Bitcoin Forum

Hey everyone. I used to own the bitcointalk account ruggedman_dan. I took out a loan on it and did not repay on time so I do not own it anymore. For the record, I did in fact try to buy the account back from the lender at a later time, but after disagreeing on the repayment amount and some time passing, he eventually sold it. That was fully his right to do...no problems with that. But I informed him that I would be letting people know the account was sold due to all of the trade history built up on the ruggedman_dan account. I just do not want anyone who dealt with me in the currency exchange forum in the past to come across any trouble.

Anyway that's it. I hope the right people see this and are alerted. Finally, I can indeed sign a message with old posted addresses to prove that account was mine.

Regards.

Mind providing that message now? If this story is true, I'll be leaving a neutral rating on the account to warn new potential traders that they're not trading with the original account owner.

Who was the lender? Looking back several pages of your post history, it looks like no loan requests remain posted going back all the way to late November, although it does look like that someone is a really big fan of  BIBINKA (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99395.msg13577599#msg13577599).

The latest loan request I could find in the lending section was from redsn0w that was due in early November and appears to have been extended once.

address: 1D21VbzEakD5sdTPajcXDBkj9Ev3Uqxnic

---begin signed message---
hey bitcointalk.org users this is ultimo_dragon aka the cruiserweight champ. this is an address that i have used all over the forums.
---end signed message---

 Signature: Gx9zFvK80TBzpImJW865TUy7gIQ236iCXFu4uIUEaVeNZJ3BY9AkvrrbXbIAJ5sxPV7JNzrc+gaNV5IxduzIwtw=

I confirm everything and I'm not in possess of the ruggedman_dan's account, I've sold it because he defaulted the loan. I don't remember how much PMs I've sent and how much time I waited him, but definitely long time.

Exactly, the loan was extended but after the second deadline he didn't repay me and I've sold/liquidated the collateral.



It is better to add also a date ;).

Address is used by ruggedman_dan several times, e.g. here:


The account is also currently on DT3 in haploid23's downlist.

Unfortunately that is the reality of making/taking loans with collateral. If the loan does not get repaid then at the end of the day, the borrower will likely not see such collateral in the future.

---

---

I am not sure that a negative feedback is warranted, or even that removing the previous positive feedbacks is warranted. The positive feedbacks allowed the previous owner to receive a larger loan, and allowed the lender to make a larger loan because the lender knew he could sell the account for a greater amount. If the above was not a true statement, and the original owner still needs the same, large amount of money, then the chances of him outright scamming to get this money would be greater. If the buyer knows that his new account will have the positive feedback removed/receive negative feedback when it is found out that he purchased the account, then he will not give the large premium for the account.

Taking the loan part aside, a green trusted account is being sold, you think everyone should act as if the trust status the previous owner reached also simply applies to the new owner, just beause he paid a bigger price for it due to the positive trust?

what does the OP wanted to do now by posting this message and also accepting that he has defaulted the loan and the collateral account which he has given is sold and now he is informing about that account. Whether the OP wanted back his account or he wanted the collateral account to be get negative trust so that the purchaser should suffer as he will get negative trust now from all DT. Like this then everyone one will start doing this then no one will accept the account as collateral for loan. It is really insane if that collateral account gets negative trust then this is also a way of scam after defaulting the loan and then with new account come and accept the default he has done and declare the account details which he gave for loan collateral.

This is the new way of scam by first getting loan on collateral then you go defaulted that loan , and then open a new account and tell about that collateral account details and get that account in negative trust so the loan giver and the account purchaser get scam or cheated.

I don't consider myself 'scammed'.


I think a neutral trust (to ruggedman_dan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78720)) is more appropriate in this case, the new owner/buyer knew it was a risk buy a collateral like this (from a defaulted loan) but he did.

An alternate way to explain it is that the previous owner needed money, so he sold his trusted account in order to raise money, and was able to raise more money because his account was trusted. If he cannot raise this money then he may resort to scamming.

Just because someone has a trusted account does not mean they are able to scam with that account. If they try to scam with their trusted account and are unsuccessful then the money they just spent on his trusted account as he would likely receive a lot of negative trust after a failed scam attempt. I would say that over the long run trying to scam with a trusted account is going to be NPV negative.

people buy those accounts because they are trusted to scam others. thats a well known fact.

Do you have any examples of this happening? Since it is such a well known fact you should have no problems in finding many examples of this

you really want me to dig up people that bought trusted accounts to scam others? come on, you should know better than me...

Not gonna bother with more, might find them in my trust page(when I negged them). Nevertheless, here's one(positive trust was from master-p, in his DT days, and cyclops , both of whom removed it when I PMed them regarding the account sale): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=196264

Edit: Here's another one- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=161609 whose pos. trust was later removed

If we wanna keep to recent cases: areebmajeed -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=73702
He had trust aged to 10 before starting to advertise his ponzi.

Only one of those three accounts actually scammed anyone, and that was the person who scammed a bunch of times via PayPal. The other two were (most likely) scam attempts and I believe will strengthen my argument. The two accounts that attempted to run a ponzi with a purchased account with trust should be considered a scam attempt (from my brief review of the two accounts, they were not able to actually steal anything) and since their attempt was not successful, whoever purchased the account lost out on however much they paid for it.

mate, we all know scammers like to use established accounts to run their shit. we all know this, we see it nearly daily. yes i cant call out a name without digging it up but we know (and you better than a lot of people around here) it happens. i would love to say it isnt the case, but it is.

I think I gave a number of reasons why this doesn't happen, and if it did happen on a regular basis then no digging would be necessary.

PS- aren't you the person who was permabanned recently? What exactly are you doing posting outside of meta?

I dont watch all sales of accounts. But the next i am bored i will sit down and have a look. Until then i will change my words to:

Scamers try to buy trusted accounts to scam others.

I might be back to proof it happens more than people think.


Yupp, thats me. I talked to staff and solved the problem.

what the fuck ? remove -ve feedback, NOW ! i'm not a scammer  >:(.

Neutral trust to warn users about this account was sold is enough he not deserve red feedback!

Certainly.

No problem at all.

I will absolutely remove the negative feedback that I left just as soon as haploid23 and Tomatocage remove the positive feedback from 2014-10-16 and 2014-09-23.

The account doesnt deserve any feedback at all. You didnt do any of the trades.

Yes of course, I don't deserve any feedback 'cause it's a fault of the original owner.



He hasn't paid back the loan before the deadline.

You neither deserve any positive feedback (at least not yet).
And the negative from Danny Hamilton is only to counter the current 2 positive feedbacks from DT your account has.
You also don't deserve the position on DT3 your account currently still has.

I don't think negatives are suppose to be used to counter positive feedbacks.

A negative feedback means that you believe someone is a scammer, and I have not seen any evidence of this.

edit: haploid has not been online for nearly a year now, and I would doubt that he will log back into his account to remove a positive trust rating on a sold account. TC has not been very active for several months now, and he may or may not remove the rating.

The appropriate response to someone having a positive feedback that you do not believe is appropriate is to let the person who left the feedback know your feelings regarding the rating, and if nothing is done to exclude the person who left such rating from your trust network (if the erroneous rating outweighs reasons for him to otherwise be in your trust network)

Ratings are used as counter since the last change to the system. They have been used in that fashion several times now. Danny also clearly states that the negative rating is just a counter and will be removed as soon as the positive ratings are gone. The account has no overal negative rating either.

I am drawing a blank as to when a negative rating was used to counter a positive rating....I know that positive ratings have been used to counter an unjustified negative, and the trust system was setup in a way to support this, but not the other way around.

potayto, potahto; ratings are used as counter. Does it matter which way around? The intention is the same, nullify the existing rating or at the very least make others aware of a trust dispute.

Well a negative rating can wipe out someone's entire trust score, and the ?'?? signifies that they might have been a long con. A single negative rating will wipe out someone's entire positive trust score, while it takes two people to counter one negative trust rating.

A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy and a negative rating signifies that someone is a scammer. Just because someone is not actively trustworthy does not mean they are a scammer. 

It was done fairly recently (4-6 months?) and even Theymos (IIR) stated it was allowable. I believe it was a Positive to null a Negative.
I can't remember the thread or I would link it.
I have no issues with a rating being given for this reason.

The system is designed to work like this:

Anyone can leave any feed back (positive, negative, or neutral) for anyone they want, for any reason they want.

If you feel that someone uses good judgement when leaving feedback, then you add them to your trust network and their feedback will effect the rating you see next to the "trust" link on their profile.

If you feel that someone uses bad judgement when leaving feedback, then you remove them from your trust network and their feedback won't effect the rating you see next to the "trust" on their profile.

By adjusting the "trust depth", you can also choose to include in your trust network the users that are trusted by the people that you trust, if you feel they all use good judgement about who they add to their trust network.  And if you feel that all of those users also use good judgement about who they add to their trust network, you can choose to include them as well.

There is a "default trust" list that is assigned to new users when they first create an account, since it would be difficult from someone brand new to know who to trust. The intention is for them to update their trust lists as they figure out who they feel is trustworthy, and who isn't.  Unfortuantely, very few users ever bother changing their trust list from the default.

If you feel that an individual on the default trust list has been using poor judgement in choosing who they trust, and/or using poor judgement in the feedback that they leave, then you can request that the forum operator removes that individual from the default trust list.  The forum operator can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.

You can also contact users that have left trust or modified their trust lists and ask them to make changes that you think would be appropriate.  They can consider your concerns and then make whatever decision they prefer.

Personally, I feel that purchasing a forum account and representing yourself as having received feedback that was not created for you is an "untrustworthy" behavior. I am entitled to this belief, and I have chosen to act on this by leaving negative feedback for this particular user.  

I have explained this reasoning in the feedback that I left.  If the user stops representing themselves as having received that positive feedback, then I will no longer consider their actions to be untrustworthy, and I'll remove the feedback.

Anyone else can read the feedback that I've left and decide for themselves if they consider that feedback valid or not.  They can then make their own decision about how much to trust the user when engaging in transactions with him.


Yes, it can.  So it is important not to engage in untrustworthy behavior.  Just like in the real world, a reputation is a slow and fragile thing to build, and a single untrustworthy action can be very difficult to recover from.


The acquiring of a longstanding account IS a long con.  The account has been represented for a long time by an individual with a particular set of morals and ethics.  Then suddenly, unexpectedly, and without any indication the account is represented by an individual with a different set of morals and ethics.  Isn't that what happens in a long con?


Then I suppose it's a good idea to avoid behaviors that would cause someone not to trust you.


No.

A positive rating signifies that you think someone is trustworthy, and a negative rating signifies that you think someone is not trustworthy.


No, but it does mean that they shouldn't be trusted.

if you are unhappy, how about selling it to the previous owner?

yes i'm unhappy , if the original owner wants his account back please contact me asap.

Really ugly to sell a account at a higher price based on the green comments and then turn around and stab the buyer in the back in this manner. If anything the seller has manipulated the buyer into thinking they where paying more because of the comments. Extra dubious acting innocent and then pointing out this aspect after the sale.
Think if the seller did not state that he planned to do this before transaction it should be reversed. Otherwise its a scam.

Nah I have not sold the account at a higher price based on the green 'comments', If you don't know what is happened it is better to not spread BS. I've liquidated the collateral to recover the amount plus a little % and of course I will not tell you the exact amount.


If the buyer is feeling comfortable to reveal all the information of the privacy negotiation, he is free (but I don't think he will do it).

So, did the account sell for above market price? If it did, that account deserves negative trust as I'm almost certain it was bought for the positive trust.

BTW, maybe someone should ask for haploid23 to be removed from DT until he comes back as it's been almost a year since he's last logged in.

All the same, if you do not disclose that you are going to cause negative rep once sold, by posting in this manner, you are being dishonest.
Not attacking the profit angle, just the current thread.
Fact account had earned trust and now has negative can directly be corralated to this thread.
So strategy to angle is in play.

But redsn0w is neither the original owner, nor the one who created this thread.
If you buy an account out of a defaulted loan, you have to at least know that it will come up sooner or later.
I'm sure redsn0w didn't lie about the reason why he was selling the account.

Exactly.



Yes of course, I've sold the collateral because I had to recover the loss (of the loan).

My tone and choice of words where harsh and not supposed to reflect on RedSn0w.
I tend to get high in my saddle and let my ass flap at times,my bad.

The problem I have with this thread is two fold. One being that the purpose of thread is unclear and could be spun either way.
Its a announcement to let people know and just a heads up or a attempt to run the account into the ground with the potential higher ground.
Second issue is green trust even being able to be transfered and this does not reflect on anyone in this thread,its just the forum setup.
But they are not responsible either for accounts being sold in this manner. So its frustrating to watch.

As we can see negative trust can't be removed because:
Danny Hamilton:
There is no contact with haploid23 from one year.

Usually for buyers (if they buy account in good faith) most important is account rank, feedbacks not really..
My guess is that if forum administrator will remove all feedbacks from this account, the current owner would not mind and the problem would be solved.

 

i guess: this will not happen

 :(  ?  ?  ?

The trust system is not moderated.

I am lurking on this thread, but have nothing to add that hasn't been already said.  I just don't want people wondering why I have left neutral trust advising of the sale with a link to this thread but aren't contributing.

...and no, I'm not trying to build my post count.

Proof of ownership:
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am whywefight from bitcointalk.org, today is 05/03/2016. This account is currently under my control as i bought it from its last owner. This account will be handed over to its real owner in the next 24h. 
I bought this account for 0.23BTC https://blockchain.info/tx/fd6990b8cc4c48b2ef7ed9967c896610335699a3ff456fe3120c9ab1fa0b6495 and it will be handed over for the same amount. 
As there was no signed message available, because a new one wasnt staked, i am posting this. In case there are any doubts, an trusted member choosen by the community can review my mails and PMs with the last owner.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
18fZyjcEiP856yYHb1K3r2uKVe3t4ysSdJ
IKjDy8CEfCF8IZ6tB9fhygm7v6TEQw9gpkliYiGB4ZnPDaU3/tea3LgIXaTwRk+fdfwwbrLicTmc/xqFLyyPTG8=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Confirmed!

quoted.

Just curious, why buy that account?

i just handed it over to its real/old owner just a few minutes ago.

Confirmed. Bought the account back from whywefight.

He is a good guy. I never asked him to get the account back and sell it to me. He took it upon himself to do so. I appreciate it.

I will sign a message to prove this is my account once again.

Thanks again whywefight. Top notch community member.

you are welcome :)

1D21VbzEakD5sdTPajcXDBkj9Ev3Uqxnic

--BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE--
3/5/16

I have purchased this account back from whywefight. I am the original owner who earned all of the feedback. Thanks whywefight.
--END SIGNED MESSAGE--

G/C3pwR6v4Mf86k7rbsdSuNDLa5vk2XjaFq+Br4SErL9BDZpXybvDc1+gLJ/5nY7ezr5+sjbvoC2Z64TErfGQvU=

Verified using https://tools.bitcoin.com/verifier.html

Address used as far back as July 31st, 2014 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=586898.msg8126626#msg8126626

glad to see this!

verfied using electrum

as stated in the signed message (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355348.msg14105386#msg14105386) i posted from ruggedman_dan's account i bought it for 0.23 and "sold" it to ruggedman_dan for 0.23