Quote from: ABitNut on April 21, 2015, 06:09:48 AM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on April 21, 2015, 03:51:33 AM

Quote from: ABitNut on April 21, 2015, 03:38:27 AM

Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.

1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time

Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.

It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention.

- 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list.
- tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots.
- TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback.
- TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback.
- Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour.
- Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour.

Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified.

Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign Wink

Again, it's just my opinion.

Well you may think that the OP has been around since late 2013 with no issues, however as you can see, he refuses to admit to scamming TF even after evidence has been presented to the contrary. As you saw on the 2013 thread, he tried to weasel his way out of him being labeled a scammer despite the fact that he clearly did steal. Now he is even going as far as saying that he did not admit to using the bot to illegally receive bitcoin previously when it is clear that he did. If he did scam someone and they did not take very careful notes and document everything perfectly then the OP would simply deny the claims and it would look frivolous. When people act like this, there is a significantly higher reason to call them out (and warn people) about any past transgressions he has done in the past as he has likely learned his lesson as to how to not act if he doesn't want to get caught.

I see little reason to avoid withholding this proof that sed is an alt of the OP since the OP is refusing to deny the fact sed is not controlled/owned by him.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 21, 2015, 03:26:45 AM

tspacepilot posted the address 1PtuuKPwm9nmmFEyvnJBsqfjn51uHjTqda a number of places including here(archive). If you look at the blockchain then you will see that both the above address and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU both signed a number of transactions together, including 589c08b659c1f449f501a288ff0d3579722d6a490e34f14b117e934b73eb6c64 which only had inputs from the two addresses plus one more so it is unlikely that they are exchange addresses. The sed account posted the above address, among other placed here (archive).

For further confirmation that the above addresses are not an exchange (or similar) addresses, both his vanity address 1waLNutzCh3DuwCvHcHmFgGg6vsLiWfn4 and 18z6fGQBEKwohaK66rtcnAKi817bFbwkWU signed 04e54102a0b7f8c20bc17d7d87a71c8c66b2bf09822bab83aa8c03971f7b7e54.

Also, incase you think it is something they would get banned over, he was replying to himself several times, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 several times over the last few months, while both accounts were enrolled in dadice. This was only from a review of sed's post history, there would likely be more revealed if you were to look at tspacepilot's history. here is another one.

Also for reference, here is one example of when he was highly critical of the paid advertisement in the overview of bitcointalk signature campaigns thread, of which I was a frequent bidder/advertiser. And here is where he was socking via tspacepilot to argue for the removal of the advertisement.

p.s. - one other thing, sed's shill rating is >249