me seems extremely trivial.

Funny how you bumped this particular thread to air your grievance in public, by the way.  I'm amused by it.

Ok, well, he's touchy about his reputation, which he thinks is impeccable.

I made the mistake using Show/Hide on Quicksy's posts the tech boards thinking that he'd be less of a vengeful moron there than usual, but apparently not.

Watch out for doxing, that's his go-to move when someone disagrees with him.