Topic: [SCAMMER] Quickseller/ ACCTseller sold me a hacked account - page 2. (Read 4420 times)

What I meant was: "If I know for certain it was a hacked account..."

It is not certain that this is a hacked account. No new information has come out about the sale of this account. The other thread in meta got a lot more attention then this thread has gotten

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.

As it was a week ago (as I wasn't aware like other managers wouldn't have been)? Yes.

But now? Probably not.

Lolz, was that for me? You meant to say that I am spamming here and I ain't taking any sides? Seriously? It's not like that... You are offering some bounty to prove that zedicus used to scam you, but remember, if you are trustworthy and most importantly, if you are telling the truth, I will do it for free for you as like everyone here, me too wants to know the truth and we know that none of you both will give your credentials to anyone to prove who's correct and who's not... I bet if you both, Quickseller and zedicus, give your credentials to hilariousandco as he's the staff member here and if he takes the responsibility to reveal the truth out here, then it may sort out the things going on here... Do you both agree with the same, and will you (hilariousandco) please look into the matter personally this time and sort this out, Sir?

I agree. That is a good way to sort this out. If quick seller can post screenshots or ask a trusted member (I'm thinking vod) to log in to his account to verify that he did indeed bought the zedicus account from the original owner.

I am sorry sir, but you need to prove your claims, it is not up to me to prove my innocence.

You are correct. I do own a lot of accounts but none of them (none that I have for sale) have posed here. Also there are only 9 accounts besides you and me that have posted here, even if they were all my shills, that is hardly a lot. Plus the majority of the accounts that have posted have been neutral to the situation.

EDIT: I also don't need to use shills because my argument is valid and logical.

There does seem to be a bit of signature spam however they are not taking sides

Quickseller, publicly deny that you do not own ACCTseller and I will rebut your text vomit.


Also please be aware that Quickseller is an account seller so he controls A LOT of accounts. There is probably a lot of shills already in this thread.

No, it was ongoing before I purchased this account.

If you are looking for evidence that zedicus was not hacked, then I presented it in this post

I am confident enough that zedicus was planning on trying to scam when he purchased the account that I am willing to offer a bounty of .02 for anyone who can show a PM from zedicus regarding doing business that was received between 16 Aug 2014 and 8 Sep 2014. In order to prove the PM is real, you must either report it and a moderator can confirm it or an escrow can access your account (who we both trust) and can post what was received from zedicus. I will keep this offer open until 11 dec 2014 at 11:59 UDT.

@Quickseller,
What evidence are you talking about? I've been watching that thread very carefully and I didn't find any, link me through quoting the same...

Is there any evidence for this allegation?
If true, it makes a mockery of the entire default list.

I don't think it is too much to ask that you prove what you are claiming. In both criminal and civil litigation the burden is on the person bringing the claim (in this case you) to prove their case. 
No, I deny this. There was a dispute over the ownership of the zedicus account at one point, however it was resolved on 16 Aug, 2014 at 2:59 PM UDT. There was no additional evidence presented by bayuo after this time. See the below quote:
(bold done by me). Unless you can prove that you purchased the account from me prior to this time then you have no case. Even if you can prove you purchased the account before this time any harm that you had suffered was reversed when the dispute was resolved.
The fact that a reasonable person may or may not want to purchase the account is irrelevant. In order to withhold information, such information needs to be first requested. I deny that you requested any information about a dispute of account ownership. You have provided no such proof and appear unwilling to provide such proof. 
You are entitled to your own opinion. There is nothing to make right.
The whole basis of your claim is that you are saying the zedicus account was hacked and stolen from the original owner. If you are saying that the fact you are able to post from your account proves ownership then you invalidate your claim the ownership of the account even could be under dispute.

Right. Plus even if you have default negative trust you can participate in bit mixer and Bitcoin Scratchticket.

Also you have claimed that you have tried to join signature campaigns via PM, but have provided no proof of such.

Additionally according to this post another account ( Pierre11) whose ownership is much more questionable received payment from the GAW campaign. Here is the scam accusation claiming the account was stolen. At one point it is even admitted that the account was given to the incorrect person.
This is libel. bayuo has not proved that he is the current owner, nor has it been proven that I hacked the account. I have provided evidence to the contrary.

Didn't this only come to light after it was sold? And this is the problem with buying and selling accounts which both buyers and sellers should be aware of the risks involved. And as Marco said the account isn't ruined because it doesn't have defaulttrust feedback (though the longer you drag this out the more likely it is to recieve some especially since you're now issuing threats).

Quickseller should show a screenshot of the PM in which you can see the payment address for the account. Zedicus too.

After Zedicus signs this address to prove that he is the real buyer.

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Also, as Bayuo has proved that the account "zedicus" belongs to him only, will Quickseller give him the funds he received for hacking his account, i.e., BTC1.1 (as shown in the evidences above), or does "zedicus" guarantee that if he gets a refund from Quickseller, will he then transfer the ownership of this account back to Bayuo?

Reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/account-hacked-help-plz-741302

I can tell you right now that luckybit and gawminers would accept him. So would a few others.

Wait I am confused, do you mean Quickseller or Quicksilver?

That's a pretty broad generalization; different signature campaign managers look for different things in their participants, but I wouldn't be surprised if most would be weary of accepting someone with what is potentially a stolen account - I know I would be, and would likely rather not have anything to do with it, in order to avoid it reflecting negatively on my campaign.

EDIT: but give it a try zedicus - LuckyBit is currently open.

You still can. All negatives you've received are untrusted so all signature campaigns are still going to accept you.

So this isn't a valid arguement.