Topic: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts - page 2. (Read 1686 times)

You got that mostly right.  

If you can find someone (like maybe Lauda) who was tagging account buyers/sellers before me, please let me know because I think I was the first to start doing so in 2016.  That's because I got scammed for 0.3BTC by TimSweat; he had green trust and I stupidly thought that meant something more than it did.  After that, I realized how dangerous it could be if an account with green trust got into a scammer's hands--and back then, there were all sorts of threads in which accounts like that were being sold.

I didn't discriminate when handing out the red trust back then, but as I said there should be room for second chances.  Every case is different, but in general account trading is a net negative for the forum.  Not everyone thinks traded accounts ought to be tagged, and that's fine.  It's good for us to have a wide range of opinions on things, but I'm always going to side with someone who tags an account buyer or seller.

But if it happened years ago?  Eh.  At this point if the account in question hasn't done any damage and doesn't necessarily have the potential to for the reason I mentioned or because they've turned into a seriously disruptive shitposter/troll, I'd leave it alone.

Lol.  Your point that people and their lives change over time is well-taken.  Whether Satoshi is doing what he was doing back in 2009 and prior is unknown, I could look at my own life and tell you that so much has changed in the past four years that many of the posts I wrote before 2019 I wouldn't have written today (though my writing style hasn't changed that much to my knowledge).

edited: the original first part of this post will be posted next

Yes going all the way back to January 2019 I created a scam accusation about the rby scammer. I cannot recall why I did not tag the account, I simply cannot work out why I did not tag.

Well, though it would be good for the current rby account operator to explain their actions (in the buying/selling process when they purchased the rby account), I expect to hear very little from them now that the account has been tagged by multiple members.

For the current rby account, there is a sense of irony that the account is enrolled in the Sinbad.io signature campaign

The laughable part in that post is that somehow the Bitcoin creator (Satoshi) and the Rubycoin creator (rby) have been mentioned in the same sentence


So it is confirmed, the current owner/operator of the rby account claims to be the original creator of the account.

The current owner/operator of the rby account has already claimed in a post I quoted above that they are the original creator of the account, therefore we have that statement now. They have made it clear they claim are the original owner/creator of the rby account. I think we all agree that claim is absolute nonsense.

From this point forward, all posts related to the "rby" account or the Rubycoin scam in this thread will be deleted as we have already gone off-topic for too long. Feel free to continue the discussion regarding all matters related to the rby account in the newly created uncensored thread: The curious case of forum member: rby (of the Rubycoin scam)

Satoshi worked more than six months and 100 hours a week to develop bitcoin. Where is Satoshi now and incase you find him, do you still expect him to be working six months, 100 hours a week in the bitcoin project still?


Even in the back days of the forum during my promotion of Rubycoin, can you show me at one time I have been involved in the mining board or technical board, and later on stopped. Must everyone be in the technical or mining board?

I am not moved by the shitposting talks. Just like people wearing signatures and completing weekly post quota, accusing others of posting to complete post quota. LOL
What signifant difference? Someone announcing a project and bumbing a thread and later joining conversation. Nothing to show.


You understand that you do not have any case here not even an iota. If there be, you should have uncovered it. Atleast, I have known you for sometime here and how you work.

Poker player, follow the standard and don't just speculate. Everyone knows how to go into one another's profile to write whatever feedbacks. But we do it only when there are glaring evidences which are purely indisputable.

I think it's a good idea. Accounts that have changed hands as from February 2018 should be red tagged, while in the previous ones it should not be an amnesty in my opinion, but see each case.

Account trading was not closely monitored prior to the implementation of the merit system. It seems that only account sellers were tagged by the Pharmicst. However, after the introduction of the merit system, account trading became widely tagged. This is because it has become increasingly difficult to build an account through merits alone, leading people to choose the option of purchasing accounts instead.

In my opinion, if those involved in account trading had proven themselves to be trustworthy before the merit system was implemented, it might have been considered to remove their tags. However, tagging them instead would have disrupted the balance of the forum and could have reignited conflicts.

Account trading should not be tolerated after the introduction of the merit system. A trustworthy individual would not engage in buying accounts and would instead focus on being a valuable contributor. Good contributors do not need to purchase accounts; they can easily build their own.

Well, I don't know, I was sure there was nothing, but now I see the untrusted feedback, I guess it was a mistake of mine.

So, we have several untrusted feedback and the only one that has a reference dates back 9 years, accusation of which rby has defended himself although I don't know how well. I would tag him for the account having changed hands but not for that past event that I do not have the information to evaluate but since we are debating it, I will wait to decide whether to tag him or not.


I don't know where you got that nonsense from. My friend has nothing to do with what nutildah and I are discussing here.

No? I'm not even gonna ask why would it b/c it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Does this have something to do with Royse? I saw a poker player thread with royse getting heated. Looks like you took it that way back

This one is a bit more subjective but I disagree entirely. Aside from the posts made by the previous owner (who was a native English speaker) and the new owner's recent foray into Reputational matters, most of his posts are low-effort nothingness that exist simply to fill a post quota. But I suppose its not fair to single him out from the other accounts that post in the Gambling section which also excel in writing nothingness.


You didn't look hard enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In this case and in the context of the reply, I agree the expectations he has are over reaching.

Thank you for highlighting this lovesmayfamilis.

Well, I have no idea if nutildah was talking specifically about the rby account but you are right about this thread. It was long overdue but after reading nonsense from rby in the thread you referenced, I decided to create the thread in order to have a generalised discussion about account trading.

Anybody can correct me if I am wrong but it seems he is saying with great conviction (and for reasons not yet fully known) words to the effect of: Someone who owns multiple accounts should not be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they control the accounts until/unless they have scammed.

And if it were a simple case of the rby account simply keeping a low profile and making enough posts to reach signature campaign payment quote then you would not have even looked at their profile. The rby account is yet another that has unilaterally by their own volition brought an unwanted and unnecessary spotlight to themselves.

Having said that do we know for sure who nutildah was referring to?

Ok... This is quite long and I will try to answer it with my limited English skills

I think I have caught the attention of a god class member. Maybe it's good for me or bad for me, I don't know, let time will tell my progress in this forum

I just joined this forum about 24 days ago. When I first joined everyone was explaining about forum rules, I read them, then there was a case about using AI, I read about it, then there was a second use case for AI, I read about it, then the case of naim and abraham, I read about it, then the case of royse with poker players , I read it, then I read the timelord thread, Saw many members tagged by actmyname, then I read the meta thread and beniner & help.

Isn't that enough to tell me about this forum?

Before you, there were many people who thought I caught  to know this forum too quickly. Including how I get merit here. I think it's easy, there are lots of threads that help members get merit, they're all here and can be read by anyone

I even sometimes read threads in Russian and I translate them. Maybe my language skills are limited but there is technology that can help me, google translate is enough to help me read many threads here.

My next question is, how long does it take for a new member to understand the forum? As for what needs to be explained here, anyone who wants to read it can understand it quickly.

Sometimes I'm smart enough or sometimes I'm like an idiot, that's a must, because I also need merit, new members like me won't be considered if I answer, so I think it's better to be stupid and ask a lot of questions.

I found a violation but no one answered it, that's because I'm an ordinary member, if you find it, many member will reply and many will give merit. I already understand that most merits are given to famous people, new members are very difficult to get because we are not considered.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62477458

Like I said, I have a friend who has joined this forum. When I was told that I often comment on reputation threads, my friend forbade it. He told me not to relate with DT, because I could get marked. But I ignore it

I think this thread is interesting to discuss. The other threads are just small talk for signature campaigns. I'm not on a campaign so I'm more interested in discussing. Even though I know that what I say won't be taken into account because I'm still a junior member

It might annoy you when a junior member joins in commenting here. Indeed I am a nobody, and you are a DT and a member of the god class. If you tell me to stop commenting here. I will do it. I want to be here safely, I also want to join the campaign one day.

But I didn't find any interesting thread other than here. Maybe it's better for me to become an ordinary member with lots of posts to get merit. And one day you will judge me as a trash poster who is only concerned with merit and sigcamp.

You are free to judge me, because you are the judge. I won't be able to do anything. I'm also not a Timelord2067 who has a high level but doesn't follow the campaign. I'm just an ordinary member. And if you tell me to be an idiot and not to be smart here. I will do it with pleasure.

---

I hope my writing can be read because my language skills are limited. Maybe I'll edit/fix it for readability

---

I think this has gone off topic. I'll do what you say in next reply, and after that you can continue the discussion on this topic

I will continue replying and addressing the key posts in the this thread but as they get too long, I post using small numbers. Having said that I decided to make this post before continuing with matters related specifically to this thread because I cannot be the only one reading these replies from PytagoraZ and wondering why he is very strong in advocating alt-accounts (which may or may not be cheating in signature campaigns and bounties) should not be tagged on the basis they have not scammed.

PytagoraZ has been clear (apart from once in what appears to be a typing error) that there is a distinction between scammers and alt-accounts. I am not disputing that not all alt-accounts are scammers but a member such as PytagoraZ who has been registered in the forum for around 24 days is bringing attention to himself as his motives could be questioned. After all, he seems to know a lot about this forum in a space of the days he has been registered.

Furthermore, he has clearly stated his friends do not have alt-accounts and has already laid down what can be seen by some as the information as protection in case an error of judgement happened on his part (such using a known address or merit abuse or email share etc) because he already covered most of that in his first post in this thread by alluding to account connections and if any such account was connected in future he has a case to cite this thread a reference in that he already stated shared address and said there is an element of fear his friends have when using this forum to the extent they dare not enter yet somehow share posted addresses.

Add to that everything else you can deduce by reading between the lines it makes it clear PytagoraZ is not the newbie he claims to be who somehow frequently switches from the highly knowledgable to the innocent buffoon within the space of a few posts.

For those reasons, if PytagoraZ has nothing constructive to add to this thread I advise him to stop posting here and will also state that if their main motive was to create an account in order to seek further rank for using in future signature campaigns (possibly alongside other accounts), then this PytagoraZ account has already been brought to the attention of some for users who just may keep an eye on it for future reference.

As said earlier, I have been asked some questions by respected members and I intend to answer them as best I can but that will happen in the next post.

I spent some time looking at @rby's post history yesterday, and I can safely say that he is not the original owner of the account.
The original owner was a coder, miner, and security specialist. He very actively promoted his Rubycoin project and was its direct developer. As he often put it, he worked on it for six months, 100 hours a week.


https://ninjastic.space/post/7626147


https://ninjastic.space/post/7363114


https://ninjastic.space/post/7638304

And that's why I asked the opinion of @JollyGood himself about what he thinks about this account.
It was he, who was the creator of the topic, who accused this project of being a scam.
There are many allegations about this project on the Internet.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-rby-rubycoin-5102088



But if we talk about the fact that the current owner is not the person who was behind the account at the very beginning, then you can simply trace his posts. He does not write like a miner or a coder who understands this. There is not a single answer to the topics of mining or technical discussion. This is the most common account that came to the forum for subscription companies. I don’t call it a shitposter, but the first posts hint at this very much.
There is a significant difference in what he writes about.


https://ninjastic.space/post/8011158


I would also like to hear a truthful answer to whether @rby is the original owner, and in this case, explain why there are so many complaints about this project. I don't expect much, though.

I might be wrong, but I think nutildah is talking about rby (the user you just replied to). Apparently, the account changed hands, and the previous owner was a scammer from way back (although there aren't any negatives from the DT). I didn't investigate further to determine if the new owner is a spammer or not. 

If that is the case it would time for the consensus to either reaffirm that view or get together to lay down the rules of what is acceptable conduct when it comes to account buying and selling.

That is the danger, whether we like it or not account buyers and sellers will see the forgiveness/amnesty/reprieve as s sign that they too might be able to get away with it and if they are caught they can plead the case of 'x' member who was granted a special case and not tagged.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable case you have put forward and is definitely one of outcomes that could be discussed and then tweaked to accommodate what could be required in any final decision making process.

If there is an easier to understand explanation of what you wrote above, you should write it here because I am sure I am not the only one that has no idea what you are saying.

And since (by virtue of your post) you know a lot about this, will you tell the community here how much you paid to purchase the rby account and when you purchased it as well as why you purchased it.

I would have to think about that to give you a definitive answer but if the previous owner was a scammer I presume the account would have been tagged with negative trust therefore any subsequent neutral tags for spamming would just be an add-on to the existing red trust.

And, if the new owner (in an attempt to avoid the account getting tagged because it was discovered it was probably sold) claimed the account was never sold and historic negatives were never placed on the account, then it would probably be overdue to add the red tags but having said that I think it is too hypothetical to answer especially if somewhere along the line the majority members lean towards selecting a year before which all/most traded accounts receive a form of amnesty whereas after that selected year all traded accounts receive negative trust from multiple members.

I have tried but cannot even make a shortlist of possible candidates. I will give this some more thought and post back if I manage to discover the name you are referencing.

Focus on the living rather than the dead because they are more likely to commit fraud. Going about tagging the participants of the forum old tradition is meaningless.

What happens when the rest of the DT members sees you as a threat to the system ?

If you live in a glass house do not throw stone

Poker player, you are a very intelligent and a wise man. The reason I said this is because, even before lovesmayfamilis mentioned my name you already gave a response to the alleged hypothetical statement

After reading the above, I had to accolade your sense of judgement.

Thanks for this. But I do not think that this should bother anyone because shitposting is highly subjective. Once I am posting something you do not like, you are free to tag it shitposting even if it does benefit the rest of the community.

@JollyGood, you remind me of one of the cases I investigated in 2019.

* Topic: account seller, the biggest on the bitcointalk forums from Newbie to Lagendary.

I spent hours disclosing accounts being sold and bought, at that time I realized and on the other hand it can be proven that accounts are sold and bought, really can't be trusted and can harm other people, I really annihilate such account behavior.

I once got a PM from a member here, about two years ago, he bought an account with one of the members in a certain area, he paid $400 for an SR account, after paying the first member who sells accuses the buyer of the account being hacked, even though the buyer has paid the account $400, whether that is good or bad behavior, for both parties, of course not.
On the other hand, I painted the account red and again the account was sold to another member for $50, another buyer PM me to remove the tag I gave, of course I don't care, instead, I doubled the paint twice red, to make it spicier.

---

I also think that sellers and buyers of accounts should be beaten, so that there are no victims of greed, of course I will publish here at a later date, if I find a trading account, in a new case, to follow up.

I am getting lost here, if you are referring to rby.


On the one hand, if whoever originally created the account was a scammer, I don't see anything in his profile to indicate it, and on the other hand, he is not a shitposter.

The only thing that by reading again the insinuation that he could be another of the alts managed by naim027, in this case with a purchased account, is raising my tagging agressivity by the minute.


I don't see anything in that link, in his trust profile I don't even see untrusted feedback.

I can only express my own opinion but for me the answer would have to be "yes" simply because there is no consensus on what action would constitute a tag. If we do not know exactly what the requirements would be in order for a known traded/bought/sold account to be deemed worthy of a reprieve or worthy of a tag, then it cannot be implemented. That was one of the reasons to start the discussion in this tread.

It is nice to see you have stated your opinion, others may or may not agree.

I personally do not agree with your views or your statement that a blanket policy should be implemented as there is no reference in your comment as to what properly constitutes a crime. According to you, how many different types of crime are there and at what levels should they be deemed worthy of a tag? The different crime you mentioned was related to scam attempts but could there be cases where account buyers are spamming not scamming and deserve a tag?

Please elaborate further.

The fact you have mentioned a timeline is appreciated. Without having an understanding of where to draw the line in previous years as far as any amnesty (or exception) is concerned, it would be difficult to assess the viability.

Thank you for another very informative post. I had a brief discussion with a highly respected member recently regarding what seemed to be a sold account and the reason I opted to not start a thread was because when the change of ownership happened it involved a signed message from an already known address.

This part of the account sale process where known or previously used addresses are signed to show a new address is not being used, it makes it somewhat difficult to tag and when tags are given there is a chance the wider community could say it was unfair to tag if a previously known address was signed to list the new address.

Now we have two dates from members as far as possible amnesty is concerned and they have different opinions about whether any potential amnesty should be conditional or not.