...and just like that, TomatoCage is in poll position once again...
Tomatocage only needed to become active to qualify for DT1, he was already trusted by enough users.But he's also excluded with a net result of DT1 (-5) (see dtview).
Topic: Tomatocage wakes up, posts a ref link... be careful (Read 1793 times)
But he's also excluded with a net result of DT1 (-5) (see dtview).
~Tomatocage is Distrusted by:
1. theymos (Trust: 211: -0 / +22) (DT1! (49) 4686 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
I hadn't seen that yet. This change happened the week before March 9, in which theymos stopped trusting and started distrusting Tomatocage.1. theymos (Trust: 211: -0 / +22) (DT1! (49) 4686 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
I presume you do not like this because he has the integrity that you and those you support lack.
I was wondering if you would jump in with your main account or with one of your sockpuppets.
I wouldn't call waking up just in time for DT1 election "integrity" but he would be instantly excluded so who cares. How about you try to post something on topic, TYVM.
...and just like that, TomatoCage is in poll position once again...
And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time.I presume you do not like this because he has the integrity that you and those you support lack.
There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct
Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.
You did not really answer the question in RED above.
You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?
Why don't you ask that same question to LFC-Bitcoin ?
Do you have double standards when Lauda is doing it?
This topic is about TC. It has nothing to do with Lauda or LFC.
@Tomatocage, if you're still around can you edit your thread OP Stake your Bitcoin address here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/stake-your-bitcoin-address-here-996318 to include the following piece of code (or the whole quote)
[quote author=shorena link=topic=990345.msg10775516#msg10775516 date=1426375818]
If you write a post/PM it should look like on the picture below:
and for everyone else reading, it looks like this:
which was originally posted in the How to sign a message?! - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-sign-a-message-990345 thread please? It'll save on a lot of extra posts asking people to sign their messages etc.
[quote author=shorena link=topic=990345.msg10775516#msg10775516 date=1426375818]
If you write a post/PM it should look like on the picture below:
and for everyone else reading, it looks like this:
Code:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[/quote]-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
which was originally posted in the How to sign a message?! - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-sign-a-message-990345 thread please? It'll save on a lot of extra posts asking people to sign their messages etc.
You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?
Well trusted according to who? You? Now you get to decide who everyone else should be trusting? While I might trust you to not rob me, I certainly wouldn't ever trust you to not be full of shit.
There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct
Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.
You did not really answer the question in RED above.
You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?
Why don't you ask that same question to LFC-Bitcoin ?
Do you have double standards when Lauda is doing it?
There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct
Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.
You did not really answer the question in RED above.
You specifically kicked well-trusted users off of DT1/DT2 based on QS's or OG's PM's, huh?
There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
What probably happened was I logged in, saw that I had a zillion PMs, then went through them and responded accordingly. I did get quite a few PMs from various people advising me to add so-and-so to my Trust, or exclude someone from it. I didn't really feel like going back and doing months worth of research on the matter, so I probably just made the changes based on whether I liked the sender of the PM. That's why there may have been a bunch of changes on a certain date. Sorry, it's not quite as exciting as the theory of QS being in control of this acct
Anyway, that method of curating my Trust list isn't very scientific or objective, so I'll consider your last bit of advice. However, I'd have to weigh the consequences a bit more carefully before I do.
Gotta make up for all those Tx fees somehow 
Edit: And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
Edit: And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
There was at least one episode where you "woke up" after a lengthy period of inactivity and excluded (in your trust list) a number of users who happened to be targets of Quickseller's attacks. That will probably keep raising doubts despite the signed message.
If you're now planning to stick around for a while you should review your trust list as it has a different impact than it used to. If you're planning to go inactive again you should consider clearing the list out.
Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time.
Your moms?
And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
Great, do everyone a favour and go back to the place where you were all this time. Theymos should be able to verify that this is the same IP I've always used, if you need an additional layer of assurance.
Thanks. Verified ok.
I'm still puzzled by your affiliation with Quickseller but I can't really argue anymore after you signed the message.
I'm still puzzled by your affiliation with Quickseller but I can't really argue anymore after you signed the message.
Gotta make up for all those Tx fees somehow
Edit: And I'm not associated with QS at all. He seemed pretty chill back in the day, but I haven't really kept up on the forums lately.
Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=
Verified.Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=
Although accounts have been sold including staked address.
Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=
Thanks. Verified ok.
I'm still puzzled by your affiliation with Quickseller but I can't really argue anymore after you signed the message.
There’s no way the original Tomatocage is in control of this account any more. Coming back after so long & posting a referral link is out of character.
Take precautions when interacting with the account.
Take precautions when interacting with the account.
It's me. I just drop by from time to time
Base64 sig:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN MESSAGE-----
Comment: Signed by Bitcoin Armory v0.93.3
Gw9FCrcotZOuynUO/BpKGjonhn2tQ2ABILUetpVmLZYbsD8AJo1RlnmcrtSSdvUw
eHaStzwt5pY2H2p58Qf64hlUb21hdG9jYWdlIEp1bmUgMTB0aCwgMjAxOQ==
=mO4H
-----END BITCOIN MESSAGE-----
Bare sig (Bitcoin-QT compatible):
Address: 1FLnpvdXL6ooBpFj2LHqZxQsrxn2voj5uv (from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10820715)
Message: Tomatocage June 10th, 2019
Signature: HAg+ZTakWF8zt6Q8PrdF2x+dVJpmXx2uuDuyMmZbj1zDAj1sAD4mfvPRudH/KgD2fKIKv1NkQO9B0T5lY5nIsx8=
Your attempt to twist the situation is duly noted.
This is a smear campaign, and you are both well aware of this and are an active participant.
Whatever. I don't much understand why you're being like this, but I'll just leave you to it. This is a smear campaign, and you are both well aware of this and are an active participant.
@Suchmoon: Tomatocage went offline on the 20th of September 2015 after I posted this post and has rarely come back online since. I have been archiving those occasions via archive.is and web.archive.org
Do you control the Tomatocage account?
I take your failure to answer a simple yes/no question 3 times as a "yes".
Pleading the 5th LOL
I sent a PM to TC:
There are some doubts about the ownership of your account. Would you mind signing a dated message with your Bitcoin address?
Thanks.
--sm.
Thanks.
--sm.
Jump to: