Topic: VIP Member hacked? - page 3. (Read 2772 times)

Is it possible? Sure, but I don't think that is what happened.

Buying accounts is very risky, not only because of the risk of negative trust from the SJW forum police, but also from fake claims of the account being hacked, fake hidden loans, so I don't think it would be a profitable business to buy up accounts to resell anymore. I would suspect someone buying up accounts would quickly find themselves with many accounts that are worthless, or otherwise cannot sell, of course after paying for them.

It would make more sense to me that the majority of account sellers farm them either themselves or with the help of a group of close business associates that they can trust (or is an individual who is in need of money and is willing to part ways with their account).

Not long after I exited the account business (or maybe it was just before I exited it, I don't remember), someone asked me to post from some of their accounts for a month in exchange for a fee. I was told to avoid any threads involving a dispute between groups, and threads in meta (IIRC), so it is known to avoid those types of threads, by at least that person.

Similar to your "Nigerian prince" scenario, there is not any evidence this is the case. There is also the capitalism strangeness in his posts, and account selling is a very low skill task, and I can't really see an account broker/seller picking up on this.

---

If someone wants to sell me bitcoin who has no trade history and I don't know, and asks that I send money to him first, I would obviously not trust him, but I would respond by saying that he can either agree to use a mutually agreed upon escrow, or he can send me the bitcoin first -- what I would not do is respond with giving negative trust (if he later shows signs he was trying to scam me, that might change).

Similarly, I don't have any particular reason to trust btc_bear and would certainly not send him money first in a trade. However that is not to say that he is going to try to trade with me with the intention of trying to scam me.

While I do have the gut feeling that JFY is the original owner, based on their speaking patterns, I do believe that qwk's actions are within reason. The only thing that is bothering me right now, is that JFY actually cares about the negative feedback from qwk, even though it was very clearly laid out to be a temporary and precautionary thing. Its not like there is a scam accusation, its a case of, let me know when you happen across something to prove your identity and I'll remove it. As the account owner, I'd imagine you'd have two thoughts. The first being, hey don't tag me jerk, and the second being, thanks for looking out for the best interest of my account. Rather than firing off against qwk, I'd imagine that "thanks for having my interest in mind" part would cause one to spend a few extra minutes trying to confirm their identity rather than getting very upset over it.

Regardless, I don't see this as something that really needs much discussion, its kind of just a matter of time until either its proven not to be the original owner, or it is. When you've been here this long, you'll remember an interaction you had with someone that isn't recorded. Something like that can clear doubts.

LOL at Lauda.... I ask you again.

Yes qwk did you not realise Lauda gives the orders around here. Or that is what he thinks.

Lauda look it is simple. Presenting facts demonstrating you are a liar is not trolling, It is not being a nut job. It is simply presenting the truth that you are proven untrustworthy.

Please try to understand that.

Also we are having a sensible discussion and debate here please do not come and tell people what they should or should not do. Who do you think you are? You are noob trash compared to some persons here that have been here many years before you and do not need to sig spam everywhere like you do. How do you feel you have the right to tell them what to do?

You do not. So buzz off .

Yeah, I'm doing a bit of facepalming myself about his reply.

I just went back and read quite a few posts of JusticeForYou from January, just to see what his opinions were before actmyname bumped this thread on January 31st.  I hadn't reviewed them all at once before and don't think I went back to see posts from his early days.  So I proceeded to view his posts from 2011....and the change in English is striking.  There's no doubt in my mind now that whoever is in control of the JFY account is not the original owner.  There is no way that could happen, because you either become better at writing in a language over time or more or less stay the same. 

The original posts showed substantial proficiency in English, even though the structure of the posts would make an English teacher scream.  The grammar, spelling, linkage of words, and vocabulary are completely different and would seem to have deteriorated since 2011.  I'd ask JFY how that's possible?  A native English speaker and voracious reader such as myself and probably many others on the forum would and did notice this.  So when you combine that evidence with the fact that JFY can't sign messages from early addresses, etc., there should be no one saying that qwk's tag is unjustified. 

Take a look for yourself.  Compare the quality and style of English written in 2019 to what JFY wrote in 2011 and tell me that's the same person.  How do you explain that?

A friend of a friend of a friend......if you do that three more times you turn into Kevin Bacon.

I can not do that! I still want to read constructive input on the matter and have to keep up to speed unless you want another "Lauda abusing trust - will not remove negative from VIP member w/e" thread.

Wrong. People who have something to hide as is the case with this "VIP Member" should do the rational thing and stay under the radar. When there is a new user voicing any kind of opinion in many of these disputes of course they are going to be looked into. This is how many people get extra tags as DT members can not be everywhere at all times.

If I state that I was told by a reliable source who is close to the original member and wishes to remain unnamed that the VIP account has been compromised, would that be sufficient for these "methods of proof"? Bonus points for this "proof": If it turns out to be fake, I can always shift the blame on the "person who was in the position to know" and claim that he/she lied [to me].

I believe I said at the time the evidence I had that caused me to believe you are lauda was circumstantial and I have since apologized for saying that you are an alt of an extortionist criminal.

I was told by a reliable source who wished to remain unnamed that lauda has a pill addiction. This person knows because he was told by people who are in a position to know and are to have said they have direct knowledge (IIRC)

And I'm willing to believe you, because I trust you, as you might recall.
But from your professional experience, is something like the above story at least plausible?

And I hope you trust me on this:
my trust rating for him has nothing to do with the whole infighting drama about trust on meta.
I'm impartial in this.
If anything, I'm an amused observer

Yea it’s too bad I haven’t dealt in accounts in many years.

Your post only highlights that he has negative trust because of his stance on the trust system.

You just can't get yourself to click the little "unwatch" button up right, can you?
Addictive, is it not?

Just let me speculate / create a conspiracy theory here:
A professional account trader was offered a VIP account.
Knowing that it's not really something you can sell (VIP accounts are most likely to be scrutinized), he bought it at a discount.
Hoping he could somehow make it valuable by establishing a better reputation with some tweaking to the personality, he tried to create a few posts that would go "under the radar", while leaving the impression of an "old one" woken up.

Somehow, being entangled in all the meta-infighting as a professional account seller, he fucked up at some point and couldn't resist the urge to comment on the DT drama with his new VIP-account.
That was when it back-fired and turned into a lost investment for him.

I'm not saying I have someone specific in mind, but we all know just who it could have been.
My gut feeling is that there's maybe a 10-20% likelihood of my "story" being true, no more.

Jesus, I completely forgot about that thread.  QS also made the accusation that we're alt accounts--based entirely on speculation, of course, because he never could or would provide the evidence that I was practically begging for.  I'd be interested to hear QS's response to his little bit of hypocrisy of the above quote that I've bolded.  Somehow I doubt he'll respond to it directly.

As to the first part, I don't know.  It's a reasonable suspicion based on the evidence presented and JFY's responses to said evidence.  The second part looks to be true, unfortunately.  I kept hoping he'd provide a solid piece of evidence that he's the original owner, but that hasn't happened.  

This whole situation smells fishy to me.  If JFY was bought or hacked, I'm curious as to whether whoever is in control of it now is someone we know.  It's odd that JFY sort of inserted himself into the Meta drama after ignoring this thread for months and has now fully aligned himself with the anti-DT crew.  I could just be paranoid, but anything is possible on this forum.

Edit:
OK, at least now I know I'm not the only one who's suspicious/paranoid/cynical enough to think such a thing--and I'd probably even go so far as to say I agree with your percentages, though I'm less sure about the member being who we both think it might be.

Is that so? Hypocrite scammers everywhere.

---

qwk I ask you again to stop feeding these nutjob-trolls and bringing this thread up on my watchlist when there is nothing worth reading. Thanks.

I would point out that if you are going to accuse someone of something, the burden is on you to prove that you are correct. The burden is not on the person to prove you are wrong

As it stands now, it doesn’t look like there is any evidence beyond speculation that he is hacked.

@ qwk

On this matter it is clear that I do not accept your views of what is a safe assumption and you will not adopt my own. Therefore since I have presented my own explanation behind what I believe and you have presented your own and still there is no movement either way then I now see there can be no point of discussing that further with you at this present time.

Thank you for remaining civil though.

On the other matter of you not wishing to discuss further the matter of a proven liar with the motivation of financial reward being on DT. I mean lying and misleading for financial gain is precisely what a scammer is. So therefore for you to be concerned enough about a "possible" account transfer to red trust them but on the other hand will support a proven scammer (not to mention the other deeds they are implicated in that many believe are very shady and untrustworthy) on DT and not even be interested in a discussion about it ..... well you can see where that could be seen as very worrying and strange?

I mean it is up to you of course but I have noted down yet another DT member is unwilling to even discuss or debate with me the proven facts demonstrating this issue.

It is your right of course,  but I say DT members should be responsible for keeping appraised of other DT members untrustworthy behaviour or else how will the system even function as Theymos intends.

If all DT members outright say they have no wish to hear or act upon the proven wrong doings of other DT members..... you can see why that could pose an issue.

I understand doing the correct and moral thing can be difficult. I think you are now the 4th or 5th DT member to refuse to even review or discuss the facts clearly demonstrating lying/ scamming from other DT members.

Why am I still answering this
I somehow always keep coming back for more, seems to be a masochistic personality trait of mine.

Yes, it's possible.
Is it likely?
I don't think so.

Have you seen Laszlo's house when he did his first ever Lightning pizza purchase? It's bigger than mine

Yes, many of us lost quite a few BTC, me included (I had a handful on MtGox).
But I know of no single user who's lost all of his keys.
Again, yes, it's possible.
Is it likely?
I don't think so.

I'm just honestly saying that this is not something I could evaluate with any confidence.

You're comparing apples and pears.
10,000 BTC at the time of Laszlo's purchase was petty cash (on the order of 40 USD, give or take).
50 BTC at the time of BTC_Bears donation to the forum wasn't (on the order of 500 USD, give or take).
Also, at the time of Laszlo's purchase, Bitcoin was in it's infancy, and did not have any "real" value, it was still something to play around with.
At the time of BTC_Bears donation, otoh, BTC had been through an ATH of ~30 USD, i.e. you knew pretty well that 50 BTC could easily be worth a couple thousand bucks again.

Now I understand, thanks for the clarification.
No, I'm not assuming that he "was" smart and is "dumb" now.
I assume that it's no longer the same person.

If JFY is really BTC_Bear, he won't have lost all his keys to a hard drive failure.
a) because he had backups
b) because he would have recovered data from a hard drive

No, because I'm not interested in that conversation.
I reserve the right to not participate in a discussion if I so please

That's where we disagree, I think neither is broken, maybe some of it might need some tweaking, but I'm willing to give it some time before I ask for radical changes.

1. is unfortunately no proof of identity, but more likely to be the initial attack vector that got the account into the wrong hands in the first place.
2. is actually interesting and the reason why he's gone unnoticed for so long.
I'm willing to concede that he might just be some guy who bought a VIP account as a novelty toy without any malice in mind.
3. says precisely nothing. The original BTC_Bear has obviously moved on.


But hey, I'm giving you another bite to chew on:
Let's assume he's really BTC_Bear.
Let's assume he really lost all of his keys.
Let's assume there's no way for him to prove his identity.

What does that tell us about him?
He was rich.
He now isn't.
He's got a tool at his disposal that might very well be able to make him some money (a VIP account).
Is it too far-fetched to fear the danger of him abusing this account at some time in the future to rip off some guys?
You get the idea?
I would feel uncomfortable letting anyone who lost basically all their Bitcoin run around with a VIP account.
But again, I don't believe this is the case.
JFY is most likely not BTC_Bear.

@qwk.

I will focus just on the most important parts that I think demonstrate one way or the other.

1. perhaps he would like to give the impression he really has lost his btc as to not be such a target.

Is it not at all possible this person wishes to retain the account (which they felt strongly enough about to purchase in the first place) and give the impression they have lost or no longer have masses of btc ? Yes it does kind of scream I was once rich... like the bitcoin pizza guy. Who is now not rich apparently. Perhaps he feels it is quite possible to accept that you can have been btc rich once but for various reasons are not now.

2. there are many accounts of super rich and competent people losing 1000's of btc. I saw BCX mention he lost more in a hard drive incident and again with gox. He was very very tech savvy as we know.

3 "Again, I find that hard to believe. It's not impossible, of course.
But I'm not looking for a one-of-a-kind unlikely explanation as to why his specific circumstances might differ from basically any other sane person's."  this is not one of a kind only you say it is one of a kind. I wonder how many btc bitcoin pizza guy had when he bought the pizzas.


4. Regarding salty's point.
"Unfortunately, not being a native speaker of the English language, I'm unable to estimate the likelihood of a coincidence like that"
I know you are just kidding here. A smart person like yourself ( i know you are very intelligent I can tell, I am not trolling you) would take no time at all to find out that that kind of capitalisation is not at all common and indeed very unusual.

5. "50 BTC then might not seem much now, because "they were worth so little back then".
Let me assure you, though, that (a few super-rich aside), most of us knew very well that 50 BTC was more than just petty cash."

well bitcoin pizza guy is a tech guy and presumably not rich nor stupid but he did not assume 10,000 btc was all that important. Well unless you love pizza.

6. Your arguments seems completely weird. I mean if you suggest on the one hand that he is super smart so must have a ton of back ups ..but then suggest that he must have missed the possibility of simply taking his usb key to get it fixed and that he could gain access to millions of dollars before you introduced the brilliant but complex course of action.

let me explain why I do not feel your offer is genuine. this is not proof either way but just demonstrates you are not being genuine in your offer.

a/ you state you believe he is a smart guy and will have backed up his btc in multiple places.
b/ your offer suggests now that you believe he is stupid and will not have dreamed up the scenario where he could just fix a broken usb stick and regain his millions of dollars in btc he is meant to have before you suggested it just now.

Do you read me HAL?

7. "I find it off-topic there. It's definitely on-topic here."
Do you mean you will be willing to continue our prior conversation regarding the liars and their place on DT here?


8.For you, everything seems to be related to DT and red trust.
"Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL ?"
Merit is more broken to me, we can fix that we can fix it all. Although criteria in DT will be preferential too.

I like this film a lot I have watched it many times and even met one time mr kubrik.

Also this does not even touch on...

1. has original email
2. does not feel the need to sig spam like 90% + of meta fans and legends.
3. no other vip complaining of loss.

I'm flattered

If so, the first thing to get rid of would most likely be his VIP account.
I mean, it really screams "I'm rich", don't you think?
I happen to know that from personal experience, btw.

Disaster may strike, but I find it hard to believe that a nerd doesn't have a contingency plan, i.e. a backup.
I have. Seriously, I have several backups of all keys, even experimental ones I've never really used, "just in case".

I happen to know a handful donators and possibly hundreds of "regular" Bitcoin owners personally, and I cannot for the life of me think of a single one who wouldn't have a freaking backup.
I do know at least two users who had more than a hundred bitcoins and had all of them on MtGox, though, but both of them are definitely not nerds.

Again, I find that hard to believe. It's not impossible, of course.
But I'm not looking for a one-of-a-kind unlikely explanation as to why his specific circumstances might differ from basically any other sane person's.
I'm unwilling to believe alien abduction-like stories.
We're still talking about trust here, if I need to remind you.

I find that evidence inconclusive, but it's certainly a (weak) point for JFY.
Unfortunately, not being a native speaker of the English language, I'm unable to estimate the likelihood of a coincidence like that.

50 BTC then might not seem much now, because "they were worth so little back then".
Let me assure you, though, that (a few super-rich aside), most of us knew very well that 50 BTC was more than just petty cash.

Unfortunately, I can't follow your reasoning.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
Talk slowly, I'm German

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

I find it off-topic there. It's definitely on-topic here.

For you, everything seems to be related to DT and red trust.

I've come up with a suggestion that would enable JFY to prove his identity once and for all, which is likely to succeed with a chance of (I guess) somewhere on the order of 99%, and I'm willing to cover the costs.
What more do you expect me to do?
(that's a rhetorical question, don't answer "delete the trust rating")

I say this quite a strange bunch of assumptions from you qwk who is known to be a very intelligent person.

1. perhaps he would like to give the impression he really has lost his btc as to not be such a target. This would be my first move if I had a TON of btc stashed away but wanted to use my vip account.


2. this is just assumption... just because he is a nerd does not mean that catastrophe can not strike or you get lazy about things.

3. he did care a lot about his forum id and paid a not insubstantial amount for his account out what he had. Which even then did not matter too much. If you had 500bucks worth or btc (back then) you may well decide to spend even 50% of that if you wished for a vanity title and to support the board. Perhaps he really is generous too.

Too many assumptions, too much unknown. Along with the new evidence of Salty Spittoon (which was actually a nice surprise for me because I had assumed incorrectly perhaps he was not as fair a person as I had hoped that he could be) I say it is now more likely than not he is the original owner.


The probability of him noticing these weird capitalisations of letters in strange places but that seem to follow some kind of internally derived rules he has far far out weighs this other conjecture and assumption that if you are smart you are not lazy, if you have spent 50 btc years ago on a membership (when it was not worth much at all) you must have a ton more now or access to a ton more now.

Your arguments seems completely weird. I mean if you suggest on the one hand that he is super smart so must have a ton of back ups ..but then suggest that he must have missed the possibility of simply taking his usb key to get it fixed and that he could gain access to millions of dollars before you introduced the brilliant but complex course of action.


Let us be sensible and reduce to neutral the red tag.

Also would you mind returning to the DT thread in meta because there I have provided further details of the circumstances and goals of the particular lie that you were asking about (it was sadly nothing like the girl in the dress example you speculated it may be)...remember we were debating there as to whether you would consider that type of liar to be a valid and sensible selection for DT. Sorry to go off topic but then again it is all related to DT and red trust I guess.

No way; once you really get into all of this then the thought of losing all of your keys is probably your biggest nightmare. I know people that keep backups of backups of backups of PGP keys that expired ages ago ("just in case").

I would say that at least some are recoverable in 99% cases; data stored on HDD should not (not can not) be damaged by power loss (e.g. unless you are working with all of that data at the exact same time).

That's very generous; but I'm expecting an answer in the form of: "I threw it away; who needs keys anyways".