Bitcoin Forum

Request For a No Collateral Loan

Required BTC Amount: 0.05btc
Reason: Education Loan
Estimated Loan Duration: 15 days
BTC Address: 1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q

Signed Message:

---Address---
1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q

---Message---
This is susila_bai from bitcointalk, applying for a 0.05 BTC loan.Today is 18th of June 2019

---Signature---
IHFZpBvZgleeByCAR6zo5t9EHa4SpkMDVUEcFSU+VT4Ie1T9UrKzlgzLSfvAib93iX/U60UrD31TlOmAveBlGBQ=

And your Collateral is...? ???

EDIT: Sorry, just saw that is a "Non Collateral" loan.

No trust, signature spammer with no collateral.

What could go wrong?

I don’t care if it’s a Hero Member, I’m tagging it. If anything it’s more likely somebody will loan him the money because he’s a Hero so as DT1 I owe it to the community to make them aware.

No collateral loan request = Scam potential.

This is not fair I just decently asking loan and nothing and I am getting negative tag.

Is their any rule that if any one is asking no collateral loan should get  negative tag

If there was a rule, you could be reported to a moderator and your post deleted/your account banned.

Since there is not a rule, we use the trust system to tag some behaviours (like begging). You, as a Hero Member should know how the trust system works  ;)

But this is not begging I am just decently asking loan and if no one wants to give its OK but for that tagging means openly you are misusing the trust system. I am also hero member and knows the rule. Their are so many loan request in other loan thread without collateral but they are not getting negative tag. But I got why.

Suspicious users who are likely to default on their loan are often smacked down with a negative tag.

While it is true that the majority of these are given to newbies and Jr. members, I think higher rank users who should know better should be equally liable to receive the same.

Not at all, flags have recently added precisely for that. Anyway, if you want to get that neg removed you should PM the one who sent it.


Meh, some of them are way too obvious to even bother to send a neg. There are cases of no-collateral loans, but that is up to the lendor, and is not the usual stuff around

Then the other users who are also asking loan should be negative tag like me , why are they spared.
Then it means their is no respect for higher rank members. And DT member whatever they think can do with anyone in this forum misusing their powers and negative tag to anyone they want in the name of protecting the forum from spammers

This is where I think trust system is broken although it has been fixed a little.

Can you stop with the rank bs. Before the merit system was implemented, ive seen accounts shoot up to hero and above. Does that mean they should be "respected" or trustworthy? Nope.

The fact is you ask for a no collateral loan with no trust (with only "trust" you gotten was from '17 by someone who himself got flagged for spreading software with malware on it), no positive trading history, and done very little to contribute to the forum, and showing red flags that you will default on such a loan. So, with that said, it is the choice of any user, DT or not, to give you a negative feedback to warn others to take caution when dealing with you. Much like if you done something positive, any member can give you a positive feedback. While the "trust" system have been abused before, doesnt mean this is another case of abuse or misuse. Of course you can lock this thread, wait awhile and do something meaningful on the forum and maybe the DT who gave you a negative feedback would remove it or change it to a neutral. You can also open a topic in the reputation section and make a discussion about it, but in my opinion, with you being here even longer than me, you should know no [valid] collateral, no loan.

Next time, I would suggest reading the sticky topic before asking for a no collateral loan.

A loan request is not automatically a scam attempt. The scam attempts that are frequently seen here are those made by throwaway accounts.

It may or may not be a good idea to lend to the OP, that is up to potential lenders. There are plenty of people who have received no collateral loans recently.

Also, in general, people asking for loans that warrant a negative rating are typically given the opportunity to first close their thread or offer collateral, or provide a reason why they are not attempting to scam.

Here is an example of someone receiving a loan with nearly zero trading history


The loan was repaid. I wouldn’t personally have lent to either this person or the OP, but I am more conservative as to who I am willing to trust.

It would be insane to trust someone because they are “respected”.

Another example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5132594.msg51454283#msg51454283

Get back in your cave QS, default trust decisions don’t concern you any more.

here is another example from another lender
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3243635.msg51396967#msg51396967

There are plenty of examples of people in similar situations as the OP repaying loans similar to what the OP is asking for.

This is in no way an appropriate use of the trust system. The changes to the trust system results in your abuse not having the same impact as before, but this is still abuse.

I'm gonna go with QS here, this is not about DT, but about a no collateral loan.


And here I'm gonna go against QS.

Every lender has the right to put his/her/their terms. It's up to them if the no collateral loan is worth the risk of getting scammed, rather than trust-farming (what I believe you are suggesting here).

Please, leave the trust drama for other boards

Potential lenders can choose to ignore my neg. As a DT member it’s my job to warn others about potentially shady users. This loan request is imo untrustworthy.

I haven’t done a flag.

Right, lenders have the right to lend on their own terms as they wish.

The point I was making is that the OPs loan request is not automatically a scam attempt on its face. If someone lends to him, the OP may not repay the loan. But it is not a foregone conclusion that he will run away with whatever money he receives.

No, it's your job to leave accurate trust ratings and add people with accurate trust ratings/good judgement onto your trust list.
I left a counter. I think negative trust should be used when the request is entirely unreasonable, and 0.05BTC is *maybe* borderline.

Thought you were talking about Darkstar there for given no collateral loans :/


Agreed, potential lenders can ignore the whole trading/trust history, but I don't think being part of DT forces you to go around the forum as a "vigilante" tagging possible scams. Examples:


This is 99.9% scam and should be tagged as so:

This may be a scam, but it's reasonable enough to consider it.


In the event of tagging it, a neutral tag stating your thought would be more appropriate here (in my opinion), because like Darkstar says, this is rather "borderline"

---

This thread should be locked, as it's starting to derail and go off-topic

I believe that a no collateral loan request leaves a high % chance of a loan default hence my negative trust rating.
This guy has no trade history & I definitely wouldn’t trust him.

You’ve left a positive rating, even if it is a counter I don’t agree with it, sorry.

Edited -

Legit neg imo -

https://i.ibb.co/kGWhfBN/B20885-FB-F58-D-45-BA-BE10-45-B099-A02990.jpg

I think your negative is unfair so thus it's a positive to cancel out the negative. I personally wouldn't lend to him either, but I don't think that it's such an outlandish amount so that it immediately screams 'scam'. You're free to believe what you want to believe, and I'm free to believe what I want to believe.

Life is not fair.

It won't be removed simply because you complain.   Try being proactive.

For the next month or so, engage other members asking for no collateral loans, and explain why it's usually a scam.  If you can be remorseful, you may get a second chance.  :)

Not sure at all it can be seen as "High-Risk"

I believe the positive trust left here is both counter--productive and a bit childish, it simply makes no sense and makes less sense after this

lemipawa borrowed 0.05BTC from shasan a while back (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5030169.msg50538111#msg50538111). I wouldn't have lent to them either, but I'm not going to leave a negative trust for that.

I'm not saying you would, I'm just saying that the positive trust here is completely absurd, and that the negative trust is a bit overkill.

Hypothetically, how many out of 10, 0.05BTC no collateral loans from accounts without positive trust & trading history would probably get paid back?
I’d say there’s a high % some wouldn’t so my reasoning for the neg is to warn potential lenders.

This has been done to death now though, I’m not posting in this thread again now.

Ehh, I deleted my counter. I still think LFC_Bitcoin's trust feedback is overkill though.

edit: I would consider this moderate risk - not enough for a 'high risk' tag, but not enough for me a leave a 'this user is not a scammer' tag.

And so do I, but he is the only one who can change that. From the 3 of us he is (I believe) the least active in the Lending board, so I'd ask him again to reconsider leaving a neutral trust rather than neg, but again, that is only up to him.

Now, let's let this thread die (OP please lock it to prevent further damage).

I can't help but agree with DarkStar and  LFC in this case.  LFC is entitled to leave feedback as he sees fit, and I agree this seems like a higher risk loan than I would feel comfortable with.  Having said that, the feedback is a bit over the top, and I would not have left it. 

I think most lenders accepting no collateral loans here understand the inherent risk, and just like anything else in the crypto world risk only what you can afford to lose.

Shasan has been scammed several times already. For example, this hero member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=669062) scammed him for 3+ times lower amount (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5137126), or, 0.015BTC. It was also no collateral loan so I wouldn't say 0.05BTC is "borderline".

Difference between lemipawa and OP here is that lemipawa has trading experience (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152856) and they signed message which they used in 2015 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg11546542#msg11546542), in my opinion risk is a way lower but still exist.

edited link.