Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:24:52 PM

Posting an address is not the same as using it. Anyone can post it, only the real owner can sign a message from it. You can't link accounts based on an address they post, anyone can post an address I've posted, but that doesn't mean they're my alts.

Well, that's true, but you can't really expect us to have signed messages from the same address from a bunch of bounty abusers. After all, posting the same address and/or the same social media profiles in bounty campaigns has mostly been enough evidence for finding alt accounts and busting bounty abusers in the "Known Alts..." thread for years. There are always exceptions, of course, like this one. But I think that's rare.

Here's another point of view:

Quote from: Xal0lex on January 23, 2022, 07:36:04 PM

It's simple. If two or more accounts have the same information (cryptocurrency addresses, email, twitter, telegram, etc.), the banned account is checked first for matching information. If the banned account has the above information mentioned later than the non-banned accounts, then ban evasion is not considered. This is done to avoid mistakes.

As I understand it, the moderators consider that using a matching element (in this case an ETH address) is enough evidence to prove ban evading (depending on who posted first).

Quote from: _BlackStar on Today at 04:36:18 PM

My advice to LoyceV and also Tryninja, the scam addresses used by the 4 accounts above should be removed from the archive.

I won't do that. My posts archive simply archives what has been posted. The posts in question still exists anyway. In cases when there is doubt about who posted what, my archive should be complete and accurate. Interpretation of the data is up to whoever looks at it.
[/quote]

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:24:52 PM

A better solution is to only use solid evidence when linking accounts.

I agree. There is no doubt that it is better to have a solid evidence or more than one piece of evidence that complement each other. That's why I always like to use matching elements in posts as a basis for deeper analysis (registration date, forum activity, token transactions, etc.) before making a decision. I don't recall ever having a false positive, and in case that ever happens, I will always re-examine all the evidence. Your and Tryninja's tools are a huge help and I agree that the posts in the archives should remain as they are, as true to the original as possible.