Topic: Wardrick account hacked---trust abuse resolution in sight (finally) - page 12. (Read 25345 times)

Well, depends on interpretation. You can be excused of breaking the rule thrice.

Reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657



But, there is a disclaimer: (this is probably the only thing that defends your case)

My interpretation is the rule was created so that a banned user cannot do anything, but still retain the right to question the reason of the ban, etc. and discuss it, etc. That would mean you shouldn't have posted those 3 posts, esp. the scam accusation ones, unless may be you have clarified it already with mods or admins?

I think we can put to bed any question of whether Panthers52 is QS's alt.  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12330041

Now, lets get back on topic here, QS, please go ahead and return to your main account.

I have no reason to suspect tsp of being a scammer, and so didn't feel any need to freeze his funds.


I posted a screenshot of my tip to him here.


I think a valid question is a valid question whoever asks it. But it's hard sometimes to pull valid questions from the surrounding noise.


I don't know.

Hmm I just got some "proofs" that panther is probably quickseller here,  or vice-versa, I was following up a thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169865.0;topicseen .
Panther seems to be replying quite often here, and quickseller as his personal message claims is off the forum until saturday. But I just noticed quickseller gave a negative rep. to paypalbusters regarding the transaction. And quickseller is highly coincidentally agreeing with everything panther is saying.
And lastly QS hasn't actually replied in the thread, which he seems to do often during his scam-busting. Not against QS or anything but seems like the statement tsp is making here is quite grave, if true.

It's clearly relevant and highly ironic because the main thing you seem to be doing with this sockpuppet is claiming that I did sockpuppetry.  But this is a claim that your main account, Quickseller, tried to diverge us into about 5 months ago when people were asking you why you were going after me.  When you couldn't reply to these questions, you started grasping at other things to try to keep pressure from turning to you.  Now you're going back to that same strategy but using an alt to do it.   Yes, it's relevant that you're not using your main account for this.

Here's what's surprising, it seems like you've been using this sockpuppet account to create trades where you're both a buyer/seller and an escrow.  I'm not a trader but I would think that many who are would be quite disappointed to find out you were doing this.  At this point, you're risking your entire business here on the forums, not to mention any "scambuster" cred you have left just to try to smear me because you think I incorrectly withdrew some dust from coinchat 3 years ago.

I knew you were up to shady stuff long ago when you flipped out on me and tried to smear me.  I had no idea that this would culminate in exposing your own escrow scam.  Yikes!

The question of me being a sockpuppet is nothing more than a distraction from the points I am making.

My concern is that TSP was using a sockpuppet for 3+ months (and using his TSP account to agree with his sockpuppet) to harass staff member Mitchell because what I believe was over Mitchell's argument that TSP was in fact a scammer when $username initially left a negative on TSP.

TSP has still refused to address this issue, and instead decided to start a flame war based on zero evidence and nothing more then speculation.

You (like QS) keep bringing up unrelated points. I've no idea what the cardboard box in hotel room is relating to, but you're clearly trolling. Can you try to stick to the matter at hand?

Re. PistolPete, I'm not going to add someone I've never heard of to "level 2".

Did I miss any questions that need answering? I skipped a bunch of your long-winded post.

I have no reason to use any sockpuppet account. If I have something to say then I say it. If i am afraid it will harm my ability to conduct business then I will keep my mouth shut. I have no idea how else to answer this question.

A lot of users who use sockpuppet accounts are just scammers who make themselves look to be trusted when their intention is to pull off a larger con. When I trade, I always assume the person I am dealing with wants to use escrow, but often times they decline escrow and offer to send first. This fact baffles me, but this is not something for me to question as long as I am protected in a trade.

Obviously you are Panthers52.  We all are who we post as.

What he may be asking (I am not him) is do you have any other accounts on this forum that you use regularly?

I answered your question directly. I am Panthers52, and that is who I am. I am unsure how else to put it. As I mentioned in my last post, I did not state any opinions when I first posted in this thread, I showed support for no one. I did nothing other then ask questions. How could that possibly be dishonest?

You have not addressed the majority (any) of my legitimate concerns in my previous post. You have not addressed PistolPete's concerns about giving a reputation loan. You have not complied with PistolPete's request to add him to level 2 so he can give you a negative rating.

I believe you should in no way be trusted after giving a reputation loan. Someone who engages in the practice of giving reputation loan should absolutely not be trusted enough to be in Level 1 Default Trust.

It always surprised me how revered you are. Yes, we all heard the stories about how Dooglus sat on a cardboard box in his hotel room, while sending back the investor funds one by one on his laptop, with the feds closed him on in. Your his entire reputation seems to have been derived from that, where everyone conveniently forgets that you simply couldn't have disappeared with that bag of Bitcoins. Your dox is available on 8 pages of the first page of google SERPS searching for "dooglus"

You're refusing to answer my question?

Using a sockpuppet account to try to make it look like someone other than you supports your crusade against tsp seems dishonest to me.


I am more than happy to answer your question. I am not tsp. I have no other accounts on this site, other than one called "Just-Dice" or "Just Dice Support" or some such, which I created a couple of years ago but decided against using.

Edit: I found it. This is "his" only post:

@dooglus - both you and TSP are the only one's in this thread claiming that I am QS. You are not the same person as TSP are you?

Who says he did not do this? TSP has ~200 posts when he was caught, and posted almost exclusively from his TSP account for a while in the thread of him trying to get $username to remove his trust rating. I do not have exact dates when $username was removed from Default Trust, I do believe that there is a good chance that TSP mostly abandoned his TSP account (with the exception of trying to get his rating removed), then by the time $username's ratings no longer showed up by default, he started using his TSP account again.  

I think it would be reasonable to say TSP started a new account then resumed with his TSP account once his rating was neutral again.
I think you are just repeating what i am saying here.
If you usually freeze funds until you investigate scams, then why would TSP expect anything other then you to freeze his account until you investigate if he has repaid you or not

I did not ask you anything of the sort. I don't see any suggestion by QS for you to give a reputation loan either. All I see is QS asking if you would trust TSP with various amounts of money when conducting a trade. I did not see QS say anything about conducting trades conducted for the sole purpose to build reputation/trust.

I have also yet to see any evidence that TSP had actually received the loan that you both have claimed that was made, only that it was repaid

It might be one thing if you gave a rating saying that you disagree with QS's opinion, but a completely different thing to say that you trusted him with 1 BTC for no reason other then for a trust rating. Are you willing to cover any losses that someone else will incur when he scams in the future?
I am Panthers52. I don't see the point to your question. Does me being QS (if true) make any of my points any less valid? I intentionally did not initially give any opinions in this thread out of fear of being flamed (I did give my opinion after being flamed by TSP), and I only asked questions that were previously ignored. Do you think my questions should continue to be ignored regardless of who I am or am not?

Almost everyone in this thread was accused of being $username that (correctly) agreed that TSP is a scammer. It appears that TSP's ways have not changed in this thread. Does this have anything to do with the number of people opposing TSP in this thread?
Where did I see the loan payment? How much time exactly was between the loan payment and the repayment? Did TSP do anything with the money between the time he received the loan and when he repaid it, or did it just sit in his account?

OK, so if that's what he was up to he would have changed identity once he was caught, and made a new one.

If someone thinks they can hide their identity being associated with a scam they will pull off, then the threshold for how much money they would need to be able to take given the chance to scam will be less then if your identity would be clearly associated with a scam.


He never complained. He understood that I had frozen his funds while I investigate a scam. That's quite a different case.


Your triple negative is somewhat confusing. Do I think it would be unreasonable that he would not be unable to withdraw? ie. do I think it would be unreasonable that he would have been able to withdraw? I think it would be unreasonable to leave positive feedback based on the fact that he didn't withdraw if it was impossible for him to have withdrawn, yes. In order to have evidence that somebody is trustworthy I think they need to have been given the opportunity to abuse trust, and not taken it.

You(*) asked me not long ago whether I would feel comfortable lending tsp various amounts of money. I wanted to test it. It turned out I did, and my feeling was accurate.

(*) You are QS, are you not? You write just like him and have a specific unique tell-tale 'tick' that I've never seen in anyone else. Why the continued use of sockpuppet accounts?


You saw the loan payment and the repayment. They are for the same amount. I didn't charge interest.

I am saying that the offense where which tsp had stolen money involved tsp's identity not being known at the time of the offense. From what I have reviewed, it was only until some kind of an investigation (maybe into IP evidence?) that it was discovered that tsp was the one who was stealing money via bots.

If someone thinks they can hide their identity being associated with a scam they will pull off, then the threshold for how much money they would need to be able to take given the chance to scam will be less then if your identity would be clearly associated with a scam.

You should review this thread. Scammer/troll Candystripees had created a brand new account to try to extort some amount of money from someone and clearly did not believe his "Candystripes" identity would be associated with this extortion. It was only until later, after BadBear conducted an investigation that the two were linked together. I have been told by someone who was familiar with the matter that Candystripes had tried to extort somewhere in the range of .2 BTC, and I am also aware of this thread in which Candystripes returned ~.21 BTC to someone who overpaid him.
There has been at least one instance that resulted in someone being unable to withdraw money from Just-Dice when they were in possession of money that was not rightfully theirs.

Do you really think it would be unreasonable that someone receiving a reputation loan would not have their account frozen until they repaid such loan, especially considering that there is precedent to freezing such accounts?

How much interest exactly did you earn from this loan? 

I don't understand your point. Are you saying tsp is someone's secondary identity? I've never seen him in the lending section.


He did have a choice. He could have withdrawn the money, or he could have returned it. He chose to return it.

I gave him no reason to suspect that I wouldn't honor any withdrawal request. Nobody has ever complained of being unable to withdraw from Just-Dice.

There are a good number of people who create new accounts to scam in the lending and currency exchange sections. I am not yet an expert of reading minds, but something tells me they do this to avoid having their primary identities revealed as being a scammer.

Or maybe because he knew that he had no choice except to return the money, or thought that you would not process any withdrawal request as long as he owed you money.

Kind Regards
Panthers52

@dooglus:
Indeed, I can create a screenshot showing me receiving the tip and one showing that I paid it back if anyone would like to see it.

I think the loan you offered to me has put QS' final claims to the test.  As far as I can tell, the last concrete appeal he has made regarding this rating was that I shouldn't be trusted with even the smallest amount of money.

It's pretty clear from what's happened since that now he's going into full-on distraction mode.  It makes sense that he's pulling in the alts now because his arguments against me aren't holding water and there's not really anyone who seems willing to stand up for what he's arguing for here (except perhaps panthers52, or ACCTSeller).

The unfortunate thing about this situation is that QS has blown up the matter so large that there's not really a graceful exit strategy for him.  I tried to PM over a month ago to see if we could get this sorted out more discretely but he refused to discuss it.  Clearly the right thing for him to do is to say "hey, maybe I overreacted" and to remove the negative rating, pick up what's left of his reputation, and go on with his life of "scambusting".  I sorta thought we were headed that direction when he removed one of the sockpuppet trust ratings about a week ago, but alas, he only removed one of the two and it seems he's recently pulled another account out of the closet to try to distract from the topic at hand.

QS, even the best people can be wrong.  The crucial thing is to recognize when you're wrong and go on.  I can't recognize that I'm wrong in this case because I didn't do the things you accuse me of.  I know because I was there and I remember what I did and didn't do.  And, as far as I can tell, you weren't there, so how would have any idea?  In your heart, you know how you started this and that it's time to let it go.