Quote from: 1miau on June 29, 2019, 01:03:24 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 28, 2019, 05:04:19 PM

There you have it then.

You can NOT flag or red trust account sellers who offer their accounts for sale. Because a year later that account may just post this account is no longer for sale and tell you it never sold.

Or accounts sellers can just tell the new users to post that message and job done.... no red trust.

Looks like you are only here to ruin other people's reputation. Start getting useful for the forum, provide some high quality content about BTC or just stop posting here. Your shitposts are constantly the same accusations repeated over and over again.

You are not only damaging the users here, you are damaging the forum as a whole.

You seem to have RUN AWAY from our last challenge? go back and complete it. At this time it is clear you are unable to refute the observable instances in the hhampuz thread. Making your trust abuse look like you are trying to help cover up wrong doing by your friends.
You are looking untrustworthy.

You can not claim it is unfair to present observable instances of clear wrongdoing because it spoils the persons reputation LOL

Who put you on DT you ignorant pleb? looks like a terrible selection.

Therefore us presenting observable instances that are independently verifiable and asking for hhampuz to say if he KNEW about this and STILL decided to employ them is in NO WAY untrustworthy. Are you clear moron?

NOW we see you ran away from that thread without answering those challenges to demonstrate the observable events never took place , you come here.

What do we see you doing here on this thread?

AGAIN you are trying to claim that observable instances of nutildah stating HE HIMSELF believes it is EVIL to sell your account and that HE HIMSELF believes it facilitates SCAMMING.... NOW later decides he will willingly be EVIL and FACILITATE SCAMMING for 0.3btc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

You are AGAIN here claiming that this is all just an "accusation" and that it is unfairly damaging his reputation and that we are damaging the board by presenting observable instances of clear wrong doing?

LOL and you are a DT? wtf are you doing on DT? image all those others facilitating scams willingly or even scamming that may have their reputations damaged if you bring it up LOL

Get this idiot off of DT at once.

Scammers and those willing to facilitate scamming for 0.3BTC spoil their OWN reputations.

You seem to have NO ISSUE trying to ruin our reputation for simply presenting observable instances you seem to want to remain HIDDEN?? by trust abusing our account. Now you will sadly be reminded of this observable instance whenever we choose.

@bob123

Quote from: bob123 on June 29, 2019, 12:46:31 PM

That's nonsense.

I will continue tagging account seller and their accounts.

However, if an account shows to be trustworthy after the potential sale (which nutildah's definitely is), there is no reason to start actions against it.

It might have been traded or not. The person who owns this account since the listing has shown to be trustworthy.

This kind of logic does not work out. It simply puts you and nutildah in an trap from which there is no escape.

The only TRUE part of your post is that YES nobody knows if the sale went through really or not. This does not matter though.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

1. The sale did NOT go through so the original account holder is Nutildah. Sadly nutildah though by his own words has demonstrated that he WILL act EVIL and WILL facilitate scamming willingly for 0.3 BTC = Very untrustworthy direct financial implications.

or

2. The account sale DID go through. So now we have an UNKNOWN actor going around with a legend badge asking for 0.02btc loans. Who knows what the threshold is for pulling a scam? Perhaps not that high.
The problem is for scenario 2 - It is claiming it IS THE ORIGINAL NUTILDAH. = If want to accept scenario 2 you MUST ACCEPT THIS IS AN UNDENIABLE LIE. You can not have it BOTH WAYS. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

You see the trap is there. There is no getting out of it. Either way it is impossible to claim this person is trustworthy. IT is not possible to deny this.

We can not PROVE it IS or it is NOT nutildah. That would be impossible. However either scenario 1 or scenario 2 both = UNTRUSTWORTHY.

You method also fails ALL other account sellers. You must wait for them to demonstrate they are UNTRUSTWORTHY to be treating each member equally. Either that or you will need to in a few months REVIEW ALL accounts and see if they have acted in a trustworthy manner and remove your red. Also you would need a very rigid definition of what Trustworthy is to be applied equally to all accounts.

You can not just adapt the rules as you go along. OR if you do then all members should be treated in the same way and given the same opportunities.