Topic: Wardrick account hacked---trust abuse resolution in sight (finally) - page 11. (Read 25324 times)

I totally agree.

Else QS wouldn't be pretending he was banned.

Edit: and panthers wouldn't be trying to change his style every now and then. Check this post : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12300600
No "@insert_name_here".  He quotes it. He uses ">" to refer to a part. Uses both bullets AND numbers... It is kind of obvious.


lol, IP can be easily masked.

I am reasonably certain QS's alts cannot be connected in blockchain or by looking at IP addresses (assuming he didn't want his alts known).

@BayAreaCoins- do you have any IP evidence of this? If this is true then it would mean a major Bitcoin Mongol is actually someone who scammed scraps from one of the biggest Bitcoin scammers in history. This would be a major breakthrough and your name would be remembered forever.

How do you even know this? Are you an admin of this section or something?

Kind Regards
Panthers52

Really 

This who last few pages is hilarious.

I'd go out on a limb on this one and say the chances of Dooglus being TSP are about as good as QS not being Panther52.

I cunt believe what im reading. If there is one thing that i learned in cryptos is that you http://i.imgur.com/8oo2gMih.jpg .

Pd: if you become an arse people will eventually gather up and take your rep to the ground .

It's kinda nice that QS has given up the panthers52 alt shenanigans.  Thanks for re-engaging with your normal attack account, QS.  I'm happy that your outlandish claims against me have finally caught the attention of reputable forum members dooglus and Vod.  I'm looking forward to your addressing of their concerns.  If you can't address them, maybe it's time to reconsider your smear campaign against me (for your own reptuation's sake). 

By the way, can you please remove the sockpuppet rating from your troll account FunFunnyFan?  It seems a little strange that you took the communty's advice and removed the sockpuppet rating from ACCTSeller, but left the other one.  Can you please address this?

Correct me if I am wrong, however from what I got from your prior posts about the loan is that you sent/tipped him ~1BTC, he did nothing with that BTC (CLAM) that he received from you and then repaid/tipped the same ~1BTC back to you. Or did I miss something?
Reputation scammers (and trust farmers) will generally start out with smaller amounts, and then will say something along the lines of "dooglus trusted me with with 1 BTC here, so you can trust me with 1.5 BTC" Then when I^* decide that I can trust them with 1.5 because you trusted them with 1, then they can say "dooglus trusted me with 1 BTC and QS trusted me with 1.5 BTC, so I can be trusted with 2.5 BTC". Then the next person gets scammed when they run away with 2.5 BTC, and both myself and you (in this example) would partially be to blame for the third person's loss. (The amounts may not escalate as quickly and there may not be as few "steps" in these kinds of scams, but I think this example gets the overall point across).

*I don't think I would fall for this kind of scheme, but you never know if it was in a more complex form.
From what I understand, you concur that tspacepilot was due n from TF/coinchat (with the possibility of n being zero), but instead received n + x (with x being a positive integer).

Another way to put this is that tspacepilot received x amount of money in error. The best (and most professional) way to resolve this would for him to have said, "I was due n + x in exchange for goods/services and here is the documentation that I delivered my end of the bargain", although in the US defendants are not required to present a defense. Another potential defense would have been something along the lines of "I was due n + x, but I don't have any evidence to back this up", this would essentially result in a push and the "tie" would go to the defendant (tspacepilot).

There is precent to calling someone a scammer when they receive money they should not have received. A very notable/high profile example of this is KingOfSports (aka KoS). The tl;dr version of what happened with KoS is that someone agreed to lend him 2BTC to place a bet at a sports book, the lender sent the loan to an incorrect address (that a- KoS has confirmed as controlling, and b- is/was strongly associated with KoS), then when the mistake was pointed out, KoS asked the lender to send an additional 2BTC to his deposit address of the sports book. KoS only ended up repaying 2BTC and claiming the other 2BTC was a tip/donation.....KoS eventually acknowledged receiving this additional 2BTC but claimed he (automatically) cashed it out to fiat, ended up in the hospital immediately after the BTC was cashed out until after the price of BTC shot up. KoS has not repaid the 2nd 2BTC, although he has offered to repay the fiat value of what he received (but has not followed through on).

When I look at his trust score using my trust list, I see a trust score of -1024: -10 / +0, and when I view it from an account using the default trust settings, I see -128: -7 / +0. Either way, very deep into scam territory.

There are other examples of this being a scam as well:

After acting as escrow, Kluge, accidentally sent ~3BTC to deeznutz, requested the money back, but never received any kind of a response.

Also, somewhat similarly (although, there are more differences between this case, and tspacepilot), segvec directed someone to send ~17BTC to an "incorrect" address because of a "copy/paste error" and never ended up returning the money that he caused to be lost.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3272489
See above

This. Exactly, thank you vod.

Because:

!. QS has very fucked up multiple personality disorder, obvious as fck.

2. QS has vendettas against people who out out his alts. Plain as fck.

3. QS Can't ever fess up to errors. Or disputes. Has to double-down x2, using alts, forevermore.  

4. Has proven to be unworthy of being on DT, yet TC says: 1. Thinks that TSP's rating is wrong, but 2. Thinks its right,... because... well, Quickseller.  

This forum is corrupt as fuck, and you all just proved it tonight, congrats.

 

This case is the opposite. There is no reason for the trust rating other than the trade.


Then that doesn't apply in this case either. My trust rating of him is very explicit. It says:

  "I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems."

I'm not suggesting that I'm basing my rating on a long history of successful trades. I explicitly state that it's based on a single loan of 1 BTC worth of CLAM.


Nobody's claiming that tsp didn't receive more than TF wanted to pay him. That much is clear. What is being disputed is whether tsp is "a scammer".

As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money.  tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done. I'm sure you've heard this version of events many times yet you continue your attempt to paint tsp as a scammer. Why is that?

At the time of the original dispute TF was somewhat reputable, although my rating is based on tspacepilot's words, and to a lesser extent, on the words of Blazr (who is someone who I very much trust). However as I said in my previous post, I can confirm that tspacepilot received money that he knows was not intended for him based solely on tspacepilot's words.

Based on the overall facts, I think that both the .2 and .5 BTC amounts would be reasonable amounts to believe that tspacepilot received that he should not have received. Although both of these amounts require TF's words to be somewhat believed (although the conclusion that tspacepilot received money he shouldn't have is not based on TF's words). If I really wanted to, then I could look at the blockchain closely to get a more solid figure that tspacepilot received, however I don't see any real point to this as tspacepilot has previously indicated that he has zero interest in repaying what is not rightfully his.

I would hope that you agree that the amount of money stolen should not matter when deciding if someone is a scammer or not. If someone stole a penny or a million dollars, they would equally be deserving of a negative rating (although someone who stole larger amounts should probably never have a negative rating removed....depending on the circumstances...while someone who repaid the single stolen penny should have the negative removed).

I would argue that unless tspacepilot were to come out and say that he received x amount of bitcoin, and can document that he sold some kind of goods/services to TF/coinchat for that same amount of bitcoin, then his situation is almost exactly the same as that of KoS (KoS received money that he should not have and refused to repay it).

I would say the primary difference between tspacepilot and KoS is that tspacepilot is only trolling me (although he has recently extended his trolling to panthers), while KoS trolls a much larger audience. (the person who KoS stole from is also not a scammer, however I don't think who was stolen from makes a difference)

TF is a thief and a liar.  He would backstab his mother to get a bitcoin.  If your negative trust is based on anything TF, I would naturally urge you to reconsider it.   

I would read that as him cashing out more then what he should have. His quote implies that he was sent some amount of money in error (and has refused to return it).

tspacepilot admitted to being given an amount that was claimed he needed to repay:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3250689

There is precedent for people to be labeled as scammers when they receive money in error.....KoS comes to mind when describing this kind of situation. Although both situations are BS (IMO), I would personally buy KoS's explanation (that the received BTC was a "tip" for busting scams -- and that he cashed out of the BTC in error, ended up in the hospital almost right after receiving he BTC, then the price skyrocketed, and "offered" to repay the fiat value), then tspacepilots explications (that what happened at coinchat has nothing to do with bitcointalk.org marketplace trust).

I don't read that as he received money he should not have.  I read that as he received more than the site owner wanted him to.  You could say the same about any gambling site - that doesn't mean the person cheated or scammed.

There are no rules regarding when you can and cannot give trust (neither positive nor negative), only generally community accepted guidelines.

In the past reputation loans (which there has not been an explanation as to why the loan was given other then so tspacepilot can prove he will repay) has been something the community does not appreciate and others have received negative trust for both giving and receiving such reputation loans. The reason for this is that there is no reason for the trade other then for the trust rating. This causes their trust rating to reflect that they have had more of a history of trading honestly then is true because they would have one trust rating and zero honest trades (and no receiving money and then instantly giving it back is not an actual trade).

To respond to your implication that my rating is based on hearsay, as I mentioned several times in the past, my rating is based solely on what tspacepilot said, and what my understanding of the rules of coinchat are/were. However I really did not even need to rely on the former because tspacepilot admitted to receiving money that he knew (at the very least after the fact) did not belong to him:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3252748 (he locked/censored the thread, so I cannot use the "quote" feature of the forum)


I don't see how it could be any more clear that he received money that he should not have......would a signed confession be enough? How about an admission in open court?

@Coinonomous, you might want to post your thoughts about QS' escrow procedures over here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12336733

I fully agree.

This is for QS, not you guys above.

Hey QS - You need to learn when to fold your hand and be an actual honest person/man. WTF. You are Panthers52. I know this, and so do you. Give it up already, you are just making yourself look immensely ridiculous at this point.

I may be a newbie, but I'm really not. You can go ahead and mark me as a scammer or "possible alt of "insertnamehere" if you like, it will only make you look stupider than you think we all are, and just further illustrate my point that you should not be on DT anymore - you have abused your powers and caused a shit-ton of stupid drama for yourself. 

Just do the right thing already. Own up to your errors, admit Panthers is your alt, make TSP's trust neutral, perhaps actually listen to dooglus, instead of attacking him for being honest, and start owning your own messes you create by trying to be the forum's top "policeman". Have you ever heard the quote, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"?  Apparently not, as you are too hot-headed to admit any mistakes that I can see, which is sadly ironic, considering that is also another of all your alt's "common traits". 

I see you are really mad at TSP now. You let your emotions control your actions, and now you are angry that TSP has proven you that panthers is your alt. (It's pretty f'in clear to me as well - you both sign every BTC address and both write pretty much the same way) - I'll even leave out the part about where you both reside, because you know that as well. 

And because I know you are just going to accuse me of being TSP's alt, I'm absolutely not, nor anyone else in this matter or thread, just an honest trader and former customer of yours who has been following this silly drama for a while now, however, I will never do any type of business with you again, because I now think you are just a disgrace to the forum due to all your multiple-personality shenanigans.

BTW, I think you are full of shit about being banned for 3 days, if not please prove it.

Regards,
Coinonomous

You are thinking in a correct way, the banned users don't have the right to post in the forum (but only to ask about their ban). Now I don't know if Quickseller was really banned....

Fantastic (and correct) sentence, this is the proper function of the trust system.

I made the loan to see whether he would pay it back, not to give him positive trust. If he hadn't paid it back I would have given him negative trust.


I'm not aware that it is against the rules to test people's trustworthiness. But I don't think I've ever seen a list of rules, so maybe it is. That would seem like a strange rule though. It seems to me that it is better to give ratings based on evidence than on heresay, which is what I did.

Well honestly now i kind of think the topic should be about quickseller and wether or not he should recieve negative trust if that is really his account, the last time he said the same about acctseller, that it was not him but he finally had to admit it, we will see this time