Troleybüs/Eal F. Skillz/Pandacoin - page 2.

shulio

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1016

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:21:51 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

if i am Eal F skilz, i will send it back, and get it done, it is not worth to risk the title of staff just for a small amount of 0.05, which is like ~$15, but Eal risk his position with this small amount and also if Eal dont return it, someone needs to pay it back to bit-x, which is Marco, because he was the one who sent the excess funds

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 10:27:52 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:21:51 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

I would personally send the excess amount back because I would want to maintain my relationship with my trading partners. However if you send Bitcoin to someone then it is that persons property barring some prior agreement to repay amounts.

There is also a claim that the funds were confiscated from the bit-x account and if this is the case then it would be 100% Marcos problem. This is also another example as to why payments should not be sent to a website account.

Thanks for your opinion, you will do this because you are honest.

Quote from: TrianglePythagoras on March 04, 2015, 10:28:26 AM

I personally don't trust staff members with alt accounts that aren't known to the public.

Thanks also to you for your opinion, I trust only the honest users and it seems that him is not honest (not only about the question of the funds |0.055 btc| but also for the postive trusts given between his "alt accounts").

TrianglePythagoras

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

I personally don't trust staff members with alt accounts that aren't known to the public.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2926

Merit: 2348

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:21:51 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

I would personally send the excess amount back because I would want to maintain my relationship with my trading partners. However if you send Bitcoin to someone then it is that persons property barring some prior agreement to repay amounts.

There is also a claim that the funds were confiscated from the bit-x account and if this is the case then it would be 100% Marcos problem. This is also another example as to why payments should not be sent to a website account.

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 10:16:11 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc.

This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2926

Merit: 2348

Quote from: redsn0w on March 04, 2015, 10:07:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned.

I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion.

The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake)

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: Quickseller on March 04, 2015, 09:55:57 AM

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member.

Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes".

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2926

Merit: 2348

I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.

If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.

There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.

OrangeSeller

hero member

Activity: 1008

Merit: 501

Marco sent the wrong amount (overpay)
Macro ask for return of the overpay
Trolley don't return it
Trolley deserves a red trust
If he is Eal then he ruin his staff rank with 0.05
And Marco needs to pay the overpay from his pocket
Mistake from him for sending an overpay amount

This concludes all
Stop the drama

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

I've left him a negative trust , the proofs "are valid" and this is a dishonest comportment from him (a staff member). I will glad to remove the negative trust once he will resolve all the situation.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: troleybüs on March 04, 2015, 08:49:27 AM

Have any of you read my reply here?

I don't owe marco or bit-x. It's your fault to overpay people who are in signature campaign. That means if anybody owes anything, you owe Bit-x and you have to pay in your own pocket. You didn't do your job. You didn't count people's posts properly. Now you are blaming me? That's too sad for you.
You kicked me without a valid reason and try to hijack my february payment at the end of the month. I didn't even want money for my overcounted posts in january which is totally your fault.
I offered you 3 reasonable solutions but you never replied them. I showed my good intention since day 1 but you were so stubborn. Because you are a pathetic loser who can't even do an easy job. By opening this thread all you think is trying to retaliate Turkish members because you want to SELL A HACKED ACCOUNT of yussuf89. Now everybody knows your real face. You are not trustworthy. You farm trusts with fake loans. You are a trust farmer untrustworthy member with tens of confirmed multiple accounts.

Dude, marcotheminer represents bit-x in matter of signature campaign, and reserves the right to kick out any of us.
I wont get in argument who owes who, but we have seen the quality of posts you have made (https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/troleybus-249250), and in my opinion
you should not say things like "without a valid reason" , just read OP on campaign; he reserves the right ti kick anyone out, we agreed on this when we signed up.

Imho you did a terrible mistake by not paying/returning for what is not yours, and you could of easily earn those ~0,05 BTC and just forget about even having a problem, but nooo..

cheers

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Quote from: troleybüs on March 04, 2015, 08:49:27 AM

Have any of you read my reply here?

I don't owe marco or bit-x. It's your fault to overpay people who are in signature campaign. That means if anybody owes anything, you owe Bit-x and you have to pay in your own pocket. You didn't do your job. You didn't count people's posts properly. Now you are blaming me? That's too sad for you.
You kicked me without a valid reason and try to hijack my february payment at the end of the month. I didn't even want money for my overcounted posts in january which is totally your fault.
I offered you 3 reasonable solutions but you never replied them. I showed my good intention since day 1 but you were so stubborn. Because you are a pathetic loser who can't even do an easy job. By opening this thread all you think is trying to retaliate Turkish members because you want to SELL A HACKED ACCOUNT of yussuf89. Now everybody knows your real face. You are not trustworthy. You farm trusts with fake loans. You are a trust farmer untrustworthy member with tens of confirmed multiple accounts.

Your 'reasonable solutions' included having me deduct future earnings but your spam posts led to no earnings.

I never and have never loan(ed) myself, what a silly accusation.

The account isn't hacked anymore it is in my complete control as per the original account holder's signed message.

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: troleybüs on March 04, 2015, 08:49:27 AM

Have any of you read my reply here?

I don't owe marco or bit-x. It's your fault to overpay people who are in signature campaign. That means if anybody owes anything, you owe Bit-x and you have to pay in your own pocket. You didn't do your job. You didn't count people's posts properly. Now you are blaming me? That's too sad for you.
You kicked me without a valid reason and try to hijack my february payment at the end of the month. I didn't even want money for my overcounted posts in january which is totally your fault.
I offered you 3 reasonable solutions but you never replied them. I showed my good intention since day 1 but you were so stubborn. Because you are a pathetic loser who can't even do an easy job. By opening this thread all you think is trying to retaliate Turkish members because you want to SELL A HACKED ACCOUNT of yussuf89. Now everybody knows your real face. You are not trustworthy. You farm trusts with fake loans. You are a trust farmer untrustworthy member with tens of confirmed multiple accounts.

You have received a negative trust from a trusted member, You should reply from your "main" account (Eal F. Skillz) and try to resolve all this situation. Good luck with your battle.

troleybüs

legendary

Activity: 1424

Merit: 1001

Have any of you read my reply here?

I don't owe marco or bit-x. It's your fault to overpay people who are in signature campaign. That means if anybody owes anything, you owe Bit-x and you have to pay in your own pocket. You didn't do your job. You didn't count people's posts properly. Now you are blaming me? That's too sad for you.
You kicked me without a valid reason and try to hijack my february payment at the end of the month. I didn't even want money for my overcounted posts in january which is totally your fault.
I offered you 3 reasonable solutions but you never replied them. I showed my good intention since day 1 but you were so stubborn. Because you are a pathetic loser who can't even do an easy job. By opening this thread all you think is trying to retaliate Turkish members because you want to SELL A HACKED ACCOUNT of yussuf89. Now everybody knows your real face. You are not trustworthy. You farm trusts with fake loans. You are a trust farmer untrustworthy member with tens of confirmed multiple accounts.

marcotheminer

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1049

┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴

Quote from: cakir on March 03, 2015, 09:51:02 PM

Wait a second. Does Troleybüs owes 0.055 btc to you or the owner of the sig campaing?
If you're not the owner of Bit-x then you can't claim that he/she owes you...

The campaign. Fixed.

cakir

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

★ BitClave ICO: 15/09/17 ★

I can second that (I quoted below) you're wrong about this topic. It's all your fault marcotheminer.

Quote from: troleybüs on February 26, 2015, 07:04:30 PM

I didn't spam as you have to check my counted posts only. They are ok. But I understand why you didn't wanna pay me. Because you want to control your signature deal with all your alts and get most of the money. I can see that one coming, because I offered you an easy and reasonable solution but you didn't even respond to my message.

In that case, I don't owe you 0.055 BTC, you had to cut my 17 messages which you accidentally count last payment day which is totally your fault. I've already said you shouldn't count them in the first place. I'll write message history in below.
You owe me 0.057BTC for my legit posts which made in February. Everybody should know, you betrayed Bit-X company and as a campaign organizer you tried to take advantage of the program with your multiple accounts.

It's funny you mention Eal F. Skillz and Pandacoin. Tonight we watched Beşiktaş - Liverpool game together. Check our photo in instagram. Cheesy

-snip-

Here are my proofs; I've joined bit-x campaign on 2nd december for the first time.
I've posted ~130 qualified posts, but you've sent me 0.156 BTC.
Here's the tx; https://blockchain.info/tx/7956ef70d89ae236e539e13143ae18d8b9c130fbcbf0e743b200aea15cedc30b
My address is that; 1FAaKgpAyu9UEGqt5roj6TSRZgzBVoJjnq

You were irresponsible about this campaign, and you didn't care about bit-x's funds.

How do I know I had ~130 posts that qualify? Because I've kept my qualified posts back then. Here're they, you may count or check them, Over 20 posts that I've been paid were in Turkish which wasn't supported back then...

I'm warning bit-x's owners, marco didn't care about your sig campaign, and he won't care after that.

If the company asks their 0.02 BTC I can send it back directly to bit-x. Marco doesn't have a saying on that. He is just an unreliable escrow and he doesn't own the money.

My posts; (ps: last a few posts may be written after payment, this is why the count is ~130)

Code:

2 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=880511.msg9721014#msg9721014
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881121.msg9721086#msg9721086

3 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=882055.msg9731849#msg9731849
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846407.msg9731943#msg9731943
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878387.msg9732219#msg9732219

4 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=882265.msg9732488#msg9732488
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=882265.msg9732604#msg9732604

5 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883878.msg9750086#msg9750086
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=856374.msg9750171#msg9750171
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883933.msg9750731#msg9750731

6 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=878406.msg9762305#msg9762305

7 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883933.msg9767713#msg9767713
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=859820.msg9767943#msg9767943
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885673.msg9768628#msg9768628
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=884789.msg9768653#msg9768653

8 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885439.msg9771058#msg9771058
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg9771149#msg9771149
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=884870.msg9771237#msg9771237
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874529.msg9778548#msg9778548

9 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883589.msg9781086#msg9781086
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=886611.msg9781152#msg9781152
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=886814.msg9781360#msg9781360
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=784286.msg9782081#msg9782081
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887506.msg9786186#msg9786186
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=886432.msg9786226#msg9786226

10 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888571.msg9800923#msg9800923
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888883.msg9800957#msg9800957
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=881230.msg9800983#msg9800983
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888938.msg9801168#msg9801168

11 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887424.msg9801251#msg9801251
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885738.msg9801609#msg9801609
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888757.msg9802223#msg9802223
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885736.msg9809501#msg9809501
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=885736.msg9809723#msg9809723

12 dec
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888194.msg9812407#msg9812407
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=765587.msg9812699#msg9812699
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890165.msg9813656#msg9813656
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883840.msg9813717#msg9813717
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890030.msg9820721#msg9820721
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=886814.msg9820738#msg9820738

13 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=892298.msg9830376#msg9830376
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890559.msg9830597#msg9830597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890232.msg9830644#msg9830644

14 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893335.msg9838234#msg9838234
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893250.msg9839444#msg9839444
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893617.msg9839604#msg9839604
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg9839660#msg9839660
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893230.msg9839700#msg9839700
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893230.msg9839794#msg9839794
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850784.msg9839979#msg9839979
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893230.msg9840099#msg9840099

15 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887636.msg9842739#msg9842739
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=894043.msg9843136#msg9843136
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=894043.msg9843270#msg9843270
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888938.msg9843318#msg9843318

16 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=894033.msg9851142#msg9851142
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895079.msg9851323#msg9851323
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895038.msg9851461#msg9851461
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.msg9854001#msg9854001
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893230.msg9856093#msg9856093
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=892737.msg9856214#msg9856214

17 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=892902.msg9861880#msg9861880
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895605.msg9867438#msg9867438
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=894200.msg9867467#msg9867467
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=896456.msg9867580#msg9867580

18 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883600.msg9881631#msg9881631
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883600.msg9881725#msg9881725
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897764.msg9882124#msg9882124
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=802433.msg9882177#msg9882177
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897212.msg9882314#msg9882314
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897813.msg9882412#msg9882412

19 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883600.msg9883840#msg9883840
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899244.msg9891995#msg9891995
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=896456.msg9892030#msg9892030
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888801.msg9892059#msg9892059

20 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883600.msg9892663#msg9892663
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899911.msg9892674#msg9892674
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899972.msg9894120#msg9894120
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=900004.msg9894130#msg9894130
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899803.msg9894824#msg9894824
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899242.msg9894830#msg9894830
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899242.msg9898955#msg9898955
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=899972.msg9898976#msg9898976


21 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=883600.msg9904576#msg9904576
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901308.msg9906818#msg9906818

22 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=900250.msg9913035#msg9913035
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901398.msg9913047#msg9913047
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893985.msg9913148#msg9913148
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901798.msg9913467#msg9913467
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901664.msg9913483#msg9913483
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901664.msg9916206#msg9916206
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.msg9916740#msg9916740
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.msg9916803#msg9916803
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.msg9916853#msg9916853

23 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902836.msg9926915#msg9926915
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=900432.msg9926943#msg9926943
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=903377.msg9926960#msg9926960
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610614.msg9927458#msg9927458

24 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=903963.msg9933139#msg9933139
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=889492.msg9933192#msg9933192
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904352.msg9936830#msg9936830

25 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=648560.msg9942717#msg9942717
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=904423.msg9942750#msg9942750
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895814.msg9942783#msg9942783
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=903170.msg9943479#msg9943479

26 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902788.msg9949834#msg9949834
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=900418.msg9949857#msg9949857
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905226.msg9949985#msg9949985
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905226.msg9950052#msg9950052
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905674.msg9951776#msg9951776
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905674.msg9951859#msg9951859
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905226.msg9952361#msg9952361

27 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888484.msg9959169#msg9959169
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906026.msg9959190#msg9959190
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=898563.msg9959202#msg9959202
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906354.msg9959910#msg9959910

28 nov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905808.msg9963953#msg9963953
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906680.msg9963961#msg9963961
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822446.msg9963975#msg9963975
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906642.msg9964014#msg9964014
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906616.msg9964231#msg9964231
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906388.msg9964243#msg9964243
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906768.msg9964276#msg9964276
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906820.msg9964367#msg9964367
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906820.msg9964437#msg9964437

cakir

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

★ BitClave ICO: 15/09/17 ★

Wait a second. Does Troleybüs owes 0.055 btc to you or the owner of the sig campaing?
If you're not the owner of Bit-x then you can't claim that he/she owes you...

ACCTseller

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

no longer selling accounts

I think Eal F. Skillz should respond to this accusation as the allegations against him are serious - there is nothing wrong with having alternate accounts, although giving himself positive trust is very concerning, and the fact that everyone who gave him positive trust is on his trust list is going to make him look more trustworthy then he really is (especially if some of these positive trust reports is from himself).

erwin45hacked

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Eal seems to be around but is not addressing this thread

This seems to be interesting considering Marco posted a proof there , i hope Eal Address this thread soon.

EvilPanda

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Small Red and Bad

This is interesting. I know Pandacoin and Troleybüs are somehow related because I've been given negative trust by both of them for the same thing once and then one of them PMed me to remove my negative (given in response) from both of their accounts. This doesn't mean that they are the same person though and even if they are this is allowed. I'd just give back the owed coins, especially since it's such a trivial sum and moved on.

Topic: Troleybüs/Eal F. Skillz/Pandacoin - page 2. (Read 5538 times)