Topic: "Quickseller" marked my account red rating with no evidence in ANGER, UNETHICAL (Read 2333 times)

Oh damn! I am sorry but I dint know that. He's a psycho.


OK. The trust system doesn't show the time and all show the same date. Also, QS dint give any reference nor evidence so his feedback unlike the user railzand who left him feedback claiming the same with a reference to a post that has been deleted. Preventing from a neutral rating is definitely a good idea but there are less chances that a scammer can get positives from a default trust member (which is the case with the OP). If I believe a person is a scammer for sure, I'll leave him negative feedback (but that's not when others leave him feedback and then I negate him).

In this case, the OP does seem suspicious as he hasn't only received feedback from Badbear but from others who have made such claims 4 months back.

QS left negative feedback before BadBear left and also once you strongly believe a user is scammer, you can leave negative feedback. Leaving more than one feedback will also help in preventing negative trust rating to be a neutral rating.

So then why do you keep coming back?  Good luck on your other projects my friend. 

Vod is a bad-pathetic person.

Mmm i can kill this forum, i am a master doing DoS/DDoS attacks  

This is a stupid forum, this is not like google/facebook.

Plus i have better things...

Vod live your life.

I'm guilty of being one who left negative feedback based on BB's ability to look at IP addresses.

The OP has sent me many death threats.  So IMHO it's important for new users to see that scum get more that a simple -6.  That scum has done much more than scam.

If I knew who he was and where he lived, he'd get Alberta Justice from me.   He probably wouldn't so quick to throw out death threats after that.  

OK but in this case Badbear may not be removed from the default trust list so here the other negative ratings don't make sense.


Yeah true. Only Badbear can find a connection with the IP addresses and not the others who have left him negative just based on Badbear's trusted feedback as they have no evidence to present here. To me it just appears as trust abuse.

I personally also have no problem in trusting Quicksellers (or BB's) judgement either. Im certain neither of them, nor you, are leaving negative ratings lightheartedly or at a whim. Disclosure is still important to maintain the integrity of the rating system or rather of the default trust list as a tool.

BB has a lot at stake with his reputation here, as I do.  I don't think he would "follow" anyone else's rating.

I, however, have enough trust in him to follow his ratings.

The same arguement could be applied to positive trust received. Just because you have been trustworthy in the past does not make you trustworthy now. Its the DT equivalent of the long con.


Its not in a sense that you lock someone up, but it is in a sense that you can make it very difficult for someone to trade with others here. Its very close to a fine. This is esp. true for older accounts. A newbie account is quickly replaced, an established (as in high rank) account is not.


Yes. Hiding evidence of their scams means that you undermine the trust system and over time rending it useless. Any scammer can get enough information about how to hide their tracks without you revealing their idiocity. If the trust in the current system is destroyed it is useless and can not easily be replaced.


Next step will be mixers if it turns out bitstamp rats them out for a court order. Dark wallet. Anonymous focused alt coins. There are plenty options. Increasing the workload for scammers is a good thing.


No asking for evidence is the only way to defend yourself. It is impossible to proof that you did not do something. It is however possible to show error in your chain of evidence.


BadBear might be the only acceptable exception here. If they draw a connection based on personal information like IP addresses it certainly makes sense to keep the personal information private. It is also different from a dox as the IP is typcially not publicly available. The interesting question is whether BadBear has information at all or just followed the rating by someone else.
Be that as it may my point is not this specific or any other specific case, but the tendency to leave a rating without ref link or accountable arguments.

If only one user left negative and he/she is removed from default trust list, negative rating will change to neutral rating. So to avoid it, two or more or DF users leave feedback.

OP received a valid negative feedback from Badbear which is the only feedback anyone should consider bearing in mind that Badbear is the admin. Rest those who left negative feedback don't have any proof/evidence and hence their feedback doesn't make sense.

I don't get if one has already received a negative feedback from the admin or a default trust member, why do other members too join the league? Does it improve or make his trust rating more valuable or trustworthy? I don't think so and find it weird ways of entering the default trust system.

I think having a history of being fair with your trust. If you have a history of being right about these kinds of things then the community will believe your trust ratings. If you have a history of being unfair with trust ratings then your trust ratings will be ignored. If someone has a history of being right about figuring out alts of scammers, then when they say that someone is an alt of a scammer, then their word will be believed. A negative rating is not a criminal punishment, and as a result it does not need to have the same protections that a criminal courtroom would provide. A negative trust rating is to provide a warning to others to trade with extreme caution and to alert their potential trading partners to take precautions when dealing with them. The primary effect of a negative rating is that it makes it more difficult for them to scam in the future.

Giving ways for scammers to avoid detection means that scammers will have an easier time pulling off their scams.

Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless. [/quote]The example did not have additional drama in that specific thread, however I believe there was additional drama in other threads after that post (he had deleted his posts so there is nothing to point to specifically.
I think it also makes my point. After presenting my proof that they were the same person, additional precautions were taken to cover his tracks. After seeing that his bc.i wallet was leaking the identity of his alts, he started using bitstamp and bitdice.me as his "wallet", leaving significantly less evidence then would otherwise be expected.
Evidence was presented on replies 2 and 3 of this thread (xeter and I both posted the same evidence, and I posted it shortly after he did, so I deleted the post to avoid posting essentially the exact same thing).
I didn't post the evidence, but my allegation was still true. Asking for evidence when you are guilty of something is trying to get off on a technicality. As I mentioned previously, negative trust is not a criminal punishment, but is rather a warning to others

I like the 3rd person twist.


This sounds like we are some sort of shadow tribunal. If there is evidence it should be presented. If it helps scammers to improve their skills in avoding detection thats the pill we have to swallow. There are certainly exceptions that are acceptable, the newbie asking for loan w/o collateral, the obviously carded gift cards, the ToS violation of MS keys. They have been discussed at length and there has been some sort of consensus among the commuity that these ratings are justified or at least the reasoning behind them can easily be understood. That at least is my impression judging by the threads that pop up in meta.

Besides. The example you gave has a measly 16 posts, there is little drama and next to no bickering. This is exactly what I was hinting at. Everytime there is an accusation without proper proof we have a 3 day dramathon in meta over a multitude of threads. The only thing this does is to lower the trust in those on DT. This is as much a political tool as it is a jurisdictional. If the overal impression is that DT is misused and judged without evidence or without evidence the "regular" user can refer to it is of no use. If the evidence is withheld to the public the rating can not be judged and thus will be considered worthless.

makes my point -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11215151

I am very impressed by the work you do and I value it, but if you dont make your findings public it results in the view people have of you now. If you have something extra, keep it for later if you want, but there should be a minimum to hold you accountable.


The title and thread are very clear in my opinion. There is no reason to insult your intelligence here.

Whatever you need to tell yourself...

Proof that he is an alt of KoS. There are plenty of ways that you can prove that an account is an alt of another person, the most solid way is to use blockchain evidence, however I think xeter did a pretty good job in this post. BadBear obviously has access to additional information that is not public (eg IP addresses, browser fingerprinting), however if he were to reveal his exact methods then scammers could use that information to avoid detection. Can you give any examples of BadBear being incorrect about alt accounts?
I don't think I am arguing for myself, and it is a well known fact that ACCTseller=quickseller, therefore posting from this account does not amount to shilling

Proof of what? Proof that he is another user? How exactly does one prove that? Oh that's right by Badbear claiming he has some magic formula that says 2 usernames are the same person, but he can't share the information because it is a matter of forum national security.  That seems like a worthwhile request.  

P.S. Quickseller the fact that you are here arguing for yourself using your alt says volumes about you.

Here I will state it publicly to keep it fair...


Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Northwest, Washington, DC 20500

Deliver notes: Oval Office - Leave on desk