Quote from: bob123 on June 29, 2019, 03:09:48 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 29, 2019, 01:52:48 PM

@bob123

~snip~

None of your mentioned scenarios would imply that he is untrustworthy.

Scenario 1 does not imply the he would do 'evil' for 0.3 BTC. That is only your assumption. It is based on nothing except for the fact that he put his acc for sale for 0.3 BTC. And this was 3 years ago.

Scenario 2 does not imply this either.
Even if the account has been sold, the person who owns this account has proven to be trustworthy now.

I don't see a reason why tagging would be necessary.
I don't think it would help to prevent scam in any way. Neither would the community benefit from it all.

If he wouldn't have shown that he is trustworthy, i would agree with you. Warning others would be appropriate then.
But in this case, i don't think so.

So you read this link and also click the original links in that post and read it all back to when it all went down?

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

So you are now saying

1. You can tell everyone that it is EVIL and that they are facilitating scammers and scams and that you are even going to make your own list of account sellers to make sure these EVIL and scam facilitating members are punished.

BUT THEN you will commit these evil scam facilitating behaviors for 0.3btc and that is still TRUSTWORTHY BEHAVIOR? this is trustworthy to you??

We are not claiming to believe it is evil and facilitates scamming (although that part is likely true) NUTILDAH himself is claiming it.

2. You can claim you ARE the original nutildah when you DEFINITELY 100% NOT (because if you are not you go back to scenario 1 in that case) - and you would remain trustworthy? so telling a PROVEN LIE is trustworthy?

Are you sure you have thought about this. Have you read the links we posted and investigated those observable instances?

The trap is impossible to escape and he set it for himself.

Also perhaps best to clarify what you find trustworthy and not trustworthy at this stage before tagging further because those seem entirely independent of what would reasonably be trustworthy and not trustworthy.

I mean telling 100% proven lie would usually NOT be trustworthy.

Telling people you believe they are evil and helping scammers by acting in a certain way and then acting in that way yourself for payment again would usually NOT be trustworthy.

You need to understand the concept here that it has to be 100% proven LIE beyond doubt because if you say okay you believe him then he goes back to scenerio 1.

It is only possible that he is or he is NOT nutildah. Each side of that is waiting a certain untrustworthy action.

It is IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY.

Please review this information, think about it more and then comment. Your reply is currently OBSERVABLY incorrect.

Scenario 2 seems less dangerous for the board but still 100% proven liar, but still he wants to stick to scenario 1?