Topic: User @Amph - sale of BTT account via PM! (Read 829 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.

In telegram, I received a message from satoshi  Kidding. Someone impersonated suchmoon from bitcointalk and offered me a currency exchange which I was looking for but when I asked to PM me in bitcointalk they just disappeared and deleted the chat history. You know what, telegram, is the safe heaven for scammers. Always verify through bitcointalk. Why did you PM him if you don't want to sell the account? You may have an argument of a fake PM screenshot but I seriously doubt Lucius is a liar.

It was a win-win for the drama queen behind this: either you complain about Amph, or he complains about both of you.

Report it for what? It may be unsolicited for you, but Amph didn't know that.

Nothing, it's quite obvious.

@Amph: what's with the negative retaliation feedback? That's not how you're supposed to use the Trust system.

My guess is that the person behind everything wanted that screenshot to try to set me up by opening a new thread and accusing me of trading with accounts - luckily I was quick and reacted in time. Although even now some doubt that I have something to do with this, what would happen if I just tagged that account and reported that PM?

---

Yes, it seems that I touched a hornet's nest because I dared to touch the operation of selling BTT accounts, which is a very lucrative business in which some, let's say, respectable members of this community also participate as escrows.

Last year I had a bad feeling and opened the next thread just in case -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/legendarydr-diordior-sirandre-alt-accounts-5418044

---

What more do you need than the fact that he has already admitted that he did it? Not only did he try to sell his account, but he also turned out to be a fool who someone managed to get him to admit publicly and cast a shadow of doubt on me along the way. Someone had obviously been planning this for months, because it was necessary to find someone naive enough to do it this way.

Then there's the second option . Knowing that Lucius would definitely put a negative tag, the seller could be directed to him. The question is, "Where and when was the information about the sale of the account?" If this is a telegram group, then anyone could pretend to be Lucius. And the seller will naively believe that there is a buyer. If the information was only available to a few people, then @Amph should look for the "well-wishers" in his environment.

That's true, screenshots don't prove a thing. But maybe you can tell me: is this PM doctored or did you sent this?
So @Amph: Are you trying to sell your account?

That's possible. And considering the drama created by sting operations in the past, it makes sense they're not using their own name. Someone loves the drama.

I've done that a few times, but those were quite new accounts. In this case, Amph's negative feedback on Lucius more or less confirms it's real:
That Telegram screenshot asking for a screenshot makes it obvious someone has a different agenda.

If knows Lucius tags account sellers, it makes more sense to expect he'll tag this one too.

I've left negative and neutral feedback for asking to buy my account by PM years ago.

For some reason, it seems to me that someone wanted to frame Lucius. See how he has tagged several account sellers in recent days. Expecting Lucius to report about PM, the scammer wanted to frame him as a buyer in the hope that he could avenge the previous red tags and the failed sale.

I've been harassed on Telegram by a forum member in the past, and I think you're actually onto something here.  I don't doubt Lucius's claim that he didn't contact Amph on Telegram, and I don't doubt that Amph believes that he was contacted by Lucius.  There are some real sick drama queens here who just want to stir shit up.


That's a really good question.  I don't think that the Telegram user who was pretending to be Lucius has any ill intent for Lucius, but he didn't want to expose himself as the Rent-A-Cop, busybody conducting an immoral sting operation to expose accounts being sold.  Remember when bob123 did something like that got a shit-ton of grief over it?  I think that's what the mystery user was trying to avoid, while still being able to expose the account for sale.

Again, asking for screenshot of the PM that was sent is kind of a red herring.  Why would Lucius do that if he already got the PM?  He could have taken a screen shot himself, as he already demonstrated here in this thread.  It does lend some credibility to Welsh's speculation.

---

As for account sales, it upsets me less than it used to be in the past.  Yeah, someone could buy a high-ranking, trusted account and use it to scam people, but anyone here with a high ranking, trusted account could go rouge at the drop of a hat.  Yogg, for example.  The best course of action is to be extremely careful when dealing with folks here on the forum, and assume that you could be scammed at any point by anyone.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that several high-ranking trusted accounts on this forum have been sold at one point or another, and none of us are even aware that it happened.

The forum does, I'm not saying to not report unsolicited personal messages, but reporting a message in hopes to get it verified publicly isn't going to fit in with the moderation guidelines, and therefore wouldn't be done. Of course, Lucius could've reported the personal message for being unsolicited, and I do urge users to report unsolicited messages.

Lucius probably did the right thing for their reputation announcing this to the public, and in fact seemed to be quite sensitive about providing the evidence of the personal message at first, since it's generally considered that personal messages are indeed that; personal. We don't know the intentions of the user on Telegram that was impersonating Lucius, or at the very least implying some sort of deception that they're Lucius.

The two users involved were both claiming right against each other, but what we should look into now is that was the account sold? Is there any evidence for such? Because from what i perceived here, the two of them may actually be working on the same objective to fish out account famers that uses telegram to conduct their illegal activities, but nevertheless why should we respond to mails or telegram chat we are not interested on? Also i think it's time the forum take serious with the sending of unsolicited PMs on the forum by users, what @Lucius could have done is to reported such PM to he moderator at first when he received such invite.

Yeah, I don't see too many users not believing you here Lucius. I wouldn't recommend risking your account security over this. Whether or not users want act upon the evidence supplied is up to them. Some already have. I absolutely wouldn't give up your account security. The thing is; you aren't just giving them temporary access, because undoubtedly you've got other personal messages; which means they could see those too which goes beyond the agreement, which is an invasion of privacy not only for you, but for the other users you've communicated with. I'm not saying the person you entrust with this responsibility will go prying through that information, but they might accidentally see it, which we can't just turn our brains off.

I don't doubt what you're saying is true, I'm more concerned about how the situation came about, since there does seem like someone is directing users to contact other users without any permission whatsoever. Almost, impersonation of you via Telegram.

Given the circumstances (he admitting sending you a PM, not willing to provide screenshots of rest of the conversations), I don't think that there is real need for you to do that. And I didn't get the impression that people don't believe you (I personally don't think that you would go through such a hassle just to entrap some account seller), its just that situation is kinda weird (I don't think I saw something similar before) so people may be a little bit more cautious before making the judgment.

It's really not necessary, it would be a mistake letting someone else into your account for something like this. Seems clear he sent it and I'm not sure why there would be doubt.

At the end of the day, the current owner of Amph is a user who is OK with account sales, and the forum technically allows it. But verifying a PM like this using such extreme lengths seems unnecessary, for both the reputable member and you.

He's only arguing that you tricked him in some form of entrapment, and that this makes you look bad for setting him up. There is no proof of this, and we don't even see the rest of the conversation in full context, so it's all assumptions and theories at this point.

Regardless of the fact that at this moment I cannot prove that I received a private message in which I am offered to buy the account in question here - I can only say that I am glad that at least someone on the entire forum does not think that I am someone who engages in such activities. I see that other members still have doubts, but if necessary, I am ready for one of the respectable members of the forum to get an insight into my account and confirm that the PM is real.

---

I understand what you're explaining, but still just a simple confirmation that PM is real and that it's not about me actually being the one who did something bad in this whole story would be a perfectly normal move in these situations. Yesterday this happened to me, tomorrow it can happen to someone else, and the shadow of doubt remains if we do not clarify this situation to the end.


His explanations are at least at the level of a beginner who has no idea about some basic things, and the only thing he defends himself with is that I somehow fabricated that message, although he later admits that he did send the message. The evidence he presented in the form of a Telegram screenshot is plain nonsense and only proves how naive he is.





Given that we have a clear acknowledgment that @Amph sent a PM whose screenshot you can see, it is more than obvious that he admits that he tried to sell his account.

Just seeing the name "The Sceptical Chymist" should be enough for someone involved in account sales to realize they fucked up. "This is the moment" saga.

I'm not sure what the motive is behind request the screenshot on Telegram. However, the fact that they asked for the screenshot might indicate they don't know if the user did actually send the message, implying that a user is either trying to conjure some drama involving Lucius or in fact trying to not reveal their identity, and is asking account sellers to send these types of messages to DefaultTrust/DefaultTrust2 users.

Like I said, they're unlikely to get involved since it's not regarding forum rules. It's a community matter, rather than an issue from a moderation stand point. There's no real way of verifying the message exists without potentially compromising your account, which I absolutely don't suggest you do.

Although, it does seem like Amph hasn't exactly disputed they sent that personal message to you.  

Uhh... Forgive me to squeaking in with a rather confused tone, but why does it matter who sent what to who on the first place? I'm seriously asking here. I've tried to read the thread couple times and still couldn't see how it matters. The fact remains that Amph is willing to sell his account, as proven by his own evidence --self incrimination, that's rare.


Why is it still matter if Lucius is indeed TGing Amph first or it was someone else pretending to be him?

Fuck this, Amph is a member who's annoyed me with his drivel since I first registered here and frequented the altcoin section where he posted the most.  There's enough evidence here that he's trying to sell his account to justify a negative trust (which I just left).

Amph, whether you dump your account or not, good luck to you and don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out.

Well if we are theorizing here, why would the telegram user request a screenshot of the PM (especially if he is claiming to be the owner of the account), he wouldn't need a screenshot. Telegram user could have been trying to setup Lucius for not posting about an account seller contacting him.. or maybe thought Lucius would try to buy it and they wanted the screenshot to post themselves in order to smear Lucius? *shrug*

edit: Regardless, it looks like Amph is willing to sell his account?.. to anyone that contacts him on telegram?

which doesn't make sense, the reason is because is trying to hide that he was him in telegram poiting his profile, to trick me and telling to send him a msg to create this topic, it's so straightforward it's not even funny


sure for no reaosn and out of nowhere i contacted u to sell my account, the only rewson is because you were the one of telegram asking for that


btw i'm not seeing that i didn't send that pm, i'm saying that he tell me to do so, to create this topic, that's my point

the liar is him that keep saying he didn't contacted me via telegram and saying all the stuff in that screen

PM has been reported to admins/global mods asking them to confirm its authenticity.

---

Do you really think that I contacted someone on Telegram and asked to buy their bitcointalk account in such a stupid and naive way? It is clear to me what happened here, and I also have proof in the PM where I am very clearly and unequivocally offered to buy a bitcointalk account - and the person selling it claims that he communicated with me via Telegram without any concrete proof - is the proof public profile link which anyone can copy and place anywhere?

The above post I made is obviously speculation, and I guess it depends on if any other evidence is brought forward. However, at the moment it seems like both users don't actually know what went on exactly.

Global moderators, and admins can see it when reported. If you go, and look at a personal message you've received, and click report to moderator you'll be able to see who can review them, since you can pick who you want. However, admins can probably see any personal message if they wanted too, but this certainly isn't routinely done. Although, this falls out of the scope for them to verify since it's not breaking the rules of the forum. So, please no one report personal messages like this, only one's that break the forum guidelines.

There are other ways to verify it, obviously. In the past, some users have given temporary access to trustworthy users, but I wouldn't recommend that either.

Can you share screenshots of the entire Telegram conversation, right from the beginning?


Only admins can can see private messages, or mods too? Or for mods to see the PM, it has to be reported? I am asking so at least we can confirm that PM is legit and indeed sent by Ampth (even though I see no reason why Lucius would go through such hassle).

It's quite possible that someone is using Telegram looking for account sellers, and then pointing them to a random user on DefaultTrust or DefaultTrust2, trying to get them to admit that they want to sell the account knowing that the DefaultTrust/DefaultTrust2 would say something publicly about it.

There could be several motivations to this; honeypotting which this would be considered, isn't exactly encouraged around here, and actively frowned upon itself. So, the Telegram user doing it could be trying to do it anonymously, and using some other user to deal with it on Bitcointalk. However, that's not exactly great either; since they're effectively putting the user they're saying to contact on Bitcointalk under risk, as it appears they want to buy the account. I suspect in an attempt to keep themselves anonymous due to the frowned upon honey potting. However, I don't see why they just wouldn't send the user to a newly created account, and then report that publicly. Going through the verification that's required if necessary.

I don't know, that's my best guess since Lucius seems to be rather dumbfounded by why they received the personal message in the first place.

It seems that you are a much bigger fool than I thought, because you trust complete strangers who send you a message on a platform that is full of scammers. It is enough for you that someone sends you a public profile link and you think that this person contacted you


Unfortunately for you, PMs on this forum can be verified, so even though it is something that is not often done, I am ready to prove that you are lying even with that procedure. Anyway, I think you deserve a red tag as well as everyone who sells BTT accounts.

he is the one that contacted me via telegram if you think that is not him you must have some serious logic flaw

as i said that is not a proof, you can edit any screen easily

Your reaction for his proof itself says who is talking the truth here.

Anyway he posted the proof about the PM he received from your account so what is you answer or atleast say that he edited the picture and trying to portray you as an account seller.

Anyone ready for the drama?

sure some random guy pointed your profile in  A PRIVATE chat on telegram, come on don't be a moron, that is an undeniable proof that you comunicate wiht me via telegram, otherwise i would never send a private msg to you

you are a lier nothing else, and your screen don't prove anything either, there are plenty of way to edit any screen or even video so...

You did not communicate with me via Telegram, nor does your screenshot prove anything - anyone could have sent a link to my profile, but the fact is that you sent me an offer to sell your BTT account, which only proves that you are either a very unintelligent person, or that you have some malicious intentions.

If you already want to portray me as some ordinary scammer who trades with BTT accounts, then I will also publish your PM so that people can decide who is who in this story.

this guy tricked me just to be able to prove that im selling my account, he said he want to buy the account (which was a lie), i can prove that with screen

if you believe a guy like this is trustworthy, draw your conclusions

he also blatantly say that we didn't communicate via telegram which is a pure lie

here

Today I received a private message from the user @Amph in which he informs me that he wants to sell his BTT account, and he refers to the fact that we communicated via Telegram, which never happened. The PM also contains a name (I assume the one he uses on Telegram), but I'm not sure if that might be his real name, so I don't want to reveal it here.

Given that the sale of BTT accounts is not something we approve of (although it is not prohibited), it would be logical to leave a negative trust for such an account - even though the reference is a private message, so it's my word against his.

I can't say why @Amph chose me, but it seems to me that I am not the only one who received or will receive such a private message. I also don't see that there has been any change of e-mail/password, so the assumption is that the account has not been hacked.