Pages:
Author

Topic: Why does a purchased account farm all have Lauda on their trust list? lauda alts - page 3. (Read 1181 times)

copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
Objectively, I have always tried to follow this when linking any suspicious account-to-account activity:

If A does something that links it to B (in any way whatsoever) then this is an A-->B linkage. This means that B-/->A but A-->B. Any negative reputation associated with B can be transferrable to A but not vice versa.
Only when we have the same linkage originating from B can we safely say there is an A<-->B linkage.

This has been my protocol for the Known alts thread (as I have advocated in the past), though I know that some do not tend to dabble with this. Enacting this procedure would, however, prevent any foul play and false positives (though can miss the mark for some alts).
After all, if 5 accounts all used someone's address—for example, theymos—for some giveaway, you wouldn't link theymos to those accounts, would you? On the other hand, if 5 accounts all used a scammer's address for a giveaway, then it becomes suspicious and you would trust those accounts less. However, you would still not link the scammer to those accounts.
There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Oh look, another allegation with two pages of no proof.

I wonder who is the esteemed detective... never mind.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
Objectively, I have always tried to follow this when linking any suspicious account-to-account activity:

If A does something that links it to B (in any way whatsoever) then this is an A-->B linkage. This means that B-/->A but A-->B. Any negative reputation associated with B can be transferrable to A but not vice versa.
Only when we have the same linkage originating from B can we safely say there is an A<-->B linkage.

This has been my protocol for the Known alts thread (as I have advocated in the past), though I know that some do not tend to dabble with this. Enacting this procedure would, however, prevent any foul play and false positives (though can miss the mark for some alts).
After all, if 5 accounts all used someone's address—for example, theymos—for some giveaway, you wouldn't link theymos to those accounts, would you? On the other hand, if 5 accounts all used a scammer's address for a giveaway, then it becomes suspicious and you would trust those accounts less. However, you would still not link the scammer to those accounts.
copper member
Activity: 630
Merit: 2614
If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!
A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?
Definitely busted. Embarrassed /s

Now that you have confessed to putting the alt voices in Quickseller’s head, it is time for you to BURN.

Loading...


I emphasize:  So, a known account dealer with expertise in alt accounts has conveniently alleged that some mysterious alt accounts added Lauda to their trust lists.  ’Tis a mystery how that happened, if it happened at all.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?
Definitely busted. Embarrassed /s
copper member
Activity: 630
Merit: 2614
If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!
While reviewing those who have the extrotionist lauda

What a fair and even-handed beginning.  Shows good faith (and good orthography).  And surely, the judiciousness of this post will only improve.

A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).

My trust list currently contains (exactly) the following two entries.  Do you wish to suggest that gmaxwell could potentially hold some responsibility for my putting him there?  (Other than by demonstrating great evidence of trustworthiness, that is to say.)

Code:
gmaxwell
~OgNasty

What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.

Considering this in the hypothetical, that would be a most excellent means for somebody with a long-term vendetta to try to set Lauda up in public as having done something fishy.

I say “considering this in the hypothetical”, because you don’t seem to have bothered with identifying these alleged accounts—much less with providing evidence that they be alts.

I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.

Again, taking this hypothetically:  Perhaps nobody brought those accounts plus appropriate evidence to Lauda’s attention.

I see you have done nothing to correct this deficiency.

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

So?


So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.
I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.

[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.

It’s what he does.  It’s all he does.



A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
I also received the below PM from someone asking to buy accounts from me:
you have accs for sale ?
This guy has received trust regarding claimed successful accounts deals.

It is interesting to see these kinds of messages so soon after opening this thread Wink
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1808
Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do
SO QS farmed some more accounts and has tried to stitch up lauda? bravo retard...
sr. member
Activity: 686
Merit: 320
I recently read a post by someone that said they had bought an account. And yet I think that same person is one that gives to negative trust for others doing it. At the very least, I suspect those that do hand out negative trust for that sort of thing didn't give them any since that person is one of the "in" crowd. Didn't care enough to really look into more but it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. The hypocrisy amongst some people on this forum is astounding. Guess it shouldn't surprise me since it's just a forum and people seem to think it doesn't really matter.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

Haha. I wonder where this leads to. I hope the supposed evidence will be released soon, I would love to see it. For now, just gonna follow the thread.  Cheesy Cheesy
I want to confirm lauda's response first.

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.
jr. member
Activity: 92
Merit: 2
Good question. Or is it?
I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.
I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.
I am going to take your post as a refusal to answer my questions...

It is very interesting to see you not answer questions about asking people and/or giving incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

Sorry QS, I hadn't minded what the question was. I was too happy to see that the drama was back. Don't know if this was the evidence you're referring to from the last thread. It would be nicer if it's more detailed.

I am just a fan, here. Don't mind me.  Wink

jr. member
Activity: 92
Merit: 2
I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

Haha. I wonder where this leads to. I hope the supposed evidence will be released soon, I would love to see it. For now, just gonna follow the thread.  Cheesy Cheesy
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
Good question. Or is it?
I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.
I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.
I am going to take your post as a refusal to answer my questions...

It is very interesting to see you not answer questions about asking people and/or giving incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.
jr. member
Activity: 92
Merit: 2
The drama is back. I have missed this. LOL  Cheesy

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
Good question. Or is it?
I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Good question. Or is it?

I don't look at the trust dump (aside from when you brought it up very recently),
DeepOnion shills, where both of accounts of their *trust master* got tagged. Thus, the army went to exclude me not that that actually did anything.
Hmmm, these statements seem to contradict each-other Roll Eyes
I'm starting to think you are not just acting stupid, but are in fact quite stupid. You don't even understand what you're quoting. It literally says I looked at it when you brought it up (i.e. at exclusions) as an exception to the first part of the sentence.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
I don't look at the trust dump (aside from when you brought it up very recently),
DeepOnion shills, where both of accounts of their *trust master* got tagged. Thus, the army went to exclude me not that that actually did anything.
Hmmm, these statements seem to contradict each-other Roll Eyes
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.
I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.

[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.
Maybe I should rephrase my question, have you ever lobbied (or otherwise incentivized) anyone to add you to their trust list? This would include lobbying anyone with a farm of accounts to add you to their trust list.

Or maybe I should ask another question.....do any of your alts, past and/or present, have you on your trust list?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.
I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.

[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.
Pages:
Jump to: