Topic: Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account - page 4. (Read 5547 times)

I know!

I bet he just forgot to mention it. I think it's genuinely possible to forget some of the sockpuppets when you have so many.

In addition to my previous post, first account I mentioned used this telegram (check spreadsheet):

Vickywaghmare

Now, this is funny (both posts are archived):


Anish02 is another bump account, as You can see https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/anish02-2288171 (http://archive.is/AWF76)


Lol! player1001101001! Of course, it is another ICO bump account (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/player1001101001-1216263 http://archive.is/wti0Y)

ICO BUMP UNITED:


Lolz:


(https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49336697 , http://archive.is/tqgQk)

---

Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?

From hacker's address to this address 0x3c31c531d6772723c749dbfff6a547bc02726763



https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd19a39f9f00c3e93cd64bedc590708fafa89383a9412dd9d15afbab673b03466

I couldn't find who is behind this address, yet again, someone from this address received some tokens from GMAT (https://etherscan.io/address/0x3c31c531d6772723c749dbfff6a547bc02726763#tokentxns):



I checked GMAT's bounty campaign topic and there is spreadsheet! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bq0ZPWIMEksvfa6ZuCWkBkjFReqZLx-D5ts_eJIk4Fg/edit#gid=1284949262 (http://archive.is/3J6Au , http://web.archive.org/web/20200414171941/https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bq0ZPWIMEksvfa6ZuCWkBkjFReqZLx-D5ts_eJIk4Fg/edit)





Amount of token match. Account behind that address appears to be beveryu778.

You will never guess what I have found 

Tadaam! It is just another payed bump account:



Also check dates, seems this account bumped various ICO's not so long time ago, or, should I say, not so long time ago prior to creation of this topic (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/beveryu778-406354;sa=showPosts, archived http://archive.is/JijLv).

------------------------------------

Account under that spambie account (#3 on spreadsheet and account is registered to signature bounty just 11 minutes after account beveryu778, check spreadsheet picture above), Theizestooke is giving me headache. Address from that spreadsheet is 0xF5Ee2C70Dee2BB05c375297c080D768A460d8BE0. Account received exactly the same amount ETH at the same time from hacker https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc7962f6fd30377517929beec878d57db5c1dba6651bf26a796dcfcd7449c069b , to visualize it:



Amount of tokens in that address match with numbers from spreadsheet. Theizestooke is another bump account, as You can see from post history (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/theizestooke-1200481;sa=showPosts):



There is archived version of this account's post history dated 1 year ago http://archive.is/Gp2Mw so someone else must have investigated this account as well.

Misc: this is only account which included hacker to their trust network at one point:



http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-25_Fri_22.33h/1021758.html

--------------------------------------

Third address from picture above (the one with 3 transactions), 0x5b041663dc1bdfdacb00d36d851b6baa5dc93bd7 (transaction), well, You can find that account in the same spreadsheet under #13, it is account swordking:



(received bounty tokens https://etherscan.io/address/0x5b041663dc1bdfdacb00d36d851b6baa5dc93bd7#tokentxns)

Swordking is another bump account, as You can see (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/swordking-150734;sa=showPosts , http://archive.is/JijLv), also check dates:



There must be perfectly valid explanation for all this bump.

All of my posts are on topic and relevant to hacker0101000101 and the punishment malboroza is giving , promising to give and advocating other to give hacker0101000101

They are true, independently verifiable comparisons that should be used to ascertain the correct fair and consistent punishment and a gair and complete rebuttal to malborozas double standards financially motivated one sided witch hunt

Lol Talking of actual yellow bastards look at nullius the cowardly old perv scammer supporter writing books that i can sum up.much more concisely

×××××××××××××××
I am too cowardly to try to debunk the clear evidence of laudas scamming on the thread that bonesjonesreturns provided for me. The rebuttal I presented in my cowardly self modded thread where i was too scared to allow bonesjones to tear my cowardly pervy old apart was hilarious and demonstrates that im a wind bag full of fluff and pretense of being smart.

I want to beg admins to prevent a fair and consistent comparison for hacker0101000101s punishment that us scammer supporters want to punish for speaking up against us.
××××××××××××××

That saved you a lot of nauseating work reading through his pompous pretentious fluff


Now lets start tackling the fair and consistent punishment for hacker0101000101 in the context of malborozas treatment of his proven scammer and scammer facilitating friends. Keep in mind that in the alia scam it seems these very same characters became embroiled lauda atriz tman nullius ? Hmmm when reading through that SCAM it seems they could have all been on on this.

Hacker0101000101? Marlboroza is pushing the red tag and trust exclusion as his valid and credible opinion?

But is malborozas purported opinion on hacker01001011consistent with the punishments for possibly financially high risk behaviors??

I.mean malboroza has already passed judgement and handed out punishment on hacker0101000101  right?

Therefore the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate to others this is the correct consistent and fair punishment that he believes is appropriate and that others should also.

Lets see if malboroza is telling the truth and also advocating fair and consistent punishment

Lauda and nullius are crying to mods to prevent fair open public appraisal. Wimps and weasels

Keep crying scammers and scammer supporters. If these posts are removed then meta will need a debate over this

When punishment is being advocated then it must be permitted to publically analyse and examine if the punishment is fair and consisten

The double standards scammer supporters can fuck off. Cry into your wank pillow nullius as alia says that is all you have now lol.

If it were strictly presentation of evidence to establish it took place fair enough. Now it has on many occasions and by malboroza himself turned into i will give x punishment and others have discussed their reasoning for punishment.

Punishment must be fair and consistent.  Stop trying to prevent malborozas double standards and motivations for the punishment he is advocating and trying to garner support for.

The cowardly old perv nullius crying for help lol. Shut up old man you fluff and trying to sound smart is nauseating   waffling on bla bla bla

You try too hard to sound smart with no substance. Like a replica Ferrari with some 100hp engine and old Ford parts falling off as you turn the ghetto blaster on your lap to max. Sitting there at the lights looking smug believing others can't see the dangerous contraption for what it really is. Take the coke can off of your exhaust pipe and turn you crappy annoying music down loser.

Blathering impotent old perv scammer supporter.  

Now back to discussing the punishment marlboroza has given hacker0101000101 the punishment he claims he will give hacker0101000101  and the punishment he is advocating other members give hacker0101000101  and analysing how consistent and fair this is in the context of his treatment of other scammers aka his friends and his possible real motives for his double standards treatment of hacker0101000101?

This is NOT an investigative thread malboroza already decided, punished and premised further punishment.

This is a punishment deciding thread.  No doubt reading through it.

Now nullius you can go and correct all my spelling errors thanks old pervy scammer supporter self important gobshite with zero achievements.

That needed a Cats and Coffee [C&C] warning.

Add “scared” to the list of words misunderstood and misused by members who also do not know the meanings of the words “objective”, “standards”, “guild”, “testimonium”, “libertas”, “iustitia”...  Actually, I think that it would be easier to list the words that they do know.  Anyway...

JollyGood, you yellow bastard.



New theory:  The gang of sigspamming fake scamfighters has a few alt/shill/whatever accounts post without paid signatures, because our unlimited rapacity and greed for money money money makes us—um, I’m not sure how to conclude this one.  Surely, it is a brilliant strategy for “milking it for every satoshi”.

Unless you allege that my PGP fingerprint and Latin motto are paying me?  (It is real Latin, a quote from Seneca—not Bitch Latin.)


Scamming, and proof thereof.


Lovely, just lovely.  Thanks.


Setting aside the grossly dishonest mischaracterization within the four corners of that quote, you missed the part where the thorough documentation by JollyGood and others made me realize that it was time for me to step up and announce that I myself would tag said DT1 member first.  The Yobit campaign was then shut down almost immediately; and I was kicked off DT almost immediately, due to another DT1 who suddenly found a shallow pretext for very vocally excluding me within about two hours of vehemently arguing against me in the Yobit thread.  Somehow, I doubt that all these events were purely coincidental.

For obvious reasons, I had considered creating my Yobit thread under an alt, and simply calling on DT members to do the right thing.  I did not do so, because I thought that it was important to take a stand on that issue with the reputation and credibility that I had built in my name—and most importantly, to lead by example in announcing my intent to tag a DT1 member before tagging members of his campaign, damn the consequences to myself.  Although I think that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for using an alt account to address potentially explosive controversies (e.g., scam_detector in the alia case), I am not like you, Mr “bonesjonesreturns”.

Anyway, that is irrelevant here except insofar as it rather contradicts your above-quoted mischaracterization of me as a “coward”; and I wanted to take the opportunity to commend JollyGood for his yeoman’s work in the Yobit case.

Now, let us please refocus the thread to its subject:

Quote from: marlboroza on April 11, 2020, 08:45:35 AM

---

Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this:

What part of lauda is a proven scammer  did you miss? Tried to prevent a 2000 000 000 usd compensation airdrop and lying defending and pumping a scam. Remain silent noob peasant fake scam hunter coward.

Jollygood is a fake scam hunter.  He busted some scam and went crying about them making some comeback here. Then mozprognoz laudas alt or bitch tried to help this " scam " jolly good said he busted  get back on the forum and get to work again

Mozprognoz said the scam would need to work with ....yep perhaps lauda for a fee and he advised them to set up under an alt

Jollygood knows all of that but that weak ass scammer supporting fake scam hunter didnt say anything to them. He let that silde or was he in on this? Bust scams that can only return if they get a cut? Hmmm

Jolly good also went around slapping yobit sig spammer with red trust but when it was pointed out he was not punishing dt working with yobit he ran away.

Jolly good fake scam hunter or scammer partner?

Seems you also missed the part where marlboroza is a nothing burger scammer supporter and fake scam hunter like you  are..

Fake scam hunter  = lets the top level scammers go free but cleans out their scamming competition from lower levels or maybe busts them so they have to work with his team for fee to be allowed to operate on this forum

Suchmoon knows this but keeps quiet until mozprognoz calls her names

I have no idea why jayjuangee is giving merit to your post.  It makes him appear a liar now. Said he was not interested in examining irrefutable evidence about lauda scamming becaue he only cares about talking about bitcoin

Now willing to support a post that conflicts with that evidence he says he is not interested in

This looks very strange. How about some research before making excuses not to read it?

Let me say again.  I am more than willing to compare lauda, nutildah and tmans documented wrong doing and compare to hacker0101010 then discuss fair and consistent punishment. You dont want that right?

You dont want any context for the punishment you are pushing??

This lies of me trying to distract from hacker01001 is typical scammer tactics.

They are trying to distract from my challenge to find suitable and consistent punishment because they want to protect their scamming pals and push double standards.

Stop being scared of me scammer supporters.

Let's talk all about hacker0101000101 punishment now .... no derailing. Let's discuss fair and consistent punishment by analysing your real standards not the bogus crap about you wanting to protect the forum

You want to control the forum so you can milk it dry.

Sig spammers and scammers.  Not interested in protecting this forum at all
Milking it for every satoshi they can.

What an dump person you are to waste your time even after knowing you are wasting it at first. You are as dump as not able to utilize the IGNORE feature of the forum in an intended way. Your childish ways of putting it on and off and crawring in every thread with nothing of an matter and vomiting your uncalled wisdom are pretty naive and should be noted by the user's including you in there trust lists and thinking your judgement is vaild ( moderators too should see this deflections ) . BTW, YoBit drama was an nice attention seaker for you with your power hunger. ~JollyGood is the best course of action left for anyone with an right mind as your digging your own hole with flexing your ulterior judgements and motives around the board.

What a waste of time using the unIGNORE on him to read this waffle and then to re-add him to my IGNORE list.

Is this the best they can come up with? They think they are insulting or attacking users that are trying to uphold the morals of this forum but they are just a group of misguided attention seeking users that have ulterior motives.

Just the idea, just the notion that a user such as hacker0101000101 who self-admitted taking payment to post fake information in ICO ANN threads and has thus far an unknown number of alt-accounts could in any way be compared to marlboroza or Lauda (who have given so much to the forum over the years) is absurd.

Sure some of us might not be liked by everybody but when it comes to contributing to this forum in a positive manner, outside that small political group of disgruntled attention seekers, it would be mightily difficult to find anybody (with any serious standing within this forum) who would claim hacker0101000101 is bringing more to this forum than others yet those regular suspect alt-accounts and deeply troubled users continue trying to create animosity here by deliberately closing their eyes to the obvious.

Instead of holding hacker0101000101 to account they continue to deflect attention away from him, they harbour and shelter him, like he does them akin to bosom-buddies just because they have personal vendettas against users such as Lauda and marlboroza.

Lol at this scammer lauda.

He is clearly saying i will keep the red tag while you are part of the objective standards guild and disagreeing with me. Very clearly this thread is simply the trust system being used by proven scammers to punish those that dare speak out.

Malboroza is claiming early in this thread " soon i will add a type 1 flag."

This thread is another clear attempt by lauda, malboroza and their new pervy old panting bitch nullius and the very willing scam facilitator for pay nutildah to dig up some possible dirt on hacker0101000101  because he disagreed with lauda the scammer and wants objective standards to ensure the fair treatment of every member here.

This thread needs context. As the old desperate perv nullius says context can be important. Go read his atriz vs alia posts

I would advise hacker to tell the scammer supporter malboroza and the other scammers here to keep their questions for later.
I would say to malboroza i will answer you after you answer my questions on supporting scammers like lauda would lied and shilled for a proven scam until he dumped his bags.

You answer questions first marlboroza then hacker can answer yours.  We will compare who needs excluding and red more urgently.

After reading more through the pages here you no need to longer avoid my questions for clarity of the central purpose of this thread.
You are clearly using it as a tool to garner support for your double standards punishment of hacker10000111

Trying to avoid others bringing context for your given and promised forthcoming punishment of hacker01010 is dishonest.  You are trying to hide and obscure your double standards and your true motivation for raising this issue at this time.

Nullius is a creep. Nobody can take this coward seriously. I am enjoying reading the alia debacle. Nullius is a creepy predator type and since he feels that empathy is disgusting and wrong, that together with obviously a predatory creepy old perv nature is quite a dangerous combo. The reader should investigate this idiot and new female members should be extra cautious. I think his past conduct is actually a cause for concern.

Even possible or probable ico bumping is way below the level of danger posed by this motley crew of scammers, scammer supporters and creepy old cowards pervs who claim empathy is worthy of punishment.

Let me restate. In the context of the others you shelter and support then hacker is a far less danger to the members here based on the evidence here.  I find the timing and the lack of concern for more serious dangers here very telling

Marlboroza spend your energy hunting your scammer friends or alts first like lauda and tman and nutildah. After that you can pretend to want to save the board from.ico bumpers. Also keep an eye on nullius if any young female scammers come along he will perhaps support them too if they just talk-him-off verbally since he is too old for the real thing.
Or maybe he tells them he only enjoys verbal stim until....well it does not bare thinking about

There dear pervo coward nullius you got a mention

The more I read of this thread about hacker0101000101  the more I understand your reluctance to state its purpose malboroza.
Clearly context is very important here whilst you and the other toadies and creeps discuss fair and consistent punishments and even possible paths to " forgiveness "

Carot and stick


This is not to say i would condone ico bumping only that we must place it into full context of other possible dangers here before we decide suitable action and the order of actions. We want to take care of the most serious evils first.

This is worse than “trust abuse”:  It is total corruption of the trust system.


I encourage—no, I call upon the recipients of such PMs to publish the PMs in Reputation.  It is whistleblowing.

A person who is engaged in corrupt practices, and sends unsolicited communications in furtherance of corruption, has absolutely zero reasonable expectation of privacy.

The DT system was never supposed to be subject to backroom campaigning—let alone backroom strong-arming, replete with ultimatums demanding that people change their votes or else.  Who knows also what else is going on.  Bribes?  I think that we may safely assume many quid pro quo deals.

I also think that people who engage in backroom DT campaigning, bribes, or coercion of any kind should be administratively blacklisted from DT.  I hope that theymos will consider this.  Of course, for such administrative cleanup to work, the evidence must be brought forth in the same manner as done in Scam Accusations.  When there is evidence of corruption, the people who would police forum scams via DT must be subject to no less a searching public inquiry than any scammer.


Agreed.

---

Where are decency and common sense?

The only time that I have ever politely requested in private that another individual change her own trust list, with no significant attempt at persuasion, was when I asked Lauda to remove me from her inclusions list.  (She politely ignored my request.)

The only time that I have ever tried to PM-persuade someone else to make different trust-list decisions was when I was publicly debating the same issue with the same person—and I was not the one who started the parallel PM discussion!

Besides that, um...  I once politely asked someone to confirm my inference of why he had excluded me.  I often express my own opinions of other people, just as I did before democratic DT existed—and without ever directly urging people to change their “votes”.  And I have been generally complaining for months that the trust system is broken—in public and in private.

Where the hell do people get the idea that it be acceptable to issue PM-ultimatums demanding changes in another person’s trust list!?

I promise that if I ever receive such a demand, I will publish it, and I will both red-tag and exclude the person who sent it to me.

It is a backroom demand that you change your vote in a quasi-democratic system.  If that is not textbook corruption, then nothing is!

I urge those who are receiving such demands to think carefully on all that I just said.

For I called it:


Told you so.  (And after my return to the forum in January, it took me all of 76 hours to figure that out.)

Speaking of lunatics....

I was told by a DT member that he was being excluded by another DT member just because I was on his trust list  

He was given an ultimatum to either exclude me in exchange to be added in his trust list or if he was going keep me included on his trust list he would remain excluded on his.

This is one of the handful of ultimate betrayals because DT rank was never supposed to be used for these types of reasons.

The strange thing was that particular lunatic DT member had never really engaged with me before he was sending PMs to selected DT members campaigning against me.

What, I don’t merit a mention?  If trolls aren’t spamming personal attacks about me, then it means that I must be slacking off...

...probably because I keep losing track of this thread.  Because it keeps being derailed by trolls, and I currently have no time to wade through many pages of deflections to see if anything was said about the thread’s subject.  Or by the thread’s subject.  Have marlboroza’s questions been lost in the noise?

The silver lining is that Jay’s posts are always worth a read.  Bookmarked to catch up on later.

So you quoted my post but you didn't read it? Create your own topic to discuss about not related things to this topic.

Nobody is burying anything
You say you have proved hacker0101000101 was bumping ico?

What is the point of this thread? If you have proven this to yourself and you already gave him red tag and excluded him?

Which seems strange because you take zero action against proven scammers.

What is this thread for.  You want others to ignore scamming or support scammers but red trust members you say you have proven are ico bumpers?

Can i know the purpose of the thread? I thought it was a

Should marlboroza give hacker0101000101 red tags and exclude ...is this a sensible consistent and fair punishment that other should follow thread? If not what is it?

Why are you upset? We are comparing what you claim hacker0101000101 has done to other wrong doing and deciding what to do right?

How is comparing = burying?  Are you confused?

I will be ready to talk about hacker0101000101 and compare his alleged ico bumping or any other alleged crimes with you marlboroza. No burying and 100% sensible debate but you want to discuss punishment but you want to bury the context of your prior behaviors so you want only the narrative that suits you not fair assessment.

If this is true put in your thread. I want to unfairly punish hacker0101000101 and be inconsistent. I dont care if i want to support scammers sometimes i just need to on this occasion punish someone no matter how unfair or inconsistent it seems. Please dont mention that and just pretent my narrative is not double standards abuse.

Then we can understand to just all be unfair and inconsistent like you and you will enjoy your thread more??

Is this what you wish? Then please adjust your title and op

And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm:

"possible"  

1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic:

That is important part. And first reply was:

That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.


Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/autopsy-bumping-groups-5238597, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there)  

I think moderators should delete scammers accounts like yours too

However since this appears to be an either should we red tag hacker0101001 or should we excluded hacker001010 from DT thread, then it can only be correctly appraised and decided in the context of malborozas other punishments he hands out for other more serious evils.

What does malboroza hand out for

Laudas scamming = no red trust no exclusions
 Nutildahs willing scam facilitating for pay = no red tags no exclusions
Tmans auction scamming = no red trust no exclusions

Therefore possible ico bumping = ?

So if the full context and for malboroza to be seen as consistent and fair he should be ??

That is what we can all review, discuss, and debate

You can not discuss appropriate punishment in a void or in isolation from other wrongdoing you have encountered and reacted to previously.

Now go cry elsewhere or keep on topic. No more derailing and trying to force and unfair and inconsistent  narrative  so you can punish whistleblowers or just anyone that disagree with you.

Kinda stretching your reasoning a little thin aren't you?




Cute. I like how you absolve yourself from responsibility from your statements by being vague. Too bad that was never actually said, you and others just implied it and ran with it as if it were fact.

So you were poo pooing scamming and racism? Poo. Pooing those is ok.

I think the point is that they didnt perceive the noobs childish death threat as a credible real life threat. Like you say scamming is probably not scamming and to say that it is is trolling
Or that racism is funny because he does not mean it because he is white?
Those things are okay to poo poo
I mean thats the point of poo pooing right ? You don't beleive it is that real or credible ?it is not serious?

If you really thought that pharmacist was a racist or lauda was a scammer you would not poo pooh it would you?

It's I guess about perception of how real something seems to you.
Perhaps people make miscalculations or maybe they dont?
Lauda is a scammer but did that guy kill anyone yet? Who got it more wrong?

That is the point..he perhaps didn't think it was a serious death wish just like you didnt think it is serious to scam or that pharmacist was not really a racist. Its the perception of the real intent. If it is not serious then it is not serious right?

I don't agree with any of it personally.

Hate speech, scamming, stated death wishes....... possible ico bumping ?

Poo poo

I see a suggestion of exclusion punishment. I do not feel it is consistent or fair.