Topic: [Updated Dec 16,2017] Alts in campaigns - page 2. (Read 2446 times)

Hi ibminer, please check my reports
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25519138
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25550275
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25608276
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25787718

Well I admittedly don't have any evidence specific to any of the campaigns Luada runs. My statement is more around my overall distrust of Lauda. I think Lauda is someone who is willing to do anything (regardless of how unethical, immoral, or illegal said action is) to obtain a desired "good" result, including if that means enriching himself in the process.

There are a couple of examples of this, the extortion situation, that you are well aware of, as well as a time when Lauda acted as escrow and was in the process of imposing losses on those he was supposed to be protecting when it turned out his escrow setup was inadequate -- IIRC, there were not actually losses because someone on the escrow team was able to 'strong arm' the alleged scammer/thief into handing over ~$10k (IIRC) in cash to be used to buy BTC via coinbase to repay the investors (which in itself is borderline illegal, but may be worse depending on what exactly was communicated to the alleged scammer, and what exculpatory evidence existed - not just what was known at the time of the recovery).

I would also point out that this, and this (I would disagree this guy is catching people doing anything bad or harmful, but it still falls in lie with what a "sting operation" is) are examples of "sting" operations, while this is not.



Anyway, back on topic, I am not sure I would fully support what you are doing. I would point out that if someone is contributing to conversations (and not talking to himself) in all (most) of his posts, the number of accounts he uses to do this really does not matter, nor does the fact he is getting paid for his signature matter. Sure one could argue that multiple accounts in a campaign violates the "rules" of the campaign, however this rule ultimately harms the advertiser because he gets less "good quality" posts (advertisements) in his campaign, while the campaign manager will benefit because he has the potential to receive more trust ratings when more people participate in his campaigns.

You did indicate you will leave ratings on a case-by-case basis, and if you are leaving ratings because someone is making a lot of crap posts (one liners), I would support your project more, although this is generally something the moderators should ultimately handle (via bans).

Hmm thank you, the script hasn't scanned that thread yet. It'll be somewhat automated soon though.


If other threads accept the altcoin bounty abusers, I would add them there. I'm staying within BTC campaigns for now, and it does appear that it is going to be more of an alt finder at the moment but the automation of it narrows down the accounts to look at quicker so I can look further into the accounts for behavior that is not trustworthy. Keep in mind, I really don't find alts trustworthy in general, especially large groups of them, and most of them just constantly re-join campaigns every month or so and spew nonsense... 



If you had one signature campaign under one account, you wouldn't be here. I do not have an issue with an individual person advertising in their signature. And this should not be your primary source of income, although I highly doubt you will be on the streets.

We are not abusing the campaign, we are using the same wallet to avoid paying higher fees on sending BTC to our fiat wallet. The accounts are being handled by different people and we are on one computer shop, I know this may not be common in some 1st world countries but in ours computer shops or cafes are abundant and reason why we are using one wallet is to avoid having different transaction fees in sending the bitcoins. I never thought that this would caused the accounts of having a negative feedback in the future. I am really sorry for that.

Ibminer, is this just for BTC paid signature campaigns or if I find any bounty abusers could I also list them here? I have a feeling this thread might just turn into an alt-account thread like Lauda's & Timelord's. Afterall, why else would the average person have an alt account other than to abuse campaigns.

OP has been updated.

I'm not really capturing signatures themselves right now unless you think there is a reason to? 
I will explain more in PM.... Peter and Stewie working together?   This can't end well. 



I did say I haven't seen any evidence of anything relating to your campaigns, but I always listen. If baboons could speak a language I understood, I'd listen to them too, and it would probably be a fascinating conversation. But it doesn't mean I'm going to agree or support everything they may say.

QS, like a lot of people on this forum, seem to have their motives which can sometimes be unclear. I try my best to not support the motives that I do not agree with, but I don't generally like to just ignore things.

Rather than ignore information, I like to listen, and then verify whether it has any validity.
If that makes me have a learning disability in your mind, so be it! 

Hey quickseller -501: -9 / +11 !!! You're welcome to come join our merry band over at the [User Generated Mk III] - Known alts of anyone Mk III https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-any-one-a-user-generated-list-mk-iii-2021-q2-2544574 thread. We take all posts seriously (or in your case we'll keep a straight face until you've finished speaking)...

We even have pretty graphics:

ibminer, I can certainly help you with this.  I already parse the page - I only need add a couple lines of code in BPIP to start capturing every user's signature.

I then could then send you a list of signatures along with members (matching your criteria) that had the signature.  There are many things we could do.

You still listen to that baboon, sigh. People tend to never learn.

That Lauda is the antichrist, and therefore everything they do must be filled with sockpuppets and shills - said by one of the most prolific sockpuppeteers on the forum.

This group appeared in the results as well, and was one of the larger groups I had first come across. I needed more proof though besides the wallet sharing so there is additional evidence I would need with this group to leave feedback as DT (based on my own criteria), which I just have not had time to do  , but if this is all the evidence that SMAS needs, I may just add the accounts I'm finding on there to get them off of the campaigns that follow SMAS, but my main goal is to find enough evidence to leave feedback and hopefully shut them down from all campaigns.



Thank you for the links and explanation! As for Lauda, what is the reason to be suspicious?  I assume there is a theory here... I can imagine a few but I haven't seen evidence of anything at this point with any campaigns being run by Lauda. I'm all ears



Thank you both, I'll look a little closer at that section.

The secondstrade and 777 casino signature campaigns were notorious for one liners, in part because they paid so little, which did not attract "quality" posters. Both these campaigns are already over. Many of the participants of these campaigns have been banned.


The GAW signature campaign openly allowed multiple accounts owned by one person.

I would also like to say that I would be strongly suspicious of any campaign ever managed by Lauda, although a few accounts that I suspect to be his sockpuppets generally do not participate in his campaigns.

That is absolutely the worst section on bitcointalk, and though I have no data, I agree with you--just from glancing at what's posted there.  Most applicants are noobs, and there are many, many of them.  The probability of all these noobs NOT being alt accounts and NOT abusing those bounties has got to be infinitesimal.  That script sounds very interesting, though I won't claim to understand how you do what you do. 

I would be very interested to see what the results are.  I do think that the campaigns that are in the Services section--the ones which pay in bitcoin--are pretty well-run and have fewer abusers (though they're certainly not free of shitposters).  Good luck on your project, dude.

An easier example picked up by the script:
--OMITTED--

EDIT: temporarily omitted.

It is an automated process, the only manual part I have right now is adding the URLs I want to scrape, and this is intentional at the moment because I want to have a smaller scope of data to analyze and am hoping to get the worst of the bunch in that smaller scope, hence the reason for this thread.  

The information I'm currently collecting is as a guest user, the forum would see my script as an active IP address slowly browsing the pages of threads.. sorta like Googlebot . I did also ensure I had permission before I started the process to ensure I wasn't doing anything that would be seen as abusive.

There are next steps I have in mind that I haven't coded yet so I may need help but I'm not quite there yet. I'm certainly not a developer/coder by trade, but have a good amount of experience with php & sql/mysql, which is what I'm using. Thanks for the offer.

The data has certainly been interesting so far, and has drawn my attention to several groups of accounts... but more is needed as evidence for most of them, at least for me personally to justify leaving some sort of feedback.

Is the process of fetching data automated over a network or you are doing it manually ? AFAIK ,theymos has recently activated cloudflaire again which is blocking all the bot network calls that is originated from the scripts.
Either way,I could help you if you need any technical expertise in terms of code/data.

I'm really interested to see what you come up with.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm looking for campaigns that have an abundance of one line posters joining it or actively participating in it.
I am also gathering data from campaigns that are already over, preferably ones that may have been seen in the past as campaigns that were abused by one line posters or suspected multiple accounts by one person.

What I define as untrustworthy behavior for suspected groups may vary depending on the remaining evidence I would need to gather for each.