Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk IV (2022 Q2) [MODERATED]
⭐ Merited by ETFbitcoin (1) ,examplens (1) ,Awaklara (1) ,Pandu Geddon (1) ,YOSHIE (1) ,lovesmayfamilis (1) ,FatFork (1) ,NeuroticFish (1) ,joeperry (1) ,BTC_Mouse (1) ,Apocollapse (1) ,LogitechMouse (1) ,DdmrDdmr (1) ,DireWolfM14 (1)
Known Alts of any-one - A user Generated List Mk IV
Moderated read the fine print! - still hunting scammers and their alts.
Moderated read the fine print! - still hunting scammers and their alts.
Submission Form for posting:
Anyone who would like to post their finds in this thread are to use this form:
Code:
[b][color=brown]n Accounts Connected:[/color] (Note: Banned shown in [color=red]red[/color] / Inactive in [color=blue]Blue[/color] / Active [url=https://bitcointalk.org/]profile (in ordinary link colour)[/url])[/b]
(Where possible put UID's in numerical order keeping these UID's on the one line) [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], (and so on).
[b][color=#0a80b1]Proof:[/color][/b]
(your proof - Please provide substantial proof that the accounts you listed are owned by one and the same person. Either explain the connection here or link to the explanation.) Ensure you use an archive service such as https://archive.today/ or https://web.archive.org/ to capture a permanent record of the proof.
[b][color=#0a80b1]Reporting:[/color][/b]
These alts have been reported by me in the [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094661.0]"[Report] Ban Evasion [Requesting Admin/mod to check those and ban]"[/url] thread for ban evasion - Yes / No / Not applicable.
I have marked these user's trust feedback pages with [b][color=red]distrust[/color] / neutral[/b] / no feedback.
[b][color=teal]Related Addresses:[/color][/b]
(any BitCoin (or other alt coins) that connect the UID's - can include such things as Twitter accounts or other Social Media Accounts - List any addresses you have seen the person use. Best: One address per line. Also, use [code ] and [/code ] please.
[i]Miscellaneous:[/i]
Any other comments you may have belong here.
(Where possible put UID's in numerical order keeping these UID's on the one line) [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], (and so on).
[b][color=#0a80b1]Proof:[/color][/b]
(your proof - Please provide substantial proof that the accounts you listed are owned by one and the same person. Either explain the connection here or link to the explanation.) Ensure you use an archive service such as https://archive.today/ or https://web.archive.org/ to capture a permanent record of the proof.
[b][color=#0a80b1]Reporting:[/color][/b]
These alts have been reported by me in the [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094661.0]"[Report] Ban Evasion [Requesting Admin/mod to check those and ban]"[/url] thread for ban evasion - Yes / No / Not applicable.
I have marked these user's trust feedback pages with [b][color=red]distrust[/color] / neutral[/b] / no feedback.
[b][color=teal]Related Addresses:[/color][/b]
(any BitCoin (or other alt coins) that connect the UID's - can include such things as Twitter accounts or other Social Media Accounts - List any addresses you have seen the person use. Best: One address per line. Also, use [code ] and [/code ] please.
[i]Miscellaneous:[/i]
Any other comments you may have belong here.
[User Generated Mk III] - Known alts of anyone Mk III + Mk II + Mk I
Jump to: Submission Form | Known Alts thread Mk II Mk I | BCT PGP/GPG Public Key Database | Resources | Additional Resources | Google Spread Sheet (read only) | Level of awesomeness | Hall of Shame | History of thread | Trust Survey | Donations | BCT Threads: Scam Accusations, Reputation, Currency Exchange | Mk III
| Last Updated 1st August 2020 The Fine Print - i.e. READ THIS!
Quote
I do however, feel there should be some ground rules so that there are no misunderstandings about which posts are going to be deleted through moderation. (Hopefully these ground rules will address @holydarkness ' concerns)
- No "Newbie" or, "Junior Member" can post an investigation in this thread. They can however post a link (once) to a thread in the reputation section where their investigations can be investigated and analised.
- The only way in which a newbie, or Jr Member can post is if they are appealing NEGATIVE trust being left on their trust feedback page. (If the post is neutral, then their appeal *may* be deleted)
- Any user of any rank who quotes an entire post then makes a one line comment in response (usually "it wasn't me!" or similar) will have their post deleted.
Trim a quote e.g.Quote from: (name of investigator)... - Two UID's being uncovered as alts does not justify either, or both receiving negative trust feedback. Unless, of course they have done something such as claiming from the same campaign which is frowned upon by most users here.
- There needs to be a minimum standard of "proof" connecting two or more UID's - e.g.
- multiple alts claiming from the same campaign. In saying this, there have been instances of brand new/newbies using the details of another user to join a campaign. This may be a case of the newbie copying another users work. In this case, that does not warrant a negative.
- multiple users waking up on the same date
- If you merit an investigation, you are asserting that you have verified the contents of the other person's investigation to be correct.
- You cannot post an investigation via an alt, known, suspected, or not known now, but uncovered at a later date. i.e. choose just one UID you are going to post investigation from. I'm not sure what action I'll take, but it may involve one, or all alts posts being deleted.
- If you leave negative trust feedback with a link to a post in this thread, you agree to remove (or change to neutral) any trust feedback found to be incorrect and agree to either remove, or modify with updated information to correct your mistake of a post in this thread in a timely manor. Should you leave negative trust feedback, or incorrect information in this thread after multiple requests to have that information removed, the post may be deleted, and you may be temp-banned.
- Teletalk.org is banned from posting for twelve months from the date of the first post in the Mk IV thread.
- can proof of blockchain transactions or merit exchanges strengthen the evidence we provide?
Absolutely!
Merit exchanging (or even one way merits), Default Trust (again, either mutual or one way) as well as DT trust, or trust feedbacks occurring in the same 24 hour period (or week in the case of default trust) are all hall marks of alts being used to build up one or more profiles. An example of this can be seen in my thread: [Investigation] Four users who distrust pooya87, ndnh, aliashraf,gembitz etc
Other examples include registration, or last active dates, posting one after the other in threads (usually attempting to join campaigns) - even spelling and turns of phrases can be markers of alts/connections.
Above all actual use of the same wallets, or wallet addresses not just once but on multiple occasions are solid indicators of two or more UID's being alts.
BUT...
Just because alts use the same wallets/wallet addresses/social media accounts doesn't in itself prove anything unto-wards - like most others, I will mark alts trust feedback page with neutral trust feed back to advise others.
OTOH, two UID's applying for the same bounty / signature campaigns using the same wallet address (or in some instances sending funds from two seemingly separate wallet addresses to the same wallet address) are proof of ulterior intentions and most investigators will mark these UID's with negative trust feedback. - How do people feel about these guidelines?
I have no objections at all. All of these guidelines are already incorporated into my investigative practices by default. I also do not see any drawback in the guidelines. The only thing I would add is a suggestion that prior to publishing a new report, one should first search existing reports to avoid duplicates.
I couldn't agree more and this comes back to two points I make time and again. Firstly investigators should thoroughly investigate a UID for things such as social media profiles and wallet addresses - anything that can give away clues of other alts *including* checking trust feedback both trusted and untrusted. Which leads me straight into:
Secondly, I keep saying that in investigator should mark an alt with neutral or negative trust feedback that way later investigators can see at a glance that a previous investigation has occurred instead of relying on others to do the marking, or appealing to DT to place a neutral/negative on UID's. Do it yourself!