Quote from: BitcoinGirl.Club on Today at 12:09:17 PM

I will suggest ltcrstrbrt, GigaBit and bluedeep to do nothing. Not even to make any response in this topic.

Quote from: holydarkness on July 27, 2023, 05:58:07 PM

Ok, got interested with this one, so I popped back in once more. Maybe GigaBit need a help in refreshing their memory. Here's the two addresses you previously announced in the forum and you can sign to prove the ownership,

Quote from: GigaBit on May 30, 2015, 04:52:50 PM

[...]
15Awon4gimPkA3idF7AKXnpYSa2rPupdUX - My wallet
[...]

Quote from: GigaBit on August 22, 2015, 09:41:01 PM

GigaBit 1.89 19JTMqXFNB49cWzZ6awsafrQqxnp6vBXDc

loginsam45, you do aware that this works two way, right? You can also sign message from any of both addresses above to prove ownership of GigaBit account

It does but it doesn't have to. Tomorrow if a brand new member or even a fairly new or an enemy of yours make a post and claim that he owns holydarkness, I would not be such stupid to bother you to ask for a sign message or call you in a topic created for you to clear your name. Instead, I will ask the accuser to give enough strong evidences so that I will be sure that he is not trolling us all. Do you have any such strong back up story? I guess I don't see any yet.

Then my request is to leave these three guys alone.
[...]

Hmm... actually there is a good back up story against bluedeep, the post made by loginsam45 on post #2 signed a message from an address that's used by bluedeep in the past. I think it'll be probably in bluedeep's interest to give his side of explanation on this situation, especially regarding the address.

That said, I can agree that GigaBit and ltcrstrbrt probably doesn't have to answer by signing an address or anything yet, because loginsam45 has yet to provide ownership of them, and that there were not anything that ties both account to loginsam45 or bluedeep [of course, that's said with a fact that I am not an expert on that matter as I am not that privy] other than an accusation of merits of ltcrstrbrt, that I don't think reached a verdict, so that thread itself --IMO-- is not substantial enough. That's part of the reason why I said to loginsam45 that it works both ways, that he can, and invites him to, proves the ownerships from his side.

To answer your question about if it's me, if it's baseless and/or have nothing to back up the claim, I'll quite likely to ignore it [ermm... I think I'll be more likely to answer them sarcastically, if I have to be honest, LOL], but if they have a claim that have one or two basis, like on bluedeep's, then I think I'd like to be given a chance to defend myself. Or, if I stand on the other side of the table, that I got hacked --or what other reason loginsam45 claimed-- and I've give a proof of ownership by a signed message, I think I will appreciate if my words and statement [that I've been hacked] to be at least given a benefit of doubts, which were given to loginsam45 right now. I I thanked you for your trust in me, and that --for you-- I don't have to counter the accusation if similar scenario happened to me, though.