Topic: User @Amph - sale of BTT account via PM! (Read 827 times)

This kinda seals the main point of the case, that Amph wanted to sell his account, disregarding who messaged who first, or why, or any other questions. I'll leave a neutral feedback as well, so future users would know the possibility of this account had moving hand.

@Amph hasn't been back online since being hammered in this thread days prior to my post and may have been too shell-shocked to think of that themselves. - I've now read the rest of the posts and added to the first post of mine as evidenced by the edits that occurred.  (...and yeh - I'll go into bat or someone who has the fourth most posts in the forum.  I show my respect for a person's prior accomplishments that way - I don't get out the tar, pitchforks and torches).

But it wouldn't hurt to change their password as [BPIP] shows they've never done so.


It's probably escaped your notice that Welsh and I have already discussed that issue.


Sad that a user has turned to selling their account.  I wonder what other UID's they have control over?

---

---

"reported" is not the same as "requested by Amph"

---

---

I can confirm that this post was reported:

Perhaps you should better read what was written by the one you are trying to defend for some reason, and if he admits that I posted a screenshot of the message he sent, what is this post of yours for? The way I see it, you (and some others) would very much like the one who sells his BTT account to become a victim, and the one who discovered this same member is to blame for the fact that the whole thing came to the public?

You are all wondering if the screenshot I published is credible, and no one has yet questioned whether the screenshot from Telegram is credible or fabricated - although even that has no significance in the whole story, unless someone decided to sacrifice their BTT account to trying to discredit me in some way.

Are you suggesting someone gained access to @Amph's account, and used it to send a PM to Lucius? It's possible, but I don't think it's very likely. The real Amph would have brought it up by now if that's the case.

Agreed and thanks for the clarification.

(Your second quote is of yourself, not me, but has been attributed to me).

I'm not sure what you mean, maybe the way I worded it was confusing; I'm saying that I encourage users to report unsolicited personal messages, but a global moderator or admin isn't going to post publicly about whether a personal message occurred i.e if you report a personal message in hopes to get it verified that it exists, that's not going to happen, since it technically isn't against the guidelines. Also, as Loyce pointed out; it might have been unsolicited for Lucius, but it wasn't for Amph since they were directed to contact Lucius. However, a global moderator or admin might consider it unsolicited enough to report, but it would probably require multiple messages for any action to be taken.

However, some users in the past have used DefaultTrust users to log in to their account, and verify the message exists, but I don't recommend that either. Since, there's privacy issues for other personal messages, and obviously a security risk. However, I don't think it's necessary either since Amph didn't deny they sent the message, but rather they were deceived.

If you mean by reporting it, it's putting both users privacy at risk; then yeah any personal message that is reported would be reviewed. However, it's recommended to use encrypted messages if you care about your privacy in personal messages, because they can be viewed by the admins, and globals if reported, which is technically something you risk every time you send a personal message.

Right, which is what I'm most interested about, since it's a rather odd scenario, which we'll probably never get to the bottom of unless there's more instances where this occurs, and we can get a little more information. At the moment, it appears to be a isolated case.

It does seem as though a conversation occurred.  As to whether of not there was a man-in-the-middle who was coaxing information out of either or both, we may never know.  (then again both users could have been set up knowing they would bounce off of each-other.  The scenarios are endless.


Agreed.  See above.

---

---

You do realise of course you're suggesting an admin or mod would be the one being unfaithful in breaching either users' privacy whilst reviewing their PM's ??

Since, you can technically edit the code displayed on the front end of your browser, i.e go into developer tools, and change the code; then it's not really easy to verify whether a screenshot has been faked or not. Since, you can just edit it via your browser, and not through photo editing software. You can only really tell when something has been edited via photo editing tools, not via changing the code directly, and then capturing it.

However, I doubt that's what happened in this case. It does seem like Amph hasn't exactly denied they sent that message to Lucius.

@Amph - I've only read the first half dozen posts and am wading my way through the rest, but take my advice - change your passwords both here and on any social media that's been mentioned thus far.

Someone may have accessed your details and are shadowing you from within.  _{(does that have a name?  it seems nearly everything else around here does)}

---

---

We've had people here study screen shots in the past and verify they were fabricated - are any of them still around?

---

---

There was a user Mavy [BPIP] who woke up a while back then went back to sleep.  Not saying they are alts, however, from the one piece of evidence, that was a part of the user name.

---

---

Amph was last active four days ago.

---

---

Agreed, this is very murky.  If the PM is found to be genuine (and there is no indication that Amph's account has been hacked) then it is an admission of an attempt to sell their account.

Both opponents have such high scores - Amph with the 4^th most posts and the OP with the 46^th most earned merits...

Very unusual.

Since I have no active flag and still have that red box above my thread on marketplace, I assumed everyone will get that red box after receiving negative feedback. I checked a few members with no active flag, only negative trust and they had the same warning while any member with a positive trust doesn't have that warning.

I assume you're talking about this kind of warning flag?



Which there weren't any since no one raise any type of flag against him, as recorded by BPIP, nor do I find any red box on his old thread on altcoin marketplace, be it seeing from a guest account or a member account. So I am not really sure what you're talking about.




As for someone with positive feedback could easily scam people, I have to agree at certain degree. Yes, some people could and would likely more trusting toward someone with positive feedback, that's why exercising logic and DD prior to dealing with anyone is advisable.

But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily translate into someone with one trusted feedback could "scam away at ease". Given your rank, I am sure you're well aware that all you need is to report such attempt to the scam accusation board, and that user would be investigated. If found guilty, they'll got some negative feedback which would --I strongly assume-- made anyone dealing with them to further weight in their option in spite of the presence of that nice looking green number.

I never wanted to post here because I know too well that is above me. From all comments I am seeing here there is nothing to argue about whether is true or not, first it was from a telegram which we can say any one could randomly sent messages to you claiming to be a reputable from the forum, it's understandable but to an extent of moving out from there to sending a private messages using the account shows that he truly wants to sell the account.
And from my little understanding here, account selling is highly prohibited, except in some cases were the account is being hacked or stolen from the original owner and using for evil activity and wanting to sell it without the knowledge of the real owner at such point it could be considered. And however when you refused to raise an alarm of malicious activities then the account could be tag or ban for such action.

You're a bigger troll than I thought, but it's not worth arguing too much with such people, because you obviously have the attitude that things like this should be swept under the carpet instead of the community finding out what really happened.

My reputation is very important to me (regardless of what others think about it), and I will certainly not allow myself to be called into question by protecting someone who did something that the majority of members of this community do not approve (at least in principle).

Apart from me, only one DT member left a red tag, so that also clearly shows that the majority thinks like you - that is, they gave him a second chance.

I guess it doesn't matter really, because if you open a marketplace topic started by him, you'd see a large red box warning people that he is a scammer, so far so good, but if he gets one positive feedback from a DT member, that red box disappear, in other words, anybody with even a single positive feed back could scam away at ease.

He is a veteran member so chances are that he knew the consequences of his actions (even though he did it in a very naive way which can make you think he didn't but people do stupid things sometime). Since ignorance is not a valid excuse, whether he knew or not doesn't really matter in the end.

In your opinion he couldn't scam people himself but if he'd sold the account the new owner could do the scam? Are you basing your judgment on "what if"? That shows how biased you are and IMO you shouldn't be on DT with that line of thinking. And you are more worried about your own reputation than protecting the community, you could have just sent him a PM telling him what he was doing wrong and give him a neutral feed back to make the warning more serious, but you chose to ruin him publicly for something you deem untrustworthy which is not even illegal just that frowned upon in this community.

Yes he could have sold the account to a scammer, he had years to do that but he didn't, and nobody got scammed so far, warning people about a potential scam which could happen in the future and which will never happen by tagging him is a poor judgment.

What is a mystery for me, did Amph knew account sales would get him tagged or not? If he didn't know then now he knows loud and clear, if he knew then maybe a red tag is deserved.

Given that you defend it so ardently, the question arises whether you are in some way connected to that account/member? In your opinion, everyone should get a second chance, regardless of what they do, to the extent that it can have long-term, very bad consequences for any member of this forum?

Not only is he more than obviously guilty because he had the intention of selling his BTT account, but he also involved me in all of that - and regardless of the fact that people who think logically think that I am not the person who contacted him on Telegram, the doubt always remains - or better to say that the damage he did to me is irreparable.

Maybe that was his intention from the beginning, even to the extent that he consciously sacrificed one of his alt accounts - because I doubt that it was the first and last BTT account he sold.

I respectfully disagree.  I don't know why Amph chose to go about trying to sell his account the way he did, but that doesn't matter.  An account like his--well-established and with an extensive post history--could easily be used to scam people who didn't know it had changed hands.  I also think it's safe to assume Amph would eventually sell his account, and given that I've left negative trust to people for even bidding on accounts, there's no way I'm going to give him a second chance out of the goodness of my heart.

Both could certainly happen, but that doesn't mean the community shouldn't be warned when a Legendary account is put up for sale.  You can't really give a warning in advance of an old-timer going rogue, but in a situation like this you sure as hell can.

Account sales bother me less these days as well, probably because I haven't seen any scam accusations against anyone using a purchased account in quite some time--but I'll be damned if I won't still hand out a neg when I see someone trying to sell their account.  Account sales are still as damaging (or potentially so) to the forum as they were when a bunch of DT members started hunting them back in 2016.

Guys please, it's obvious that Amph is a naive person, and clearly if he was in this business he would have known the better methods to sell an account. This could be considered as a one time mistake which I'm sure he'd promise not to think about it again.

What I'm suggesting is that you could at least give him a chance by looking the other way just this once, if he was an untrustworthy member for years, this would have been understandable to tag him right away at the first chance, but if you think there is a silver lining to this issue, please reconsider your tags, at least make them neutral for a while to see what happens next, but please don't ruin his reputation just for one mistake, please.