Topic: The many accounts of korner (Bitcoin SV) - page 2. (Read 1670 times)

It would appear that the Bitcoin SV account has been temp banned as korner is now using another account, Alert!, to continue his trolling saga.

This is his first thread. Unsurprisingly, it is self-moderated:


Alert! was named as an alt of korner in the OP of this thread, and first identified by Ratimov as belonging to korner here:


Please report him for ban evasion. I have reported him for ban evasion twice thus far. One report was marked "good" (which is encouraging) and the other is unhandled (but its been less than 12 hours, so...).

OK, so we have a banned user now claiming to be an nChain employee (for the second time):


I dunno, this guy purely exists to be disruptive here. He doesn't work for nChain as he knows almost nothing about Bitcoin or BSV. He just gets a kick out of trolling. There's a couple other members like that who exist and haven't been banned. Apparently the one thing they are good at is riding the line between what the mods consider trolling and not trolling, even though everybody else considers them to be a troll. Oh well. Just thought this thread could use a bump.

It's now in Off Topic (perhaps mods moved it) and all posts have been wiped. It had a few pages of Russian posts when I made that post earlier.


Yeah he replaced the aforementioned Russian thread with a new one. He's got a sockpuppet account with a decent amount of merits, probably enough to bump to the front page: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/kophep-2708940

The last post in the locked thread points to a new thread which shows up on the first page the altcoins board.  It must have received a super-troll-bump.

Or a super-shill-bump? 

Dipshit moved a Russian thread into Altcoins:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5152339

And locked the English BSV thread. This is typical korner shenanigans.

This is argument is purely academic, and may even be off-topic some.  It does pertain to the subject of trolling, and banning, and "banning for trolling," so I'll risk continuing with it.

While true, the first amendment (and similar speech protections) apply only to the governmental authority, that doesn't mean others can't adopt a comparable approach.  If you mean this XKCD, then yes, I've seen it and I must admit I have issues with it.  The premise of the comic seems to argue that your protection to speech is only applicable to the government.  Well, what is a government?  Is it not a collection of individuals chosen to serve the common interests?  Frequently the common interest isn't commonly known or accepted.  Sometimes the minority voice is the only one speaking reason, which is why our laws protect that minority voice.  However, our laws only have the authority to protect the minority voice from the legal ramifications, not from the general public's reactions.

My main issues with that comic are cataloged in the forth pane.  The first thing written in that pane is factually wrong.  Yelling at someone can be deemed as a violation of their rights.  There are legal precedents that define it as "provocation."  Boycotts, censorship, and banishment aren't a violation of anyone's rights, but is it right?  Look at it from the perspective of someone with an unpopular opinion.  The majority starts calling for your ban, calling for a boycott of your products, forcing your publishers into cancelling your TV shows, radio shows, or podcost, and even threaten to boycott your sponsors.  Just because they don't like what you have to say.  Even if what you have to say is beneficial to the majority, or in their best interest, they don't like it and make a huge fuss to prevent you from speaking them again.

The reason I find such reactions destructive is because popular opinion has a way of becoming legislation.  It's a slippery slope.  People who react so vehemently to words with which they disagree are far more dangerous than any words ever spoken.

So lets take the discussion back to this forum; here we have a community that's common tie is financial freedom.  If you care about financial freedom you probably care about free speech, smaller governments, self reliance, and independence.  Maybe.  We have this opportunity to create a virtual civilization here on the internet where we get to put our principals to the test.  Exercise our convictions.  Can they pass the test?  As irritating and frustrating dissenting points of view can be, can we force ourselves to tolerate them for the overall benefit of liberty?

---

You won't catch me defending the methods, or what he has to say.  But I can't in good conscience, justify banning him for being an irritant and yes, a troll.  Speaking of CH, has anyone else noticed how quite it's been the last few days?

I'm going to guess it was the repetitive posting of a bitcoin address that didn't belong to him? Is that considered multiposting?

There are some recommendations from admin to identify trolls.

The way I see it trolling requires intent and moderators are reluctant to judge intent.

Low value post can still be low value even if the author didn't intend for it to be low value and that's easier to judge objectively. Trolling is only trolling if the troll intended to troll and not e.g. to express their opinion in an inflammatory way.

I completely agree with your points regarding freedom of speech, but freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to disrupt and derail. I'd never dream of trying to have posts deleted or users banned simply because they are expressing unpopular opinions. The whole point of freedom of speech is protect unpopular opinions; popular opinions don't need protecting. I'm sure you've seen the relevant XKCD which explains it well. However, CH/TOAA (as an example), has literally been posting the same nonsense regarding trust/merit/gangs/inner circles/etc. for over a year now. Any thread remotely related to merit or trust, he shows up with the same wall of nonsense, and the thread is rapidly derailed. I don't know of anyone who has reasonably defended that, or possibly could, as "not trolling".

Furthermore, the most commonly broken rule is subjective too. Who decides what is low value or uninteresting? Why enforce the spam rule but not the trolling rule?

Nope it is not that weird.

Their target audience is scammers and there are lots of scammers in this forum.

The more scammers they add to their arsenal, the stronger their scam gets.

The ANN thread for BSV was created in August 2018 were using fake conversations are very useful to bump the thread up that is why they create a lot of accounts just to do a fake conversation in that thread. Simply they are hoping for that bumps they have in the past can translate to more views for their thread.  Bitcoin SV on the other hand cannot be banned for trolling in the forum even if they are spreading false news against Bitcoin itself, so really the only way to permaban this account is to connect them to korner or one of the 50 accounts connected to him and be banned for ban evasion. But from the looks of it OP really doesn't have any concrete evidence to ban Bitcoin SV since there is no direct connection from what he have said since he only connected Bitcoin SV and korner to some kind of habits they have in the forum that are very similar and it would take a whole lot more for them to be directly associated to one another like using the same address, posting the same contact info or anything that can connect them as one person.

I'm afraid it is a strategy.  The trolling coupled with deflection could convince a naive individual that the rest of us are really the trolls.



Naivete and the lack of experience doesn't automatically mean someone is dumb.  It wasn't that long ago that I would have refereed to myself as naive and inexperienced, and I'd like to think of myself as "not dumb."



I agree with Nutildah that the Bitcoin SV account is probably controlled by the same person as Korner, but I'm not sure I would ban the account based on the evidence presented here.  I would would want something more concrete.



Unfortunately trolling is subjective.  At what point does a contentious debate turn into "trolling?"  

We can all agree that Bitcoin SV, cryptohunter et al, game-protect, and roach are trolls, and probably should be banned for trolling.  Almost any other forum I've frequented would have banned them for a fraction of what they've been able to get away with.  But those aren't this forum.  One of the reasons I love this forum as much as I do is because of the freedom allowed, and the tolerance of moderators.  I tend to believe theymos wants a forum with no restrictions on speech, with an emphasis on freedom.  I can get behind that.  If it means dealing with these shitbirds, that's a price worth paying in my opinion.

Did he just broke the very first rule which led him to a ban, doesn't looks like trolling to me either.

Look at the list of his posts and you'll see why he was banned.

One of the Russian moderators still takes it into consideration -- I'm not certain if this is the reason why the wex.nz account was banned, am trying to get some clarity in that thread about it:


Regardless, now that he's outside of the Russian section, I'll make an appeal to have Bitcoin SV banned using the same logic that korner was banned (both updated their password on the same day). However, Bitcoin SV has not admitted he is korner, guess he doesn't want to make the same mistake twice. That's why its tricky.

I'm pretty sure that's BSV's core demographic.

The subject of the trolling is pretty much irrelevant. Being anti-BTC and pro-altcoin (even if that altcoin is a steaming pile of trash), isn't a reason to be banned. Indeed, if we banned everyone with a dissenting opinion, then what's the point of even having a forum in the first place. The trolling alone should be enough to warrant a ban, but given we have had to put up with cryptohunter/TOAA trolling the entire forum and derailing threads left, right, and center with walls of gibberish for over a year now, it seems that the "No trolling" rule is being firmly ignored.

By comparing the posts history of Bitcoin SV and korner they don't look like the same person operating both the accounts. As Bitcoin SV has very less knowledge about crypto, atleast lesser than Korner. Hope you remember Bitcoin SV can't even sign a proper message from a BTC address here

I think you would have more stronger case of Bitcoin SV being banned, by pointing his trolling in support of BSV and against BTC. All of his posts seems to be 100% trolling motivated and he could be banned for it.

I don't actually believe korner was hired by nChain or whoever to run the Bitcoin SV account, though I can't rule out the possibility completely. He's certainly not very knowledgeable about BSV, at one point claiming that half of Satoshi was a bunch of "barefoot Indian coders" (while the other half was Craig Wright, obviously).

I think what's more likely is he has a lot of fun roleplaying as the voice/community manager of different coins, exchanges, and companies. His long-standing goal is to be as disruptive to the forum as possible -- posters of the Russian local board will attest to this.

As far as complaints on Meta about it are concerned, I don't foresee that actually being a problem, but more like entertainment. What rational argument does a banned user actually have for being allowed to engage in ban evasion?

In this thread I'd like to build a solid case that Bitcoin SV is korner before reporting Bitcoin SV for ban evasion. I was kind of hoping some members from Russian local could chime in with something I may have missed before proceeding.

Are you saying it's an actual strategy? To me it looks like just some garbage generated by an unhinged sockpuppeting troll, and if someone gets fooled by that then I'd argue they would be sending money to a Nigerian prince if not for BSV.

I'd rather have them waste their time in that stupid thread than reading months of complaints in Meta if they get banned but maybe that's just me.


I'm not holding my breath for any serious enforcement of ban evasions now that we have ban-evading DT members.