Bitcointalk users owe me BTC

[mdayonliner]

pinkman12345, profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=288496
Amount taken 0.2 BTC

SuperD007, profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1327298
Amount taken 0.05 BTC

I am not expecting any sat to get back but if ever their humanity raise, please repay the principal. I do not ask for any interest. The following address to repay:

Code:

1GyLCQSgcSMN3oCDP6qitZ8b3sABP6wjaF

Any amount repaid, feel free to update the thread with transaction number and get your negative feedback removed.

[1714195652]

1714195652

[mdayonliner]

Flag for pink: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3054
Flag for SuperD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3055

[NeuroticFish]

You're "a little bit" late, I don't know why you accepted loan(s) with collateral you didn't use.
And expecting "their humanity raise", come on, you know better, that money is long gone with 0 chance to return.
I'll support those flags.

It may worth noting that in order to be 100% correct and complete about the flags you should have been also adding here the original topics about those loans too.

[LoyceV]

Any amount repaid, feel free to update the thread with transaction number and get your negative feedback removed.

You haven't left them negative feedback, only neutrals (4 years ago) and even one positive.

Flag for pink: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3054
Flag for SuperD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3055

If you want Support for your Flags, you should present evidence in this topic.

[Stalker22]

Any amount repaid, feel free to update the thread with transaction number and get your negative feedback removed.

Both loans are from 2018, if I am not mistaken. But what is the point of this accusation now? Both accounts have been inactive for a long time.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with you and understand your loss, but I am afraid this is futile at this point.

[coin-investor]

Any amount repaid, feel free to update the thread with transaction number and get your negative feedback removed.

Both loans are from 2018, if I am not mistaken. But what is the point of this accusation now? Both accounts have been inactive for a long time.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with you and understand your loss, but I am afraid this is futile at this point.

I wonder what happen all these years and why now, we don't know what happens to the owners of those accounts do they still have access or what, maybe you created it as a reference in case they sell those accounts or change hands, I supported the flag 0.25 Bitcoin is a big amount, but I doubt if they will resolve this issue as these amounts are the price of these accounts when they sell it in the market.

[suchmoon]

I'll support those flags.

I supported the flag

I don't think you should have done that... the OP had to agree to this condition when creating the flags

"this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic;" (meaning the reference thread, i.e. this thread)

but the "incident" is not really "completely" described in this thread. OP should post all relevant details and proof here.

Isn't pinkman one of aTriz's alts? It's been a long time, I don't recall the details.

[Apocollapse]

Both of them are inactive and get negative feedback before this thread has been created which mean it's already useless. They already know their accounts already wasted and they wouldn't mind to get more negative feedbacks.

You should move on and forget those accounts owe your BTC since the chance you will get your money is near 0%.

IMO accepting a non collateral loan from member rank account without any reputation is really stupid.

[NeuroticFish]

but the "incident" is not really "completely" described in this thread. OP should post all relevant details and proof here.

Well, if one goes through those accounts' trust feedback will see OPs neutral feedbacks from 2018 related to the loans (and the related threads).
I agree that OP should have been putting more complete info, but it's already a lost cause, those accounts are inactive. So I can also understand that OP may not want to invest more time into this.

[Timelord2067]

I am actually wanting to vote Oppose on both flags given (my understanding) that the OP is required to present their case in the first post.

That has not happened so far.


This also doesn't make any sense:

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-11-19_Sat_05.12h/288496.html

Trust list for: pinkman12345 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -3) (21 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-11-19_Sat_05.12h)
Back to index

pinkman12345 Trusts these users' judgement:
-

pinkman12345 Distrusts these users' judgement:
-

pinkman12345's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~pinkman12345's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. Removed mdayonliner (Trust: +3 / =5 / -2) (416 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

[examplens]

This also doesn't make any sense:

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-11-19_Sat_05.12h/288496.html
..

that this is completely strange. certainly, the OP needs to provide more unambiguous details about these accusations, plus I would like to know why he waited until now to announce himself on this matter.

I initially supported the flag and left negative feedback, which I still withdrew because I don't see anything that would indicate the truth from the first post.

[Timelord2067]

Upon reflection, I'm opposing both flags as they both read in part:

the act occurred around November 2022

Neither have been online in the timeframe specified.

*Edit*

The more I look into this, the more I smell a rat...

The OP just woke up.

[LoyceV]

This also doesn't make any sense:
https://loyce.club/trust/2022-11-19_Sat_05.12h/288496.html

that this is completely strange. certainly

He didn't just remove this Trust exclusion, he wiped his entire Trust list.

the OP needs to provide more unambiguous details about these accusations, plus I would like to know why he waited until now to announce himself on this matter.

This was his first post this year. My guess is he moved on to another account by now, to get rid of his own negative feedback.

Upon reflection, I'm opposing both flags as they both read in part:

the act occurred around November 2022

Neither have been online in the timeframe specified.

You're right, this is Flag abuse. I've Opposed both of htem.
@NeuroticFish: can you reconsider your Support for these incorrect and unproven Flags?

[NeuroticFish]

@NeuroticFish: can you reconsider your Support for these incorrect and unproven Flags?

OK, although I am not convinced you're right. If we go on this path, a scammer can easily just go away after the scam just to avoid getting flagged.
But since they're inactive, supporting the flags was more a psychological support for OP and his lost 0.25BTC than something really useful, so it doesn't matter much.

To make it clear: I'll remove my support now and I'll continue watching this topic.

[LoyceV]

OK, although I am not convinced you're right.

The act happened in 2018, not 2022.

If we go on this path, a scammer can easily just go away after the scam just to avoid getting flagged.

It's always been like that, if all you know is someone's Bitcointalk username. If he doesn't come back, there's nothing you can do.

To make it clear: I'll remove my support now and I'll continue watching this topic.

If OP creates accurate Flags and posts evidence in this topic, I'll Support the new Flags.

It's important to keep the Flag system accurate, so it doesn't end up like the mess the rest of the Trust system is. See:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

[NeuroticFish]

The act happened in 2018, not 2022.

I knew that when I supported the flags.

If OP creates accurate Flags and posts evidence in this topic, I'll Support the new Flags.

At least on this we're on the same page.

It's important to keep the Flag system accurate, so it doesn't end up like the mess the rest of the Trust system is. See:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Imho the information was incompletely / poorly presented, but not incorrect / false. Most of the missing bits were 2-3 clicks away. However, let's wait for OP next move.

[Timelord2067]

OP - please provide a signed message from the PGP key fingerprint 81DA EE69 0159 E01E 28FF 9510 86FE A0B6 5C6E 1B2C that you staked on the 2018-05-19, 13:58:18 and has been on your profile page since at least 31 May 2018 16:14:42 UTC and continues to be so to today's date.