-snip-
Can you provide (undeniable) proof that you haven't sold your account? You can not. Should we tag you? No. Case closed.Concern trolling is not welcome these days.
Topic: Trust system (Read 547 times)
Concern trolling is not welcome these days.
-snip-
Can you provide (undeniable) proof[1] that you haven't sold your account? You can not. Should we tag you? No. Case closed.Concern trolling is not welcome these days.[2]
[1] I would like to, but I dunno what would constitute undeniable, possibly the fact that the same ETH address has been used by me for every Bounty since I have set my foot on this forum. Right from my first day here. I think the post is unedited.
[2] This is your opinion, I can definitely have my own.
P.S. It makes me happy that Lauda has been actually responding to my posts; even if it's out of anger or even contempt; cause not too long ago I was a shitposter not worthy of a response; now I am worthy of response (even though I might still be a shitposter.) (I'm being dead serious); also I'm trying to work on my posts, even if it might be out of spite (according to some)
If account sales are prohibited then there will be no special place to sell accounts in this forum. I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
It is not prohibited nor deserves a ban.
It is similar to playing soccer in your garden, your parents didn't explicitly prohibit you from playing but they might get the ball at any moment if they are afraid that you will break the window. Well, the bad news is that your parents are always afraid.
But parents wont want their innocent kids to kill each other while playing would they? They need to impose some restrictions or at least some sort of marking system in order to mark those who are potential scammers and since bitcointalk is the ground for signature spammers; shitposters and account farmers as well.
Those who buy/sell account do it for either of these purposes:
1. Scamming by hiding under the "Elder Rank" that the bought has. Gullible newbies often fall prey of them.
2. Shitposting to get paid from campaigns - the "who does not like free money" is the root cause of this forum garbage.
I totally agree with the post; but people who are in a fiduciary or economic relationship with such accounts feign ignorance and refuse to acknowledge it; while if it's related to a competitor or to some non-related individual; they'll happily neg it.
-snip-
Can you provide (undeniable) proof that you haven't sold your account? You can not. Should we tag you? No. Case closed.Concern trolling is not welcome these days.
Since we are discussing bought accounts 
:
It is quite interesting to see the double standards and untempered ignorance with which a few self-righteous individuals choose to operate on this forum. I haven't seen anyone neg the above mentioned Trusted and Experienced (/s) Bounty Manager for account sales; although it is quite apparent that his account changed hands in the not so distant past and was conveniently used to scam investors by lying and engaging in deception.
I think the entire idea of retrospective and anticipatory tagging is a sham to feed into a few individuals self-inflated egos, possibly because they lack a life outside this forum. Ofcourse I wouldn't be saying this if they had consistent parameters on which they based their judgement; but seeing that they have been overtly flexible in their choices; I am inclined to believe this.
: I looked at the post gap several months ago but had discovered aTriz was able to sign a message from a prior address after being questioned. Even though I do realize private keys can certainly be sold (and possibly stolen), this is pretty much the standard way to confirm the account is under control of the original owner.
However, as I re-think this, the signed message was not dated and should not have been accepted as proof.. for all I know it could have been an old copy/paste signed message that the original owner could have sent to someone in 2013/14. The 2013/14 version was pretty active in trading, and a signed message like this could have easily been requested back then and may not have had a date.
I may be overthinking this, but to be safe, aTriz, will you please sign another message from the address below, with today's date.
Also, I'd like to point out this post, which was deleted at some point after 2016 (maybe whenever the new owner took over?):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160412055259/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=135920;sa=showPosts;start=520
About half way down the archived posts, you will see the old aTriz make a post in a Crypsty thread, signing it as "- Adam"
In 2017, after this aTriz account was resurrected, an apparent dox happened on current aTriz which apparently claimed his name was Ke* Ma*. (I'm omitting since this is technically not "Investigations" but those who understand will know what name I am talking about).
Another threat of this same dox happened with alia due to, according to aTriz, a paypal-to-btc transaction he did with alia (naiveness??) which he could never prove with a transaction and this is what apparently exposed his personal information (Ke* Ma*) to alia.
I'm starting to think the account actually did change hands.
However, as I re-think this, the signed message was not dated and should not have been accepted as proof.. for all I know it could have been an old copy/paste signed message that the original owner could have sent to someone in 2013/14. The 2013/14 version was pretty active in trading, and a signed message like this could have easily been requested back then and may not have had a date.
I may be overthinking this, but to be safe, aTriz, will you please sign another message from the address below, with today's date.
Your funny. You might have noticed, I changed password before I start managing Campaigns and that was for my own safety.
Code:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello, this is aTriz from Bitcoin talk, and I am proving my identity
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1LjT88X7Zu8BdbqJw8vfRa83NJuzYL9kqm
Hw35+F6xdwDBoAcqkC4Bj5h591kacAfr6liVsWyAhAVBHttHXgk+gNkiZ7kqGlUrw4eOIySKUgRsVX//6BXoRJQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello, this is aTriz from Bitcoin talk, and I am proving my identity
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1LjT88X7Zu8BdbqJw8vfRa83NJuzYL9kqm
Hw35+F6xdwDBoAcqkC4Bj5h591kacAfr6liVsWyAhAVBHttHXgk+gNkiZ7kqGlUrw4eOIySKUgRsVX//6BXoRJQ=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Also, I'd like to point out this post, which was deleted at some point after 2016 (maybe whenever the new owner took over?):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160412055259/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=135920;sa=showPosts;start=520
About half way down the archived posts, you will see the old aTriz make a post in a Crypsty thread, signing it as "- Adam"
In 2017, after this aTriz account was resurrected, an apparent dox happened on current aTriz which apparently claimed his name was Ke* Ma*. (I'm omitting since this is technically not "Investigations" but those who understand will know what name I am talking about).
Another threat of this same dox happened with alia due to, according to aTriz, a paypal-to-btc transaction he did with alia (naiveness??) which he could never prove with a transaction and this is what apparently exposed his personal information (Ke* Ma*) to alia.
I'm starting to think the account actually did change hands.
It is quite interesting to see the double standards and untempered ignorance with which a few self-righteous individuals choose to operate on this forum. I haven't seen anyone neg the above mentioned Trusted and Experienced (/s) Bounty Manager for account sales; although it is quite apparent that his account changed hands in the not so distant past and was conveniently used to scam investors by lying and engaging in deception.
I think the entire idea of retrospective and anticipatory tagging is a sham to feed into a few individuals self-inflated egos, possibly because they lack a life outside this forum. Ofcourse I wouldn't be saying this if they had consistent parameters on which they based their judgement; but seeing that they have been overtly flexible in their choices; I am inclined to believe this.
Big joke these moderators here.
Neither of them are moderators. At least try to understand what you are arguing against before you post any more word salad.
Quickseller won't even take up the bet I proposed that he provide whatever evidence he thinks he has to prove the contrary. That's because there is no evidence
As it is with all of Quickseller's ridiculous allegations.
Probably Lauda and Thepharmacist is one person, why when Lauda is online and Thepharmacist is not?
It's because your limited imagination only allows you to come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not Lauda. You can believe that or not, but it's true. Quickseller won't even take up the bet I proposed that he provide whatever evidence he thinks he has to prove the contrary. That's because there is no evidence, just suspicion based on (my guess is) similarities in writing style and outlook on the state of bitcointalk--and neither is proof. Neither is even good evidence.I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
That's because there isn't one, which I said very early on in this post:You people need to figure out just how frowned upon account dealing is on bitcointalk--even if it's technically "legal".
If account sales are prohibited then there will be no special place to sell accounts in this forum. I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
It is not prohibited nor deserves a ban.
It is similar to playing soccer in your garden, your parents didn't explicitly prohibit you from playing but they might get the ball at any moment if they are afraid that you will break the window. Well, the bad news is that your parents are always afraid.
But parents wont want their innocent kids to kill each other while playing would they? They need to impose some restrictions or at least some sort of marking system in order to mark those who are potential scammers and since bitcointalk is the ground for signature spammers; shitposters and account farmers as well.
Those who buy/sell account do it for either of these purposes:
1. Scamming by hiding under the "Elder Rank" that the bought has. Gullible newbies often fall prey of them.
2. Shitposting to get paid from campaigns - the "who does not like free money" is the root cause of this forum garbage.
I gave the Pharmacist a merit for his post. I hate scammers, thieves and beggars, and those who seek to prey on the new and/or inexperienced members of this forum. I can't think of any reason for buying an account, other than to cheat or steal, or to exploit the years of work that established members have put into building the forum into a valuable resource.
Exactly. Since the introduction of the Copper Membership, which allows you to bypass some initial restrictions, there is zero ethical reason for which you would buy an account today. Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional, ignorant, involved in this or outright dishonest. [1] Alt account use cases still exist. E.g., if you want to voice controversial opinions, you can create a new account (which is an acceptable use case).
I gave the Pharmacist a merit for his post. I hate scammers, thieves and beggars, and those who seek to prey on the new and/or inexperienced members of this forum. I can't think of any reason for buying an account, other than to cheat or steal, or to exploit the years of work that established members have put into building the forum into a valuable resource.
I think clear rules are needed, so parents can let their kids play the ball freely.
There are no specific rules, and liberal policies are self-destructing. Thus, no. ...because for him it is only what he can do in his life...
...
Probably Lauda and Thepharmacist is one person, why when Lauda is online and Thepharmacist is not? After Lauda posted here, I received negative from Thepharmacist, is that accident?
Big joke these moderators here.
You should visit a specialist as you're clearly delusional if you truly believe in either one of these statements. Probably Lauda and Thepharmacist is one person, why when Lauda is online and Thepharmacist is not? After Lauda posted here, I received negative from Thepharmacist, is that accident?
Big joke these moderators here.
The primary reason for which you are not getting even more ratings is that users have begun self-censoring themselves due to fear of wrongly being excluded.
If account sales are prohibited then there will be no special place to sell accounts in this forum. I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
It is not prohibited nor deserves a ban.
It is similar to playing soccer in your garden, your parents didn't explicitly prohibit you from playing but they might get the ball at any moment if they are afraid that you will break the window. Well, the bad news is that your parents are always afraid.
Lauda has 2 negative ratings, doesn't that mean he is not to be trusted? Yet his is still in DT2, it goes to show how stupid the system really is.
I can have 100 ratings, and it wouldn't change a thing. Accounts will continue to be tagged, with or without my name. The latter part of the statement does not show the stupidity of the system, but rather your own ignorance.I agree that selling highly trusted accounts would be bad but only highly trusted ones which by the way, in the recent past they were being sold too and no one was marking anyone red.
Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise. Even if Lauda is removed from DT, other people will take their place and continue marking them with red.
This. At least someone around here deserves a merit or two (or 7). ''Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise.
'' I'm not the one tagged red twice by trusted members, am I? You give negative ratings because you believe that person shouldn't be trusted yet you have negative ratings yourself from trusted members so why should we trust your ratings then? You see how it makes no sense? Thank you guys for your support, I really appreciate that, but now my account is totally devaluated.
Probably Lauda and Thepharmacist is one person, why when Lauda is online and Thepharmacist is not? After Lauda posted here, I received negative from Thepharmacist, is that accident?
Big joke these moderators here.
If you are giving a negative rating, it is because you have done something. It may or may not be right. You owe a duty to explain yourself to whoever rated you the true position of the matter. If the person is convinced, he will remove the negative trust. It is as simple as that.
Are you kidding, it is Lauda, he wont take his negative, because for him it is only what he can do in his life... If account sales are prohibited then there will be no special place to sell accounts in this forum. I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
It is not prohibited nor deserves a ban.
It is similar to playing soccer in your garden, your parents didn't explicitly prohibit you from playing but they might get the ball at any moment if they are afraid that you will break the window. Well, the bad news is that your parents are always afraid.
If you are giving a negative rating, it is because you have done something. It may or may not be right. You owe a duty to explain yourself to whoever rated you the true position of the matter. If the person is convinced, he will remove the negative trust. It is as simple as that.
If account sales are prohibited then there will be no special place to sell accounts in this forum. I also did not find a ban on buying and selling accounts.
It is not prohibited nor deserves a ban.
It is similar to playing soccer in your garden, your parents didn't explicitly prohibit you from playing but they might get the ball at any moment if they are afraid that you will break the window. Well, the bad news is that your parents are always afraid.
Hello, I have received negative trust a long time ago and I still do not know how to get better reputation.
How many positive feedbacks I need to get neutral trust?
Thank you.
How many positive feedbacks I need to get neutral trust?
Thank you.
You have been marked with red with reference to : Found some members selling, buying account
Accounts sales are going on in the forum and outside forum but this allows shitposters and scammers to enter into the white coats of a known/reputable person who sold their account. In other words its shady AF and thus DT has to mark them as red to prevent others from getting scammed or to render the account useless for shitposters.
Also I am not on DT but I mark account sellars with red because it matters to me since they are not be trusted. For now you only have to deal with it because account selling and all are non-pardonable. What matters to you is the rating Lauda gave which I am sure will never be removed.
Even if Lauda is removed from DT, other people will take their place and continue marking them with red.
PS. This thread should be moved to "Reputation".
Lauda has 2 negative ratings, doesn't that mean he is not to be trusted? Yet his is still in DT2, it goes to show how stupid the system really is.
I can have 100 ratings, and it wouldn't change a thing. Accounts will continue to be tagged, with or without my name. The latter part of the statement does not show the stupidity of the system, but rather your own ignorance.I agree that selling highly trusted accounts would be bad but only highly trusted ones which by the way, in the recent past they were being sold too and no one was marking anyone red.
Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise. Even if Lauda is removed from DT, other people will take their place and continue marking them with red.
This. At least someone around here deserves a merit or two (or 7). ''Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise.
'' I'm not the one tagged red twice by trusted members, am I? You give negative ratings because you believe that person shouldn't be trusted yet you have negative ratings yourself from trusted members so why should we trust your ratings then? You see how it makes no sense?
Looks like I missed your request to buy an account, so I thank you for starting up this thread to call my attention to it and allowing me to add my own feedback.
This feedback won't be removed, and I'd imagine Lauda is not inclined to do so either. You people need to figure out just how frowned upon account dealing is on bitcointalk--even if it's technically "legal". I'd like to remind you that by buying an account, you're buying a reputation, trust, rank, and merit score that is not yours and that a lot of bought accounts get used to scam people with, or the buyer uses them to shitpost for signature campaigns. I've seen bought accounts turn out OK, but since I can't even remember an example of that, I think it's pretty rare.
If you hadn't joined the forum and Leeeroy Jenkins'ed your way into the world of account buying, and you'd read about what DT members and others think about it, you'd have realized this. Now it's a bit late, but you can always start over with a new account. Or you can live with the feedback.
This feedback won't be removed, and I'd imagine Lauda is not inclined to do so either. You people need to figure out just how frowned upon account dealing is on bitcointalk--even if it's technically "legal". I'd like to remind you that by buying an account, you're buying a reputation, trust, rank, and merit score that is not yours and that a lot of bought accounts get used to scam people with, or the buyer uses them to shitpost for signature campaigns. I've seen bought accounts turn out OK, but since I can't even remember an example of that, I think it's pretty rare.
If you hadn't joined the forum and Leeeroy Jenkins'ed your way into the world of account buying, and you'd read about what DT members and others think about it, you'd have realized this. Now it's a bit late, but you can always start over with a new account. Or you can live with the feedback.
Lauda has 2 negative ratings, doesn't that mean he is not to be trusted? Yet his is still in DT2, it goes to show how stupid the system really is.
I can have 100 ratings, and it wouldn't change a thing. Accounts will continue to be tagged, with or without my name. The latter part of the statement does not show the stupidity of the system, but rather your own ignorance.I agree that selling highly trusted accounts would be bad but only highly trusted ones which by the way, in the recent past they were being sold too and no one was marking anyone red.
Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise. Even if Lauda is removed from DT, other people will take their place and continue marking them with red.
This. At least someone around here deserves a merit or two (or 7). Lauda has 2 negative ratings, doesn't that mean he is not to be trusted? Yet his is still in DT2, it goes to show how stupid the system really is.
I can have 100 ratings, and it wouldn't change a thing. Accounts will continue to be tagged, with or without my name. The latter part of the statement does not show the stupidity of the system, but rather your own ignorance.I agree that selling highly trusted accounts would be bad but only highly trusted ones which by the way, in the recent past they were being sold too and no one was marking anyone red.
Liar or intentionally deceptive. Surprise, surprise. Even if Lauda is removed from DT, other people will take their place and continue marking them with red.
This. At least someone around here deserves a merit or two (or 7). Jump to: