Topic: Trust system abuse, i bought this account because the rules allow it. - page 2. (Read 837 times)

I knew this question will raise once a day that why bought account will get tag since its allowed by forum itself. Yes I know this is legit question. According to OP he bought account for earn money, not for discussion. And his/her account highlighted due to Yobit spam. OP didn't bought account for discussion on this forum or his/her intention wasn't to contribute something really. We know all this forum has created for discussion about crypto-currency although we are earning good from here. But just buy a account only for earning isn't wise decision in my opinion. Perhaps its excusable is someone buy account for discussion and contributions, then obviously he/she will able to earn from here. Directly joined after bought account means he/she will not contribute anything for forum. He/she just bought account for his/her own need.

If you need earn money then work hard. Don't choose shortcut. Find a job and build your own bitcointalk account by yourself. Once a day you will also able to earn if you build your account successfully.

It's to late for your apology, you always use reference that forum allow account sell. So why you panic now? Forum allow it but community not allow it. Couple of seller and buyer here, it doesn't mean they are the community. That's their profession. Community means total forum, and if you ask open questions then no one will allow to buy account except corrupted user.

The thing is you are not stopping anything by giving negative trust to those who have purchased accounts, you are only forcing people who are willing to do this to go to greater lengths to cover it up.

The OP did not fully understand that he is liable to get negative trust if it was found that he purchased his account. However he did (say he) have the private key associated with an address associated with the account, so he could "prove" he is the original owner, even though he is not. He also did not change the email address, and only changed the password once, so he reasonably was not going to get "caught" using a purchased account unless he admitted it.

The above is the problem with tagging these people. You are forcing them to take sufficient measure so that you really can't tell they purchased their account. If someone were to try to do something nefarious with a purchased account, they will have all the proof they need to demonstrate they are the original owner. On the other hand, if purchased accounts were not routinely tagged, there would be no need to sell private keys and change passwords minimal numbers of times, so it will be more obvious you are not dealing with the original owner.

You are also giving a false sense of security that all sold accounts will be tagged. aTriz for example was a purchased account but he "just so happened" to "slip through the cracks" of those tagging sold accounts, and he went on to do some bad things.

Also, according to the OP, he paid $200 for his account, which effectively serves as a bounty that he will not go around causing actual damage, or posting crap, otherwise he will be banned or prevented from participating in most signature campaigns.

He probably could in my sent rating history, but that is irrelevant anyway. Nothing he says will influence me to tag you or to remove any other tags.

Get over it cryptohunter. It was 3 fucking years ago. Times have changed. Obviously my stance on the issue has changed. Can you point to another instance where someone got tagged for a 3 year old account sale attempt? No? Then shut the fuck up already. There was no set precedent for this kind of issue. The account wasn't even sold. All available evidence points to me being the original owner. Continuing to drone on about a tired issue beaten to death already isn't winning you any sympathy points.

Maybe you and tecshare should just cry and hold each other while complaining that the world isn't fair because nobody likes you.

You are clearly missing the point.

Trust is about trust. Intention is a large part of this. Red trusting relating to account sales is all on topic. Your reasoning here relating to this entire subject is being examined. Stop trying to push that away by claiming it is off topic.

The nutildah account clearly said that they believed account sales were contributing to scammers gaining trust and were firmly against it in 2014. They were advocating the punishment of account sellers on those grounds. They firmly stated that selling accounts left members vulnerable to scammers.

In 2016 they decided to sell their account believing it would lead to people possibly getting scammed but not caring one shit. It is unknown whether the account sale went through or not.

How can you reason this initial poster is less trust worthy that your lunch time buddy nutildah who knowingly increased the probability of people getting scammed here?  He is by his own reasoning increasing the probability of people getting scammed here?

Please tackle this specific reason. Your reasoning seems unreliable and untrustworthy in itself. You would knowingly be pals with someone by their own reasoning wanted to increase peoples chances of getting scammed here?

Is that right? because that seems to be what you are saying. That to me is the type of reasoning the board should be made vulnerable too.

You had previously seemed semi impartial, this time you are clearly being biased.

You would trust someone who by their own statement would for their own financial gain knowingly increase the risk of people getting scammed here? these people you want to meet for beers?

We are discussing a specific case in which I left trust here. feel free to create your thread about Nutildah, I can choose to post there if I feel like it. Wait you probably already did, I likely skimmed saw it did not require me to act. Hard to say.

There is a big difference, you can't prove the account changed hands. I was told the account I tagged had changed hands.

No I already gave you my explanation not that I had to. Just because my reasoning doesn't match with your expectations doesn't mean I have to change. I have no trust or feedback overlap that I am aware of with nutildah. They also have not told me they bought/sold that account. I have chatted in passing with them in some threads, and would probably grab a beer and some good local cuisine if I ever made it to the Philippines. I believe most of those discussions were well before this modified trust system, but as I don't follow who's on DT or not so I can't confirm that


Again I don't follow who's on DT my feedback is left how I want in accordance of what I agree with. Like I've said you are free to leave feedback as you see fit, or claim facts as you see them. I will note that you want to see another user tagged for an attempt to sell an account several years ago, but haven't tagged either accounts for it yourself. So perhaps focus on how you use the feedback system, as opposed to how everyone else does.

Explain how this is a side issue? this is a directly related incident. This is building a case that your red is not valid unless you are ready to apply red to ALL account sellers.

Nutildah clearly stated account sales are allowing scammers greater possibility of pulling scam. He then either tried to sell or did sell the account. Nobody knows. This is knowingly increasing the probability of scamming on this board.

The initial poster has demonstrated nothing like this level of untrustworthy behavior.

You are simply trying to divert away from an On Topic debate about your red trust.  Explain why you find the nutildah account MORE trustworthy than the initial poster. I await you explanation.  Time past is a cop out.

You are employing double standards to favor your DT pals. That is clear.

I will use this specific case as double standards if you do not explain why you find this members actions more untrustworthy than nutildahs.

You can hope all you would like, and form your opinion of my standards as you see fit. Considering this goes back to before I was a twinkle in the forums eye (a member), it's well outside what I would tag. Iirc this is also close to but not past when sales became a taggable offence within the community.

I'll keep pointing this out as well. My feedback is for me, if I agreed with account sales then I wouldn't tag this member. If my feedback isn't up to your standards feel free to exclude me from your custom list, and/or have people remove me from their trust list. I honestly do not worry about being a DT member, I'm just using the system that's in place how I feel it should be used.

You may once again want to try and get back in the habit of staying on specific topics, and not broadening it to encompass all side grievances. I can't even remember how many different threads I've seen you post the Nutildah stuff.

Shitposting is not a business nor is it desirable here. Good riddance.

Please do not use that language towards me. Remain civil.

We are discussing trust. If you recognize in 2014 that selling your account leaves members vulnerable to scamming then decide to sell your account then by your own argument you are untrustworthy. Nutildah deserves red trust far more than this person.

I will see to it that he is tagged or that every other persons tag is removed for buying and selling accounts.

He argued that selling your account makes you untrustworthy before he went right ahead and decided to sell his own account.  If he strongly believed selling accounts leaves members open to scamming and went ahead and contributed to the probability of people being scammed.

We know that you will often protect know scammers and are untrustworthy sneaky and greedy yourself Huge Black Woman. You used that alt to troll racist sig spam for btc crumbs.


@ Steamtyme

I hope you will be red flagging the nutildah account or I will call you on double standards here. Read my above post for details.

Agree with it or not, I left the feedback. Here was my last post in that thread.

Didn't even notice this little doozy until I took a break from something else. To address some of the concerns I've seen


Regardless of how it came to light it's clear cut what happened. They clearly came here to misrepresent themselves and earn a paycheck. Sure the guy was honest about it, and hadn't scammed anyone. Who's to say when he sells the account the next person wouldn't. If left alone they would be under the impression that account sales are harmless and may just have helped keep up the practice. They can sort it out with the seller now if they want.



We differ on what could be related to scamming. Account sales fall well within my realm of shady/scammy behavior. They're a risk many people are not interested in tolerating. In the end it really only affect those who buy the account and come here to earn. That user could still conduct business here if they chose to try, there are even some campaigns taking red trust members. Unfortunately for them they didn't do their research, tried to take the easy way out, and it didn't work out for them.

I will also point out that it wasn't their reputation to lose.

Perfectly stated.  Plus I don't buy the hard luck story, as I strongly suspect this guy is a seasoned veteran of signature campaigns.  In any case, neither his account nor his life is ruined by having negative trust.

That was 2016 when there accounts were first starting to get tagged.  It didn't, and there's no explanation for this that you'd be satisfied with--and I'm not interested in feeding trolls.  Nobody is going to tag him for that now anyway.  Please fuck off.

He said he quit [the forum]. Regardless of what his rights are, it appears he will no longer participate here.

He spent money on buying his account, presumably to be able to participate in a signature campaign to earn money, and a newbie account (possiblyprobably the person who sold him the account) nearly immidiately opened a thread claiming the account was hacked. He now can no longer use that account to earn from a signature campaign.

The newbie account said the account was sold for $60 but was never paid, and the person posting from Vesperion says he actually paid $200 for it. IMO the price that Vesperion provided sounds more reasonable considering he can earn a little more than $100/week in the yobit campaign. Neither has provided any kind of signed message, nor evidence a payment for the account was made one way or another.

I am still able to conduct the amount of business I wish to conduct, under the circumstances that are acceptable to me, and as such, I continue to participate. Someone else who is unable to conduct business with their negative trust is not going to continue to participate.

He will be removed from the Yobit signature campaign, that's all.
Having a negative trust doesn't mean you don't have the right to participate in discussions.

You have a negative trust but still you are one of the most active users.

only DT members are allowed to sell and buy accounts on here, did you not know this?

this DT member nutildah is lecturing others here in 2014 on why they should NOT sell their accounts admits that selling accounts leaves other member vulnerable to getting scammed....

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-buying-older-accounts-here-for-mass-propaganda-789658

then decides to sell their own account in 2016 so just 100% goes against everything they were saying.... and does not give a toss if people get scammed?? prime DT material I'm sure.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.5


his DT friends do not seem to feel this account needs a red tag??

a/ because he listed it for sale for months not caring if people get scammed.
b/ we don't even know it it was sold and the person just claimed it was no longer for sale. So it could certainly have been sold.

If you did something wrong then they should red tag that account also

They red tag people on "suspicion" like justiceforyou a vip member or even if they " think" you are an alt of someone.  

They only require PROOF beyond what is reasonably possible on an anonymous forum when it is one of them being examined.

Another person seems to have left the forum because their reputation was ruined for something unrelated to scamming.

You are right guys, i did it wrong. So, i apologies and quit.

You win 

Since you're playing that card: Here's another negative rating because the rules allow it.

Get a real job and stop being a leech, the forum is not a welfare state.

There is a general consensus among DTs that both buyer and seller have to be tagged.

What were you doing to feed your three kids before joining this campaign!
I advice you to find a real job as it became obvious for you that you can rely on the forum to be  your main source of income.

Sorry, I don't think Steamtyme or any other DT is going to make an exception for you especially after the retaliatory feedback you left for him.

That may or may not be true about your kids needing something to eat, but that isn't a forum problem.  It's a you problem, and the only concern good members of bitcointalk have is about the quality of the forum.  It isn't a workplace.  It isn't a charity.  How were you feeding these alleged children right before Yobit started up their campaign, anyway?

You must have missed the fact that account buyers and sellers have been getting tagged since 2016.  Again, that's on you.  There are forum rules and then there are unwritten rules.  You do realize that scamming isn't against the rules here, right?  Yet scammers routinely get tagged.  Same concept with account dealers.