Pages:
Author

Topic: Quickseller/ACCTSeller abusing trust system (here we go again!) (Read 3212 times)

legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
Dropping this in the record here because it's relevent to removing any doubt about the connection between QS/ACCTSeller.  Since he has now gone ahead and admitted they are both his accounts then you can see very easily how he uses his low-importance account to troll me and dig up dirt so that his main account can "find it" via the low-importance account's necrobump and then use it against me.

Also, isn't using multiple accounts to re-neg the same person yet another form of trust abuse just in and of itself?

Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.

I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though. 

ALSO, Why don't you admit that you are ACCTSeller's alt, before I have to go dig for proof of that to?
Okay I know I told you that I am ACCTSeller so there is no point in denying that lol. It is a pretty well known fact anyway.

Oh yea. I was trying to build up trust to find the default trust account that you claim to have. Didn't work though.

I think it is pretty clear that I was right about investcryptos is your though. 

Nice excuse... But looks pretty legitimate to me. you think I'm just going to get down on my knees because you mentioned "partnership" and "ponzi" in the same sentence?
And accuse me with "investcryptos" all you want...even I am not dumb enough to "pump" a site so quickly let alone use a blatant copy of CryptoDouble. Any of my previous sites had different designs and structures, that's just plain stupidity lol
You used a copy of your last site haha.

Either way, sorry for calling out your scam so soon after you started it. Better luck next time
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
I do not use this account anymore not even for sig campaign. That's why I posted with this account and not with the account I use now so nobody would think he just posted so he would get sig camp credit. No its not like that at all. He has a neutral one the account that I use and am perfectly fine with it. If anybody wants to research as to why its there, more than happy to help with related threads. I felt like you before to, madder than fuk, cussing Quickseller with every last breath. But that got nowhere. Conversation and openness is the key to getting this resolved. Thats how I feel you should approach it. If Quickseller feels that you could be withholding info to cover yourself, you should be as open as possible about it to get his resolved. The truth will set you free.

Come to JesusQuickseller speech, eh?  Cute.  Or maybe not so cute but whatever.

Here's the sum of what I can see so far:

1)  QS has dug up a he-said-she-said from years ago between a known scammer and me.
2)  QS is taking the unsubstantiated allegations of this scammer against me as "proof".
3)  Realizing how lame this makes him look, he's now searching around for alt accounts in order to (...not sure exactly?)


We of course have to ask the motivation for (1).  The best I can come up with is the fact that I called him a hothead and told him he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him.  He may have other motivations, but thy aren't apparent.  It's clear that whatever he is up to isn't for the "good of the community".  The best current explanation is a vindictive grudge coupled with a power complex.

On (2), QS should try to answer the logic of this: if the other people in the forum who questioned me in that old-ass thread thought I was a "proven" scammer, why didn't they leave negative feedback of their own?  SaltySpitoon is a global moderator, and was at the time (iirc), if, for the good of the community, I was to be marked for life, why didn't SS go ahead an take care of it right there.  Anyone who actually takes the time to troll through that thread from before time will realize that it is a he-said-she-said between two people and in retrospect, only one of them is known to have caused issues.

On (3), the best I can come up with is that he's running scared that his original attack is going to fall through.  This like some kind of cold-war with a power-hungry tyrant.  He moved too quick(seller)ly, he thought he found a legitimate problem that he could use to defame an anonymous guy on the internet who he didn't like but what he actually found was a debunked scammer pitching a fit.  Now, having sided himself with the scammer he's trying to pull out some other attack which is not really adding up to anything (as far as I can tell, he's accusing me of having an alt---is this at all ironic from a guy who sells accounts?  or is it me?).

If quickseller weren't so blinded by his own arrogance he would see the adjectives people in this thread have been applying to his behavior:  "petty", "unwarranted", "suspicious", "intentional", "vindictive", "doesn't add up".

QS is clearly the kind of person who sees the world in three classes: those above him, himself, and those below him.  I've seen this kind of person many times in real life.  The people above them, they suck up to them and act on their best behavior.  This is the only way to understand how someone like him got onto default-trust.  The people below them, they treat like shit and stomp on them.  These people usually only get so far in life, but there's nothing really to do other than to let time+theworld sort it out (alot like what I had to do when TF falsely accused me about 2 or so years ago).

That's the summary of what's transpired.  Here's the future:  QS has dug himself into this hole and he's not backing down or backing out.  More or less, the only recourse here for me is for the person who has provided trust to QS (BadBear, the bigger god) to take a look at this and decide whether this is the kind of behavior he was looking for when he put QS into his trust list (Imma wager it's not, but we'll see).  It's unfortunate that the mods who *are* here aren't able to fix this while BB is away, but the situation is what it is.

For the good of everyone, I'm closing this thread.  I don't see any reason to keep this flame war going.  I'll still be around the boards, posting in my usual sections, chatting bout gambling and learning how to take apart and put back together various pieces of cryptography and protocols and cetera.  Thanks to everyone who chimed in.  BB will be back in a little over a week and then I've got a pretty good feeling you guys won't have to look at any sad warning text when you see my walnuts.  For more about how these sorts of issues might be avoided in the first place, see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/trim-or-eliminate-default-trust-1031791 (wow, didin't I have some kinda precience when I started that thread about a day or two before the QS trollfest on me began?!).
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Hi tspacepilot aka wikib0t aka testycat aka newman aka manny on Coinchat,
[...] You were using a bot to send automated messages on coinchat and reaping the rewards fraudulently. You know that is against the rules. Nobody with any intelligence will think it is OK to run a bot to spam coinchat and get rewards. Bots are not allowed to earn rewards, bot accounts must have the name b0t in them and you've tried wikib0t. You've also said you "reviewed the rules" through email on Aug 30 and then tried wikib0t.
[...]

Quickseller, you've been posting with a chatbot and collecting pay for that, correct?

[....]
Isn't it obvious that any former usage of coinchat.org is in no way relevant to marketplace trust on bitcointalk.org?  
[...]

No. Why would it matter where you cheated?
It's not that I'm saying you're some nasty miscreant, mind you, or that Quickseller did the right thing. If we stop focusing on details & zoom out tho, things worked out for the best: you both have brought attention to the failings of default trust, monetized posting, and, most certainly, to buying and selling of forum accounts.

And hey, now that you're not being paid for your sig, there's one less ad I have to look at, and probably less spam to scroll through Smiley
BTW, you do own/post with other accounts, don't you?

@Neonecrox13: All that conversation and openness has got you... what? You've still got that bright red trust from Quickseller, and now, it appears, you're hoping that sucking up to him would get it removed.
Just buy another account, bro, they're cheap.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
SAD - no longer active
I do not use this account anymore not even for sig campaign. That's why I posted with this account and not with the account I use now so nobody would think he just posted so he would get sig camp credit. No its not like that at all. He has a neutral one the account that I use and am perfectly fine with it. If anybody wants to research as to why its there, more than happy to help with related threads. I felt like you before to, madder than fuk, cussing Quickseller with every last breath. But that got nowhere. Conversation and openness is the key to getting this resolved. Thats how I feel you should approach it. If Quickseller feels that you could be withholding info to cover yourself, you should be as open as possible about it to get his resolved. The truth will set you free.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign  Wink

Again, it's just my opinion.
Well you may think that the OP has been around since late 2013 with no issues, however as you can see, he refuses to admit to scamming TF even after evidence has been presented to the contrary. As you saw on the 2013 thread, he tried to weasel his way out of him being labeled a scammer despite the fact that he clearly did steal. Now he is even going as far as saying that he did not admit to using the bot to illegally receive bitcoin previously when it is clear that he did. If he did scam someone and they did not take very careful notes and document everything perfectly then the OP would simply deny the claims and it would look frivolous. When people act like this, there is a significantly higher reason to call them out (and warn people) about any past transgressions he has done in the past as he has likely learned his lesson as to how to not act if he doesn't want to get caught.


I see little reason to avoid withholding this proof that sed is an alt of the OP since the OP is refusing to deny the fact sed is not controlled/owned by him.

tspacepilot posted the address 1PtuuKPwm9nmmFEyvnJBsqfjn51uHjTqda a number of places including here(archive). If you look at the blockchain then you will see that both the above address and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU both signed a number of transactions together, including 589c08b659c1f449f501a288ff0d3579722d6a490e34f14b117e934b73eb6c64 which only had inputs from the two addresses plus one more so it is unlikely that they are exchange addresses. The sed account posted the above address, among other placed here (archive).

For further confirmation that the above addresses are not an exchange (or similar) addresses, both his vanity address 1waLNutzCh3DuwCvHcHmFgGg6vsLiWfn4 and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU signed 04e54102a0b7f8c20bc17d7d87a71c8c66b2bf09822bab83aa8c03971f7b7e54.


Also, incase you think it is something they would get banned over, he was replying to himself several times, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 several times over the last few months, while both accounts were enrolled in dadice. This was only from a review of sed's post history, there would likely be more revealed if you were to look at tspacepilot's history. here is another one.

Also for reference, here is one example of when he was highly critical of the paid advertisement in the overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, of which I was a frequent bidder/advertiser. And here is where he was socking via tspacepilot to argue for the removal of the advertisement.

p.s. - one other thing, sed's shill rating is >249
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
... and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust.

This is not going to happen. BadBear trusts him and has defended him in the past (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11081945). This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company which was caught by BadBear (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11055166).

While I agree that QS has acted questionably and hotheadedly in the past (I called him out for it in that very thread you reference) in this situation he's gone even farther.  Apparantly he did have some contact with worshipper_-_ and yes it seems the neg rep on worshipper_-_ was basically because he didn't like the loss of income when the deal fell apart, in my case we've never had any dealings.  Instead, he's gone on a 2 day trollfest of me and eventually all he could come up with were unsubstantiated accusations from TF (known liar).

The knee-jerk reaction here is to side with OP, simply because the actions of Quickseller/ACCTSeller are shady.
But Quickseller's questionable ethics and being (likely) driven by vindictiveness do nothing to invalidate his claims re. OP scamming TF, those are factual, and could easily be verified here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-lowered-my-trust-i-dont-know-why-what-recourse-303613

TradeFortress himself (most likely) being a scammer is neither here nor there - thieves get robbed too. And 2+2 still equals 4, even when said by a liar.

Right, we know that Quickseller has necrobumped this old thread of lies in order to find a reasons to smear me.  And he also goes and cutnspastes everythign from the thread which disagrees with me into this thread in order to make it look "proven".  You folks seem to be forgetting that if TF got the benefit of the doubt at that time it was because he was on default trust holding 1000s of people's bitcoins and I was a noobie saying "hay, what happened?"  The fact: I didn't not scam anyone and I did not admit to scamming anyone and to say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts.  Futheremore, history has done the real proving here:  TF has a trust rating ove like -500 now and I have exactly 3 neg reps, one from TF, one from Quickseller (echoing TF) and one from his alt ACCTSeller during his trollfest.

I have read and reread all this and I found it necessary to post here. See this account with the -trust. I'm fairy sure that if I asked Quickseller to remove it he would, because he does know that I am not the person that he thought I was.  I do have another account Tidus1097 that I use because its a full member account hence is why I don't use this one. I made a open thread of it in meta as well. My account was stolen in February due to my incompetence to secure my account. I do not deny that. But over these last 2 months, I have engaged with Quicksellers services mainly because I want him to know that I am indeed the person I say I am and am NOT Morenia/Thegambler or Candystripes. I chose his service because I know he will go through the history on bct and find out any inconsistancies (sorry I'm not using spell check for 1 word) with whoever I'm trading with. When someone uses Quicksellers service 1, they can be sure he will not scam them. 2, Just out of his own accord, he will check out both the accounts history and if he finds anything he will make sure the world knows. Glad he does this, because you never know who your actually dealing with, especially if your new and don't spend alot of time on the forum.


Ok, I have to admit I don't understand the point of your story. You say he would remove the negative feedback if you asked him because he does now know that you are the person that he didn't know that you were?  The only think I got from this paragraph is that you appreciate his thoroughness.

BTW, are there actually any examples of quickseller removing negative feedback under any circumstances?  I've seen Vod do it often, I don't think I've ever seen QS do it.

Quote
Quickseller is a easy person to get along with. Sure I've cussed him, fought with him, felt like doing the same thing blasting him away in Meta, but what's that gonna solve? Nothing. I felt I had to prove myself to him and will continue to do so because the community hold him to a higher standard (default trust) Now, 3/4 are saying well your just sucking his dick to get on his good side, well that's about 1/4 right. 1. He helps the community with the whore's that want to scam you. 2. You can guarentee that he will not cheat you or will not let you be cheated. 3. He may be a prick, but I'm a prick to. That just people for ya. Live
with it.

Again, your writing seems conflicted you say he's easy to get along with and that you've cussed him and that he's a prick and that you're a prick too?  And you seem to be admitting that the main way to get along with him is to "suck his dick", which certainly seems to be the case---as far as I can tell, he doesn't tolerate disagreement or any suggestion that he might be wrong on anything anywhere.  (See the above thread I linked to above where I asked him if he had intended to sign a bitcoin message from an escrow address rather than using his PGP key; he flipped out and called me an idiot, said i know nothing, that i'm inexperienced and cetera; it was over the top as I simply thought that he had made an oversight and was trying to help).

Quote
You want Quickseller to remove the negative feedback, talk to him. Be reasonable. Don't belittle him. Do the same thing you would do to a bank officer when applying for a loan. He is a reasonable person in my opinion. All I had to do was reasonably talk with him. Since then, I've had nothing but good things to say about him.

This is nuts.  Dude has gone on a 2 day trollfest on me using two different accounts and you suggest that if I say nice things then he'll apologize and go away?  I seriously doubt that.  He wants me to grovel and plead with him and say "quickseller you are the deserved god of this forum because you find everything soooo fast" but clearly that is not going to help end his power-craze or this abuse.  Why on earth would I defend myself to this guy regarding trumped up charged from ancient history which have absolutely nothing to do with quickseller or anyone else of the modern era?  How is it not incredibly clear that 3 years of no issues with anyone speaks waaaay louder than the cries of a debunked scammer? 

Quote
Now for the ones that don't agree with Quickseller. That's your opinion. Just like a asshole, everyone has one. This is just mine. Hate me, blast me with neg's, don't matter. I'll still stand up for Quickseller because I know what he does here and will do for me if I need it in a escrow. Will I use other escrows? Sure why not? I like getting to know the community and want them to get to know me as well. But when you try to "take down" someone that does this for the community, your doing the community a negative in my thoughts because he has done more for this Bitcointalk community than 3/4 of the people in this thread has combined. Once you do as much as he has, you will probably have some of the same thoughts as well. I think that's why he has the attitude he has. When u deal with liars and thieves all day, its hard to justify one from the other at times. I'm in no way saying he did that here, I have not studied the evidence that's been presented nor asked the questions that would resolve it for me. On that note, I end this quote, so blast away crybabies. I did that and it got me nowhere.


Right, blasting away at the powerful is indeed like pissing in the wind, or so they say.  But surely anyone reading through this can see the vindinctive trolling that's going on here and once the mods get a chance to weigh in, I'm pretty sure the reign of quickterror will be ending.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
SAD - no longer active
I have read and reread all this and I found it necessary to post here. See this account with the -trust. I'm fairy sure that if I asked Quickseller to remove it he would, because he does know that I am not the person that he thought I was.  I do have another account Tidus1097 that I use because its a full member account hence is why I don't use this one. I made a open thread of it in meta as well. My account was stolen in February due to my incompetence to secure my account. I do not deny that. But over these last 2 months, I have engaged with Quicksellers services mainly because I want him to know that I am indeed the person I say I am and am NOT Morenia/Thegambler or Candystripes. I chose his service because I know he will go through the history on bct and find out any inconsistancies (sorry I'm not using spell check for 1 word) with whoever I'm trading with. When someone uses Quicksellers service 1, they can be sure he will not scam them. 2, Just out of his own accord, he will check out both the accounts history and if he finds anything he will make sure the world knows. Glad he does this, because you never know who your actually dealing with, especially if your new and don't spend alot of time on the forum.

Quickseller is a easy person to get along with. Sure I've cussed him, fought with him, felt like doing the same thing blasting him away in Meta, but what's that gonna solve? Nothing. I felt I had to prove myself to him and will continue to do so because the community hold him to a higher standard (default trust) Now, 3/4 are saying well your just sucking his dick to get on his good side, well that's about 1/4 right. 1. He helps the community with the whore's that want to scam you. 2. You can guarentee that he will not cheat you or will not let you be cheated. 3. He may be a prick, but I'm a prick to. That just people for ya. Live with it.

You want Quickseller to remove the negative feedback, talk to him. Be reasonable. Don't belittle him. Do the same thing you would do to a bank officer when applying for a loan. He is a reasonable person in my opinion. All I had to do was reasonably talk with him. Since then, I've had nothing but good things to say about him. Now for the ones that don't agree with Quickseller. That's your opinion. Just like a asshole, everyone has one. This is just mine. Hate me, blast me with neg's, don't matter. I'll still stand up for Quickseller because I know what he does here and will do for me if I need it in a escrow. Will I use other escrows? Sure why not? I like getting to know the community and want them to get to know me as well. But when you try to "take down" someone that does this for the community, your doing the community a negative in my thoughts because he has done more for this Bitcointalk community than 3/4 of the people in this thread has combined. Once you do as much as he has, you will probably have some of the same thoughts as well. I think that's why he has the attitude he has. When u deal with liars and thieves all day, its hard to justify one from the other at times. I'm in no way saying he did that here, I have not studied the evidence that's been presented nor asked the questions that would resolve it for me. On that note, I end this quote, so blast away crybabies. I did that and it got me nowhere.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
The knee-jerk reaction here is to side with OP, simply because the actions of Quickseller/ACCTSeller are shady.
But Quickseller's questionable ethics and being (likely) driven by vindictiveness do nothing to invalidate his claims re. OP scamming TF, those are factual, and could easily be verified here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-lowered-my-trust-i-dont-know-why-what-recourse-303613

TradeFortress himself (most likely) being a scammer is neither here nor there - thieves get robbed too. And 2+2 still equals 4, even when said by a liar.
hero member
Activity: 593
Merit: 500
1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA
This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company

Escrow for a scam company ? he is willing to become the escrow for the signature campaign to protect the participants of the campaign of not getting paid. This has happened before , so I think that that he being an escrow is the right thing to do

The company account was already tagged by BadBear. Without escrow they were not going to get any members. Quickseller being the escrow allowed some to join and display the signature and potentially get some customers in.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company

Escrow for a scam company ? he is willing to become the escrow for the signature campaign to protect the participants of the campaign of not getting paid. This has happened before , so I think that that he being an escrow is the right thing to do
hero member
Activity: 593
Merit: 500
1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA
... and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust.

This is not going to happen. BadBear trusts him and has defended him in the past (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11081945). This is after Quickseller had willingly decided to become escrow of a scam company which was caught by BadBear (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11055166).
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful Wink

I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it.

I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right).  

If you understood it then you'd be realizing that I have not admitted to any of TF's false accusations and you'd also realize that history has vindicated me on that point (uh, have you looked at TF's trust rating recently?  Were you around back when inputs.io was around?  I'm not so sure that you were.)

If you understood it truly then you'd realize how bad you look by siding with unsubstatiated allegations by a known liar.

Quote

I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban).

Lol, I'm going to ask you expclitly if you are an alt of ACCTSeller.  Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidince that suggests that you are the same person as him.  It would also likely be considered to be scamming this forum if you are using your alt to dig up dirt on people and then necrobumping those threads so that you can attack them on default trust with your other account (it is also frowned up on by the forum administration and will almost certainly get you removed from default trust).

Amazing the way you switch into this, god-like, I am the judge of the people tone of voice.  Guess what dude, I'm not on trial by you and I'm not going to answer to any of your ridiculous trolling bullshit.  You are clearly some kind of insane power-hungry madman on a vengance mission from hell.  And god knows what for (because I called you a hothead? boy was I right!).

If you had any sense of sanity you'd realize that:

a) you and I have never had any trading or any interactions together which would give you any sort of reason to negatively or positivily or neutrally trust me.
b) your insane vendetta makes you look crazy

I suppose tomorrow we'll hearing about how I am actually a child of satan, out to destory bitcoin and therefore the forums must be warned.  That is, we can ask ourselves, where will you go next?  Siding with a known scammer has failed an made you look untrustworthy.  Random accusations of alt/shill don't seem to be holding any water.  What's next?


Really this whole thing would be totally hillarious if it wasn't that the trolls have one here (I still hold out hope that this is only temporary).  A guy with a power complex and too much time on his hands makes it his mission to get a guy banned from a signature ad campaign because I called him a hothead and sided againse him on a number of debates, and it turns out because he's in a power position, he's basically won.  He can sit back here and carp up unsubstantiated complaint after unsubstantiated complaint, he can invent them, he can take them from known liars, it doesn't matter.  He sits back and says in a deified voice "doest thou deny the charges that quickseller brings against thee?"  And when I sat "WTF are you talking about?!"  he says "Thou hast not answered the charges, my judgement STANDS!"

The main hope here is basically that you won't be getting away with this for long.  You've shown your true colors and folks like you who spend their time swinging their dicks around trying to hurt people who have never done any wrong and never even had any complaints against them (yes, except for one complaint from tradefortress, but uh, we know how that story ended) aren't going to be in power for long.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
It actually took me a very short amount of time to find the information I was looking for. The search feature, which you apparently do not know how to use is very useful Wink

I do understand the context of the dispute and I do understand that you admitted to scamming TF. As I mentioned previously, just because you scammed a scammer does not mean you should get away with it.

I also understand that there was not anyone that agreed or thought that TF was in the wrong (or that you were in the right). 


I am going to explicitly ask you if you are an alt of sed. Bear in mind that I do have explicit evidence that suggests that you are the same person as him. It would also likely be considered to be scamming your signature campaign if you are replying to yourself (it is also frowned upon by the forum administration and will hopefully result in a ban).
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
I just saw that you have apparantly cut-n-pasted something like the entire discussion between me and the mods and tf into this thread.  Again, I reiterate, I won't give you the pleasure of grovelling before you and I won't defend myself to you over something you had nothing to do with and clearly do not understand the context of.

Rehashing lies of a known scammer is not a valid reason to attack someone, specially after you spend all night looking, looking, looking for some way to attack them.

Now you say, "wait, guys, it's not just that I don't like him and spent all night looking for an attack an I found one from a liar.  It's that I think I've found a guy who is angry and I think he's an alt and that sucks too!"

Wondering if tomorrow you'll be back here to say "I found this guys' grades from high school and you know what, he got a bad grade once!  Negative rating totally deserved!"

Here's the point, dude, you're on a trollfest right now.  Everyone can see that.  I think that probably somewhere in your heart you're disappointed in yourself for this.  You're spending hours and hours trying to build attacks against someone on a forum on the internet who made you mad because why?  Because he called you a hothead (well you've more than proven him right there)?

It's completely outlandish what you're up to and it's really a big shame that Badbear is away for another few weeks so it seems like no one is going to be reigning you in for at least a little while.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.
I don't think, I know that the two of you are the same person, I just want to see if you admit it (which I know you won't), or deny it, which you probably won't either because you are going to "exercise your right to remain silent" although I do have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the same person.

I am not backing down from my original claim, I am just pointing out that there is more to this thread then the negative that I left you.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"

Fun (I guess) that you're still on this kick of looking through thousands of posts trying to turn up problems for me.  Apparantly you are completely backing away from your original attack (perhaps because you're realized that siding with TradeFortres on a 3 year old lie is making you look bad) and now you're switching over to something completely unrelated.   You are now worried that I am a user sed and you say I don't like you?  And are we supposed to feel bad for you?

More to the point, does the fact that you've switched lines of attack mean that you're going to be removing your negative feed on me regarding tradefortresses unsubstantiated lies?

I think you know how terrible you're making yourself look in all of this.  I think it's hard for anyone to think that you're "protecting the community" somehow by spewing all this vitriol at someone who has no power or authority.  That's called bullying and it's quite obviousl that's what you're up to.  For some reason, you don't seem to be keeping in mind that while you're a big fish, yes, bigger than me, there are much bigger fish around here and if you keep using your power to abuse those without power and go on personal rampages, you won't be a very big fish for long.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
I also found your alt account, sed which you have used to shill for your own opinions multiple times in the past so I would not doubt if you are behind some of the shill accounts in this thread.

Much more concerning however is the fact that you had replied to yourself with your sed account at least 7 times in recent months while both accounts were enrolled in a paid signature campaign, defrauding da dice as you had used both accounts to enroll in (which was also against the rules). In case you want me to prove that you were responding to yourself, please see this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

I also know why you are out to "get" me - I was a frequent advertiser on the Overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, and you were a strong critic of selling an advert on that thread. There are a number of examples of you criticizing Biacoininformation aka Mitchełł for selling advertisements, however here is one of you shilling for the removal of the advertisement (did you vote twice?), and here is one of you being highly critical of the ads. To top that all off here is one of you just being an asshole.

edit: If anyone is curious, sed has a spam score of ~249.86, and a score above 80 is a "mega spammer/mega shill" and a score of 40 is the upper range of what is "normal"
hero member
Activity: 764
Merit: 500
I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time


Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

 - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
 - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
 - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
 - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
 - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
 - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign  Wink

Again, it's just my opinion.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
It's a good thing that you're not on a jury to decide proof or we'd all be pretty fucked.  What salty says here, which is reasonable, is questioning why I didn't deny that I withdrew something earned by a bot.  The plain fact of the matter is that as this accusation is nearly 3 years old, it's really hard to honestly say why I did or did not reply in a certain way that long ass time ago.  What I can say now, as I recall clearly, is that I was using coinchat for chatting (not by bot) and gambling (not by bot), I was experimenting to make a bot (with tradefortress' help, teaching me about the api), and that he accused me of all kinds of random things after that (making up number, making up usernames, etc).  How you think this adds up to "proof" is beyond me.
Like I said before, I knew you weren't going to admit to scamming because that is the kind of person you are.

Secondly, you are strengthening your argument by saying this is from almost three years ago. This is a lie. The thread in question was created in September 2013, and considering that it is now April 2015, the activity in question was from just under 19 months ago, which is roughly 1.5 years ago.

To address your concern that you did not deny using a bot "3" (1.5) years ago and "cannot" recall why, the consensus was very clear that you had admitted to scamming TF and CoinChat and that you were in the wrong. 
wait a damn minute s o youwere using a bought to make btc chatting  and don't understand why you were banned?  Cry maybe because thats completely uneffin fair.  Roll Eyes
You don't have to sign a ToS for it to be active. Using the service means that you agree with the ToS. Damn, how can someone be so ignorant as you?
You spammed with a bot to get BTC and now TF wants it back. Sounds legit and logical to me.

My 2 cents.
give it up. you botted his site, got caught and now you're mad he found you. 
Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.
If Tspacepilot cares more about his trust rating here than his ego I'll bet if he admits prior guilt and apologizes to TradeFortress he might see his trust rating restored.  I think TradeFortress did the right thing initially warning the forum with limited information.

Many of us on the forum have been scammed by new members.

0) Your bad. Mods have better things to do then constantly repeating the rules.
1+2) As soon as you use the site, you make an agreement with the site owner (TF in this case). So you have agreed to follow the rules.

You used a bot, which is only allowed if it has "bot" in his name. So "b0t" isn't allowed. You were abusing the system and that is illegal, no matter what. So stop whining, be a man and give the BTC back which you earned by breaking the rules.

You should calm down.


Whatever you are arguying about the CoinChat problem, does not change anything.
If I understand correctly, you admitted that you used a bot, even if you were sometimes chatting normally.


Anyway, you will never get the trust rating removed before paying back TF what he wants (half of coin or something).


From now on. You have 2 options:
1) paying back the coin, and not being marked as a scammer here.
2) refusing to pay back and being marked as a scammer.



If you don't pay back, regardless of you thinking it as unfair, you will be marked as a scammer.
And in my opinion, if you break the rules of a btc related website, you are not really trustworthy.


That said, you can keep crying here, but it won't change a damn thing.
You have 2 options (I said it earlier). Choose which one you want to take and move on.
Second sentence is only an example. It does not mean that it has to be a currency trade, just an example... 


If the facts are true, and it seems that you do not even deny them ; you actually did steal that amount of btc from TF.
Does not matter anyway: trust rating are not moderated.
-sighs- You are not stealing if you follow the rules. According to TF you broke the rules. So pay up or shut up.
Why so much drama?
You don't want to pay back?
You don't like the trust rating?



This discussion seems pointless and endless Sad
Clearly tspacepilot did is unethical. Its common sense. My advise to you tspacepilot refund TradeFortress and move on.
Did you just seriously called me a sockpuppet? Because I agree with TF's opinion? You must be an idiot.
You have 2 choices

1. Refund TF and apologize
2. Create new alt and back to square 1

The tf alt patrol seems to be marching through this thread.

I'm in no way affiliated with TF.

You create a bot and spam coinchat and withdraw bitcoin. You are not following the rules. Is that hard to understand?
 
You check the terms and conditions of a site, before signing up. That is kind of the expectation that you understand the rules of a site before using it.

The rules explicitly state that all bots must have "bot" in the name so that they Do not get paid for chatting. You make a bot that does not follow those rules, and illegitimately gain .5 BTC. I cant understand what the misunderstanding his here, you stole .5 BTC from Tradefortress by using a bot that was not allowed. You get paid for chatting on coinchat, not having a bot spam for you, and because of your bot, Tradefortress is out .5BTC hence the negative trust.

I'm really not understanding where the question of, why don't I get negative trust for stealing .5BTC from someone? If it was an honest mistake, you would have seen that it was against the rules, said oh sorry, and returned the ill gotten coins.

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

Salty sums this up well, I agree with him.  OP looks to be completely in the wrong here, TF in the right.
What matters is if TF used the trust system in accordance with its rules. According to theymos,
Quote
On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this…
Therefore, TF can use feedback for whatever he wants. If it becomes frivolous, then people will ignore TF's trust or the entire trust system. Action does not need to be taken by the trust system admins.

Since I tend to be very conservative when it comes to deciding if something is unethical, it sounds like TF gave someone .5 BTC because his banning mechanism and bot detection were inadequate, and now he's retaliating through the trust system. However, the OP was gaming the system (coinchat) and not following the rules, and other people would call that unethical. TF would go so far as to say that it's stealing! It's hard to determine if that makes someone trustworthy without a definition of trust that everyone agrees on.

this is unfair you are backing up tradefortress  when he has provided 0 evidence that any coins were taken 

I have started multiple scammer tag requests on here with evidence and you guys couldn't give a dam about it


No, that is not true at all. tspacepilot opened the thread up, asking what happened. Tradefortress explained it to him, and rather than tspacepilot saying, No I never took the coins, or no, it wasn't me, they said, no, I never saw the rules so its ok that I took the coin.

tspacepilot has admitted to chatting using a bot containing the name b0t rather than bot, and withdrawing about .5BTC rather than 1.5BTC, in light of that, how can you say there is no evidence?
there is no evidence that the whole amount was made by using a bot as the op has said he talked on there a lot and was playing with a bot so more than likely 80%+ of the 0.35BTC was him talking and 20% was the bot right now there is no evidence on how much of it was him and how much was the bot if anything he should only pay back what the bot earned him

Ok, assuming that the bot only made .01 BTC, that means the amount is still wrong, but the principal is the same. Tspacepilot went on TradeFortress' site, and used illegitimate ways to gain Bitcoins. Tradefortress' feedback would still be valid, although he should probably change it to .01BTC if there was evidence.

But really, what is the difference between scamming .01BTC, .02BTC, or .5BTC, either way they would still have the negative feedback from TF and the reason. The arguement here isn't whether or not tspacepilot abused the site and took Bitcoins from Tradefortress, its A) whether its ok to post it on Bitcointalk, a different site, and B) Whether tspacepilot is at fault for abusing the system.

From the hundreds of other cases I've seen, the answer is yes to both. The amount isn't a major factor.
The rules state that a bot has to have "bot" in it's name, not "b0t". This has been mentioned before. So using that bot would have given you BTC you didn't deserve, because you break the rules.

Quote
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coinchat.
For fuck sake, stop bringing this up. We already destroyed that argument. You don't HAVE to be in a currency trade agreement for him to decrease your trust rating. If he thinks you scammed him, he is allowed to, no matter if you guys ever made a trade.

God, why do I even bother talking to you. You only see your own truth and nothing else. I am out of here.
Like I said before, I agree with TradeFortness on this point (you really should start reading). There is a lot of stuff I disagree with, but that doesn't matter now, because he has a point and I can see past my differences with him.

Have fun making up false facts and trying to get out of the corner you are stuck in.

Uh,  was this supposed to a link?  I thought you agreed that blind tf cheerleading wasn't helping and you planned to move along. 
Nope and yep. But if you twist stuff I say, I will have to correct it.

I'm not saying I think you are a bad person, I'm just saying that in light of this case, I find your arguement invalid, and Tradefortress' allegations to be reasonable and believable based on the dialog between the two of you. I do believe that the amount may be incorrect, but the principal behind the thread/accusation, is that in my opinion, you exploited Coinchat and recieved Bitcoins that you should not have based on the site's rules in place. Your first comment was that you didn't know about the rules until after you were banned, to justify what happened. If someone gains unintentionally as you are claiming, as a result of ignorance of the rules, it would make sense that you apologize, and refund the amount in question. In my opinion, it is a valid claim that because TradeFortress suffered a financial loss due to the exploit, it is reasonable for him to make a mark on your trust until you two come to a resolution.

-snip-
It should also be noted that there was exactly one person backing you up (zackclark70) who did not seem to particularly like TF in the first place and was likely biased.

At this point, I am fairly certain that you scammed CoinChat out of some amount, and that like in September 2013 you are trying to weasel your way out of accepting responsibility. Except this time you are resorting to intimidation to get me to remove the negative.



In fact, it's pretty clear that you're doing yourself the favor of enjoying swinging your dick around because you wanted to find some way to get me kicked out of my campaign.
See below. This is not the first time that you have claimed that negative trust against you was some kind of personal vendetta against you. Sure we have exchanged heated words in the past after you started trolling me, but I can assure you that the reason for the negative does not have anything to do with personal feelings.

-snip-
Please, community members, let me know what's relevant here?  As far as I can see, this is an angry bitcoin mogul who's feeling vindictive because I cashed out more than he wanted from his site which gives out free bitcoins for chatting.   Now he's going to do his best to smear me on the internet anywhere he sees me, no matter the relevance.
(Note that in this post you admitted to withdrawing more then you should have.)

Ok, thanks for the feedback r3wt.  I don't know if you're a moderator here.  But now I understand that tradefortress and powerful people on this site can use the marketplace trust system to abuse people who they hold a grudge against for actions unrelated to bitcointalk.  That is, marketplace trust and 'risked' BTC don't actually have to relate to any trade agreement on this marketplace.  In fact, if what Tradefortress is doing to me is acceptable then it's clear that  'risked' BTC doesn't actually have to mean that you sent anyone that amount of BTC, just that you feel it's an amount you are owed according to reasons which you only have to justify to yourself.
-snip-
If you admit we did not engage in a currency trade then that is obviously tantamount to admitting that you are abusing the marketplace trust system because of an unrelated personal grudge.  Tf, why don't you admit that it's time for you to make this right?  Drop the false allegations against me and I will drop mine. I really don't think this is helping you or your reputation to keep holding out on charges that you have admitted are false.
This one is somewhat unrelated, but still somewhat related. You are admitting that you are making a false allegation, therefore there is no reason why anything you claim someone else is doing should be trusted.
Still this is missing the goddamn point.  tf runs a site that gives away money for chatting.  I chatted for hours and hours and received money.  Tf decided he doesn't want me there anymore, fine.  How does this give him any right to lie about me on bitcointalk.org?  He is suggesting that he and I had some currency trade agreement and that I didn't follow through.  That is false.  I have entered into 0  marketplacd transactions and tf's grudges against former users should not be taken out by him on their trust ratings.  If he is going to act like that, I think it's a strong reason to remove him from the default trust list so that at least new users can make up their mind for themselves about people he holds grudges against.

Again, he suggests variously that I am spamming or defrauding or stealing, sometimes 1.5 btc sometimes other amounts, all based on his whimsy and with 0 supporting evidence.  How is any of this relevant to the marketplace trust?  Even he admits it's not, that it's based on his personal grudge with me about how I used coinchat some months ago.
To bring us back to the point: everyone agrees that tf and I had no currency trade agreement and that he is attempting to use his influence on a third party site to punish me for his grudge about my use of coin chat.

  As I said, you've succeeded, but only temporarily---once BadBear gets online and looks at this I have a feeling I'm either going to see that negative trust disappear because you delete it or because you're not on default trust anymore.  I'm pretty sure that BadBear doesn't want someone like you taking his trust as a way to effect personal vendettas.
I don't get anything special in return for being in the default trust network, despite that this statement is clearly meant to be a threat. If BadBear decides that he wants to remove me from his trust list then that is his decision. I am not going to make a huge deal out of whatever decision he makes, although I don't think he will remove me for this.

I think it is fairly clear that you are a scammer, you are a spammer and that the trust rating is appropriate.

There are a good number of clearly shill accounts in this thread, including gamblebitcoin (who is a brand new account that happens to be taking your side), TerminatorXL (who is an alt of CozyLife who was banned for making shit posts and has written articles about his position against the sale of accounts on a site with no editorial integrity [lol]). Additionally neither LaudaM, nor erikalui is on my trust list and as a result their opinions are not considered without any facts/logical arguments to back them up. Vod simply said that I should not trust TF's word, which I do not. 
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
@tspacepilot: If you were experimenting with bots, why did you withdraw coins you got from the experiment? Using bot is against rules, so you shouldn't withdraw coins you got from bot-chat.

MZ, just saw this so I'm replying.   This just underscores how little you know about the situation.  Coinchat was a site in which making bots was encouraged.  As I said in the thread, TF even helped me to make a bot.  There were all kinds of bots there which ran gambling games or other useful services.  I was new to coding and was learning as I went.  As far as I know, I did not withdraw coins made from "bot-chat" as you call it.  Why would you presume to know the rules of a site you obviously never visited (it closed nearly 2 years ago, as far as I know it went down with TF when he stole everyones bitcoins in the inputs.io scandal)?
Pages:
Jump to: