As you were aware prior to buying the account, and as I have told you numerous times I am not going to give you a refund. If you want to sell the account that is your choice, and if you choose to do so I would recommend creating a new account to do so and to not reveal specific information about the account until they have paid escrow.

There is evidence that would suggest that bayuo did in fact sell his account and is now fraudulently trying to retrieve it. I am not 100% sure as to the criteria that was used to make that conclusion, however the conclusion is accurate.

There is no evidence to support this. If this was true then why are there not more accusations of accounts being hacked?

I also find it ironic that you support the notion that the OP's account was hacked even though there is evidence to the contrary. Seems a little fishy to me. This post provides evidence to the contrary. Why would the account be hacked for three days, then bayuo only create his account the day it was sold?

See this post. It shows how I concluded that you were in control and were the owner of the account prior to purchase.

Also please stop with the big fonts, it is extremely annoying. I personally consider this SPAM (although it is not against any of the forum rules AFAIK).

Also please understand that whining on here is not going to get your account back - period. If you want the account that you sold to me back then you can work with zedicus to make this happen. It is out of my hands and I no longer have anything to do with this account. You can think what you want about me still having ownership of it, but IDC and that is what you can do.

@bayuo The new owner of the zedicus account has offered to sell his account to you for the price he paid (against my recommendation). I would suggest that you do so as this is the only way you will be able to get control of what you claim to be your former account back, and have any credibility. The negative trust that you had Lucky Cris leave the account says that you are willing "to pay current user the amount he paid for the account", you also sent me the following PM (PM#2744455) I have made no edits to the PM other then to bold the part about you offering to pay what I paid for it.
Regarding the proof that you attempted to scam me. Your account was created on Aug 13, 2014.

On Aug 10, 2014 I get a PM from you (PM# 2685227)
I respond via PM (PM#2685818)
You replay via PM (PM#2685997)
My response via PM is (PM# 2686003)
None of these PMs have been altered in any way, including the timestamps. Note how they were all dated on Aug 10, 2014 (three days prior to the bayuo account being created).

Three days later, I get another PM from the zedicus account (PM# 2703358)
My response was this PM (PM# 2703503)
He replied with this PM (PM# 2704039)
I replied with this PM (PM# 2704103)
He replied by sending this PM (PM#2704128)
I replied (PM #2704282)
I altered the above PM to remove the escrow member that I suggested we use. Some time later after payment was made to escrow I receive the following PM from him (PM#2704883)
I edited this post to remove the BTC address that he provided. The escrow provider had gone offline for some time and I eventually get the following PM (PM# 2705006) - note there were other PMs sent/received in-between this, however they would likely not affect my case one way or another.
I have edited the PM to remove the name of the escrow provider that was used. He had previously told me that the escrow had changed the password but not the email address. I suspect that bayuo PMed theymos a signed message to have his email address reset very soon after he provided the credentials to the escrow and theymos was quick to reset it, however this is speculation.

Some time later I received the following PM from the escrow (PM# 2705742)
I would not have a problem if badbear (or anyone else who had access to PMs to verify the validity of the above PMs (when [redacted] and snip was used it will not match however this should be obvious).


@TF I am confident that the opposite happened.

A more accurate representation of what he was likely trying to have happen was:
1. Sell account for well under market value knowing an account buyer would likely jump at the opportunity
2. Pretend that account was hacked
3. Once the transfer of ownership of the account is complete and payment is received from escrow or the buyer PM theymos claiming account was hacked
4. theymos resets email to the previous owners email address
5. profit!

It was signed up after. Please see above PMs showing how this was part of the original agreement.

@tomatocage - please remove the negative trust. He is not trying to conduct business with the subject account (at least nothing that has been posted in public). Your trust feedback says you wold not trust him with anything because the account is purchased. I would think that you would also not trust anyone who has not publicly conducted business on the forum/btc-otc (you would probably want either use escrow or for him to go first), however you do not give any negative trust to any of them. He does not have any meaningful positive trust that would allow others to think he is trustworthy. You may or may not believe me but I have sold a lot of accounts on here and none of them have been used to scam (none of them have received negative trust trusted or untrusted or a scam accusation that I can see - yes I check periodically). Most of them are used for signature campaigns. Hero accounts are generally sought after because of the prestige they offer, people tend to respect (but not trust) people posting from a hero account. If a person is to try to scam with a purchased account then they would need to scam at least the amount they purchased the account for, but also risk that amount as if someone thinks they are trying to scam they will get legitimate negative trust and lose their investment. Your negative trust makes his trust show as red which takes away the prestige of having a hero account. I think you should remove your negative trust.

@ABitNut your negative trust says that the account is purchased and being used on a signature campaign. I really don't think this is a reason to not trust someone. A purchased account on a signature campaign is providing advertising to the person paying for him signature. A purchased account will likely add to conversations that would likely not otherwise be had because of the incentive to contribute. I do not think this is a valid reason to give negative trust. I think you should remove the trust you left zedicus.  

@TF Your negative trust says that the original owner has offered to pay the current owner the price he paid for it. As per bayuo's above post zedicus offered to sell the account back to him at the price that he paid for it. Bayuo replied with what essentially was zero interest in trying to reach an agreement. I think you should remove the negative trust.

@zedicus - having it be suspected that an account is sold, and the account admitting to it being sold are two very different things. The selling of accounts is allowed and is within the forum rules, however many people do not like it when an account is sold, they tend to think it will automatically be used to scam. As badbear said above, this mentality is bad and will do long term harm to the community. It was already established that your account was not going to be taken from you. Like I said in the PM I sent you, I would strongly recommend that you use escrow if bayuo is going to buy the account from you as I very much do not trust him.

TL;DL - bayuo PMed me 3 days prior to selling me the zedicus account. He sold it to me with the intention of having the email reset so he could steal the BTC that I paid for it. When this did not work he went public and tried to get the upper hand to force me to sell it back to him at the price I paid for it (I declined because it would mean he would lose nothing when he failed to scam successfully). Examples of trying to get an upper hand, telling people to have stunna not payout the earnings from the signature campaign, asking mods to ban the account, trying to get people to negative trust the account.

Like I said before I am fine with any mod with PM access to verify the above quoted PMs are accurate. I am also curious to know if the email was ever changed on the zedicus account prior to it being sold, or if the email was ever reset via a signed message (I think the chances of getting an answer on this are low).

They received the advise to not allow bets to continue. They made the business decision to not stop bets as they were likely trying to avoid any downtime. I think they were hoping that allowing betting to continue and not stopping withdrawals would allow them to maintain their credibility. It was a calculated risk that did not work in their favor.

like I said they should roll back mateos bets. But a bankroll that has players betting the max a high percentage of the time will be adversely affected if one person has a little bit of good luck. I would say that not all of the 15% losses that investors sustained were from him (most probably were) but some percentage were from other legit players who had a lucky streak and stopped.

If I had to guess it is the funds they invested in the bankroll that they used to refund user's losses.

This account is probably worth no more then .005 BTC if you are able to sell it.

I am no longer buying accounts

They charge 10% commission on profits. I think it would likely have something to do with this.

Here is where you lose credibility. Logic would dictate that you either think that I am the one who hacked your account (or someone associated with someone that hacked your account) and a liar and a con or you could think that I bought your account from someone and is essentially caught in the middle of all this. It would be illogical to have doubts that I hacked your account but still am a liar and a con.

Additionally if you have any idea as to who had "hacked" your account then your beef would be with that person, not with me, nor the person who bought it from me.

The most likely scenario is that you actually did not have your account hacked at all.

@TF that kind of logic is not the logic used in the US court system and the logic does nothing to prove guilt. You are saying that because I presented evidence that points to my innocence but does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am innocent that I am therefore guilty.  

Again, loosing credibility. You previously said that you would be willing to pay me what was paid for the account, but now you say that you will not pay anything. You also had people leave trust saying that you are willing to pay me what was paid for the account. If you were lying about that then who is to say that you are not lying about having your account hacked?

Also you are doubting that I was the one who "hacked" your account but you somehow expect me to give it back to you for free. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who sees the disconnect here.

Also you are doubting the way that TF suggested the account was stolen and how to account for the PMs three days before the account was sold to me. If you have an idea as to how the account was hacked then you would have had the opportunity to stop it.

Like I said above the most likely explanation is that you did not have your account hacked, but rather sold the account to me at below market value with the intention of stealing it back from me later.

PM sent, however I am no longer buying accountsIf you want an avatar you would need to purchase an account that has an avatar as the changing of avatars is not allowed (including adding one)

Looking at all of the negative trust you have left (you have left a lot), only three mention the account being sold. The zedicus account because the account was sold is one. Goodnightcoin because he was trying to sell his account and was trying to take out multiple loans is number two. The third was a 2011 account that was trying to take out a .5 loan and you assumed it was a sold account for this reason. You also had 3-4 consecutive negative posts about people selling hacked accounts to only have the new owner regain control of the account.

All of your other negative trust was for other reasons. I think the most common reason was due to newbie+loan request, but there were a lot of "alt" of x scammer ones as well.

To relate the buying of accounts to lending (something you are involved in): if the sale of accounts was more accepted by the community, and you know how much a particular account is worth, then you can generally lend up to 1/2 of what the account is worth because they could get a lot more by selling the account vs borrowing money and running off.

See my above post. I was in contact with him over three days and no reports of the account being hacked came up. A quick review of his posts did not show him posting any BTC addresses. As per above (one of the first few posts in the thread) show him participating in a group buy however it would have been difficult to know the address was associated with the account without looking at every single thread it posted in.

The main reason that I feel like bayuo was trying to scam is because he had not posted in ~a month, then creates a new account (to recover his "hacked" account) the same day the account is sold. This would have been at least 3 days after the latest time the account could have been hacked.

From a financial standpoint yes, it worked out in their favor if you believe they were behind the "lucky whale". At this point saying that this is the case is pure speculation. Until the database can be audited (if this would happen, IDK) we really cannot say this as a fact. From a reputation standpoint it did not work in their favor.

I am curious to know how much of their own money they had invested in the site/bankroll, the estimated gains by mateo et el, and the estimated amount of money they refunded investors and victims of the nonce issue. I think this would give a better picture as to what they were able to potentially have scammed and what the ROI on their scam was. It would also paint a picture as to what their potential profit could have been if they had continued running as a legit site.

Their site is showing ~91k BTC bet (over it's lifetime?), this would have an EV of ~910 BTC profit for the bankroll, and an EV of ~91 BTC for their 10% commission on bankroll profits. Assuming they have been in operation for 6 weeks this works out to ~15 BTC per week, or ~780 BTC per year, or ~$390,000 per year before expenses.

I just typed in "alcohol" and only got one result for anti hangover pills.

I didn't say it would be a bad or immoral thing. I was actually implying that it would be a very cleaver thing to do.

I don't think cryptothrift has any auctions for "alcohol" right now. Either way I hope you find someone to help you with your specific drinking desires.

This sounds a lot like the OP is underage and is trying to buy alcohol with bitcoin over the internet. Very smart.

This is why auctions of accounts will never work. It is impossible to tell when a bid is actually being made due to people only bidding with shill accounts

The leaky queue was not about restoring accounts, it was about something else. IIRC the "leaky queue" was regarding people wanting to change their usernames.

Did he not just get banned (30 day ban just expired) for doing this exact thing?

I don't know 100% for sure what your intentions are, I do think you intend to scam at one point, although I do not know how, regardless of your intentions it is really none of my business as I have not done business with you (nor do I intend to).

With that being said I would strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with the forum rules. I have posted a link to an unofficial list of the official rules of the forum below (created by mrep). It appears that the mods are cracking down on the rules aggressively (look at all the threads in meta about people getting banned - although I think a good number of them are from account farmers), especially with spam.

My prediction is that if you repeatedly break the forum rules (intentionally or not) you will eventually get perm banned (how many 'warnings' you will get, IDK, but probably more then 1). In regards to whatever your ultimate loan term goal is (scam or not), being achieved - only time will tell........

EDIT: added link to above promised thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

I believe you would need to delete your post if you insisted on using this specific feature.

An alternative is to use the 'watch-list' feature (which is right below the new replies to your posts link) and you can easily remove threads you no longer wish to "watch" by clicking on 'edit watchlist' and deleting the threads that no longer interest you. I believe that all threads you post on will, by default be added to your watchlist

If you click on watchlist, you should see threads that have new replies to them that you have not looked at yet. When you click on your watchlist and see something you no longer want to see copy the thread name, click on edit, then use the "find" feature on your browser to find the thread and delete it.