Topic: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts - page 3. (Read 1686 times)

OMG...how is this actually? You are someone who I think really likes alt tagging, but you have alt? Honestly I'm confused by the rules of this forum. My understanding of this forum seems to collapse in an instant.

I'm so confused, actually alt is prohibited or not? Please answer me... I am confused to understand this forum

It seems some FUD and generalisations are creeping into this discussion. Hopefully this side issue will be pushed to one side.

---

---

PytagoraZ - not quite sure I follow your argument. Are you saying someone who owns multiple accounts shouldn't be considered for scrutiny simply because although it is established they controll the UID's it may not have been proven those accounts were bought?

From the very beginning, I thought that the first reason for creating this topic would be to talk about this account.
But for some reason, she left the discussion. And the owner quite flexibly evaded the answer. But if you look closely, then indeed, as you say, "the previous owner was a scammer, and the new owner is just a shitposter."

JollyGood what do you think about it?
But maybe you should take a closer look at these posts.

For scammers I think it is not unforgivable. Only people with alt accounts. And that mistake is only in the past. At least 1 or 2 years ago

That is definitely wrong. What if someone pulled off a massive scam and the character behind that account is not trustworthy whatsoever? Just go silent for a year or two and come back with neutral trust on that account? What if somebody with +20 trust goes silent for two years, comes back and is obviously the same person? Start from neutral trust? No, that can't be right. It is even asymmetric in the effects it creates for the forum and will to some degree lead to adverse selection. The incentive to work for positive trust decreases while the incentive to profit from negative trust increases.

I feel you're over reaching in your expectations of others. Especially where scammers are concerned.

If a person who is inactive for say more than three months, then their trust feedback should "decay" back to neutral over a predetermined time frame. Regardless of whether or not they then come back online in which case the trust feedback paused decaying, but doesn't revert to either positive or negative as the case may be.

Noted and thanks

---

I think if there is agreement in this discussion that past mistakes will be forgiven, it might be better if there is a dedicated thread to open acknowledgment of past mistakes, and it's worth noting that forgiven mistakes are about past alt /sale of accounts (according to the agreement). Let the members admit it and maybe it will be better

Past mistakes due to scam or fraud, in my opinion is unforgivable

LOL, hardly. I'm actually referencing someone very specific and within close proximity. But I will wait for others to figure out who it is. If they come to the same conclusions I have, it will provide a bit more objectiveness to my claims, and prove that this is not that unique of a situation.

How are you going to know that? The only two pieces of information you give are negative, the second less negative than the first, but I don't know if he a scammer or not. Besides, I don't think we're going to see the case you raise because the person who had the account before will have enough red tags and people will have no reason to remove them if they left them in his profile in the first place. If the new owner is "only" a shitposter, do we have to remove the red tags? I don't see it. Besides, if he gets to join a signature campaign it will be 1xbit's. I think the case you make is too hypothetical.


The problem with the thread you link to, as with account sale cases in general, is that when you start to dig in you find that it was just the tip of the iceberg and there was a lot more shit going on underneath.

yahoo62278 opened that thread because he and others felt some empathy towards martyns and his sobbing story, so common in these cases, but in the end it turned out that it was not only a bought account but that behind it there was ban evading and participation in the 1xBit campaign that we know of, and there are many things that we did not discover in this and other cases.

naim027 at the time also generated a lot of empathy, and many of us fell into the trap, I was one of them, and look how the story ended.

I really don't know but I don't think just any shitposter could pretend to be me and get away with it for more than 2 or 3 posts, tops. And although I did run a bounty campaign for a token called SHITCOIN once, if my account suddenly started advertising a new coin or ICO or something, it would probably raise some eyebrows. So in that way its probably not worth very much.

Here's an interesting question: what would you do about old accounts that likely changed hands where the former owner was a scammer but the new owner is just a shitposter?

It will worth much more lesser than 0.3 BTC. This is an evidence that bitcoin is an hedge against inflation. Despite that nutildah 's account is more valuable now, yet the bitcoin value will rather depreciate.


I can confirm very firmly that yahoo62278 is consistent in his judgement. I took my time to go through this thread created by you months ago - Discussion on buying/selling accounts/users actively seeking possible bought acc. Your submissions in that thread is very consistent with what you are saying here and I strongly align with it.

To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam.

With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with.  You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts.

Don't we already have a consensus that if there is a proof of accounts or merits trading then buyer and seller should be tagged? I'm here from the end of 2018 and it already was so if I remember correctly. So it's not about something new, it's about how deep is it correct to dig.

Maybe we can consider other circumstances like if this account is active for years, got positive reviews and made recognized contributions it can be forgiven for old mistakes like accounts trading.

But even if we will forgive anyone it should not encourage hackers to hack accounts. We already have problems with proving that accounts are hacked. nlovric was banned for plagiarism and got only neutral tags before it because it was not so easy to prove he's not an original owner of account. It was obvious but not 100% proved.

I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.

Achow (I think that was their name) had a website where you could enter any users UID number and it would tell you what the market value of that account was (there were even modifiers such as green trust feedback Vs Default Trust which would increase the asking price)...

It was a double edge sword as those selling accounts would say it's value and trust feedback scores and we could pretty well work out which account was about to be sold with confirmation coming in the form of a change of password and email.

Then accounts were sold with a wallet address signature thrown in via account sellers such as tomatocage who started the stake your signature thread with a few of the first few pages all accounts he then sold with those wallet address - if there were any doubt the accused would just sign a message.

It makes posting a wallet address signature meaningless.

I strongly don't like accounts trading but mainly because it encourages accounts hacking. If someone sold his own account... well, it doesn't look good anyway, I'd say it looks shady anyway. But well, if it was years ago and it is the only one shady thing about the account which was active all these years, I don't think such old things should be digged. Especially because there was another consensus about it away back.

As for new cases there's no doubt that new accounts trading should be tagged negatively for both a seller and a buyer. We can consider neutral tag in case when we sure that the true owner is selling his account totally publicly, in exceptional case. But in new cases it should be tagged anyway.

We can say that cases before 2018 or something like that are too old for digging if there's nothing else bad about that account.

That is where I invite debate and conversation in order to find general consensus because if previously sold yet currently inactive accounts are tagged what would be the pros and cons as far sending out a message as a deterrent is concerned?

You certainly have your hands full with this one  

You make a great case against blanket tagging with the possibilities you cited, especially the demonstrating leniency part. I invite more views and opinions from members because widening the debate will bring benefits to the discussion.

If you thought it was worth 0.3 BTC and then 0.275 BTC in 2016 (before you had a change of heart) then what it is worth at the current 2023 market rate?  

This is a welcomed timely reminder that account trading is (as you put it) discouraged but not against the rules of the forum however much it is frowned upon by the members of the community. Still, there is no harm in having this debate in order to read and to understand a multitude of views and opinions on this matter.

I am sure someone who got scammed by a trusted member only to later discover the account was sold by the original owner would have a different opinion to say someone who is maybe have purchased an account some years ago but has constantly and consistently received excellent advice provided by an account buyer say in the technical boards (Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support etc), then in my opinion it would be a pointless exercise tagging the account and that is why this debate with these points of views are great to read.

You mention several more very important angles about account trading in that trusted green member accounts can plan scams and that we should watch out for those and you would not be wrong for saying it. At some point, at some stage there has to be a line drawn as to what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to the buying and selling of forum accounts.

If there is blanket tagging on account buyers and sellers, would it be appropriate to do it on the basis you pointed out that it is not illegal for buyers and sellers to do it according to the rules? On that basis there should probably not be any blanket tagging for that specific reason alone.

If there is no blanket tagging for account buyers and sellers then can a different approach be taken which would still be acceptable as general consensus?

I hope more members add their views to broaden the discussion and debate.

The trust system on the forum is unmoderated. There aren't any rules in place to stop a member from tagging a seller's or buyer's account.


I call this bullshit. I haven't come across a single instance where accounts are tagged by DT members as alts solely based on token transfers between them. There is always other (circumstantial) evidence that connects them.

I think what you said is right, I know that am new person but according what yahoo62278 said concerning some lenders using accounts as collateral previously I think  tagging those accounts as a bought accounts is wrong, and considering the fact that those accounts have not committed any crime or used to defraud any one theirs no need of tagging them to be honest, what the DT's should concentrate on to tag is accounts that attempt to scam people and that is causing nuisance with different crime.  From the explanation of yahoo its crystal clear that tagging a bought account without evidence of crime committed is 💯 wrong. I agree with you

Did you understand what you wrote? How can you blame the account that was bought if you have no evidence? Are you meeting your weekly quota?

As for the purchase and sale of accounts, if you go beyond the forum, then there is an active sales business going on right now. But now the scammers are doing everything very carefully. We will not see any password or language changes; all of this is discussed before the sale. And if you mark old accounts, then there will be a lot of them, especially if you check the accounts that participate in subscriptions for altcoins.
But Yahoo62278 is right. If they don't do much damage, and they don't have other accusations, it's just a waste of time to pay attention to them. Even if they have bought accounts, most of them cannot get into subscriptions with payments in BTC, and participation in a bounty punishes them with regular non-payments.