Topic: Re: how do I make new threads? - page 5. (Read 5806 times)

His credibility is not an issue here, though it's nice that he got Qickseller to own his sock. Clearly a case of a bad person doing good.
See how well things work out? I mean, gives me the sort of epiphany that usually requires powerful recreational chemistry.
This really is the best of all possible worlds

Moreia - you turn 30 years old this year. You seriously need to stop with this HYIP scamming BS. I would not be surprised if multiple government agencies are looking for you based on the number of times that you have stolen large amounts of money from people. You are going to slip up sooner or later and when you do, you will most likely end up in jail, probably for a long time.

I don't like you and you don't like me, however be smart and take my advice, it will be good for you

I think you have implied that I was doing all of those things on here which I have not.

Not sure what you're getting riled up about. I've defended you by pointing out that you haven't invented lying, cheating, or theft
You don't really think of yourself as the root of all evil, do you?

Wow! You destroyed all Blazr's and MadZ's arguments with a such well thought and complete analysis, it's not worth discussing anymore.

But seriously this thread has completely lost its track several posts ago. It's clear what happened and now we can take our own conclusions.
OP please just lock it now, all the arguments are just going in circles.

Haha, maybe you don't know that much about TG, but if you did, you would know he has no credibility and quite a few personal reasons to go after QS.

Point to one time on this forum that I have lied, cheated or stole from someone. I guarantee that you cannot find one.

You may be against the sale of accounts, however it does prevent scams - although the explanation is off topic

I'm sure he's not the first to lie, cheat, or steal ether. Doesn't make what he does good, merely unoriginal.
Re. "free market, it works": clearly not this time

@MadZ: And suddenly...

http://www.jeremynoeljohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/white-knight.jpg

Acting as escrow for a signature campaign is the opposite of "aiding and abetting" them. They are unlikely to pay their participants anything if the funds are not escrowed, Quickseller is preventing a number of people from being scammed by doing this. Furthermore, numerous trustworthy members have escrowed signature campaigns for scams, such as Dooglus and Mitchell with dicebitcoin.


BadBear was already aware of this issue when he added him to his trust list, and he seems to have strong evidence the account was not hacked:



Your proof of a "scam attempt" is that he didn't provide a bitcoin signed message saying that he controls the funds in the address, only a PGP signed message stating that the funds in this address will be used to pay for the campaign. This distinction is irrelevant, since he could still decide to not pay out the funds even if he signed the address. Signing the address itself does no more to ensure that he pays out funds than the PGP message does, you still need to trust the escrow to pay out. I don't know how you could possibly think this would warrant a removal from default trust, this follows the practices of all other trusted escrows on the forum.


Please provide some evidence of this. I'm sure we would all love to see it. Also, BadBear was obviously aware of the fact that he had multiple accounts when he added him to his trust list, so once again, it is pretty much a moot point.

Instead of continuing this slander, why don't you PM BadBear if you feel so sure that you are right?

Wonder how that one would'a played out if he wasn't buddies with Theymos  Good thing Garr didn't screw the rubes who invested in his mining farm & vanish into the woodwork, or folks might talk.

Maybe that was because both accounts were reputable and were able to deliver without issue. Even if one of them was not selling accounts then I still would have been able to command high prices because what I sold was not the result of a bunch of spam posts or posts in the giveaway section.

Prior to my arrival into the market, account sellers would often have problems with what they sold or would pull an exit scam, anyone that was new to the market would have the label for that possibility to happen to them, however I was able to earn the removal of that possibility

You don't generally express unpopular views.

I am fairly certain this is not your viewpoint, however if you were to say that escrow is a waste of time for small transactions, then you would probably be labeled as someone who enables scammers, or a scammer yourself. If you were to say this through a shill account (and make an argument for such) then the shill account would receive such label but you would also get to make your statement.

Another example is people who live in countries whose governments do not like their people being critical of them. If you happened to live in one of those countries then you would not be able to freely criticize your government because your identity is generally know, however if you created an alt account to speak negatively about your government then you would not fear any kind of retribution from your government.  

I'm pretty sure other people sell accounts here, pretty sure Quickseller wasn't the first account seller either, in fact I believe I know who the first was and I do not believe it was Quickseller. In addition, I'm not sure if you visit the marketplace section, but if you do, you might see an account for sale... or 10.... maybe 50. The freemarket, it works!

Yeah, I'm using an alt account now. The forum is already pseudonymous, so not sure what an extra level of obfuscation is meant to achieve.

Having an alt IRL identity would also enable people to freely express what they think without fearing potential retribution. It also enables them to be lying, thieving scumbags, and that's why fake IDs are illegal IRL.

Just to add, I don't know if this allegation is true or not, and while I dislike this practice, it was determined that bidding on your own auctions with alts in order to inflate the price is allowed on the forums:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2544470

So thats kind of a mute point. You can do this if you want to. According to theymos we should always assume people on this forum are doing this, which is partly why the practice isn't banned.

I express myself freely and I have nothing but positive feedback from trusted members. 

I have no alts.

Having alt accounts enables people to freely express what they think without fear of any potential negative retribution to their "main" account.   

1- No. Your ponzi scammed within 24 hours of the signature campaign starting and I promptly had participants take down their signatures once I learned it scammed. If anything then your site got a lot less advertising then it otherwise would have and protected participants from getting scammed in the process.
2- That account was not hacked
3- That is not non-transparent (yes I know it is a double negative). I think I am starting to get a feeling as to where you got this information from.
4- I don't follow your logic but I am going to say no. It is a free market, and I have never cited any of my other accounts' prices when negotiating on a sale price.

If you say so. Although you did not get any information out of me, and you did not get any information/evidence against me.

You also target bitcointalk investor based games section as well.

Since none of my accounts are scammer accounts, it is no one's business what my other accounts are. A good number of people do know about my other account(s) however that does not mean that I am going to tell someone who is trying to cause trouble for me

And here we have case in point why both should be.

Having an alt is not against the rules. Neither is keeping the fact that two accounts that are owned by the same person secret. The reason why people have alts in the first place is so each account is not associated with the other, and there is no problem with that as long as one of them does not scam which neither of them did.

I don't think it is unfair to ask that someone who is trying to cause trouble for me frivolously to be asked to prove any claim they make against me.