|
Title: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 06:35:42 PM Just got this thread- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155671.0
LFC_Bitcoin has tagged user susila_bai for asking a No Collateral loan of 0.05 BTC. Susila_bai may not have a trading background here. Can't someone ask for a No collateral loan? You may or may not give loan, it's your choice but why the hell you will tag someone? He is not a newbie, he is a hero member. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: ChemicalSpillage on June 18, 2019, 06:46:51 PM The
If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan. LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 06:51:38 PM The I know what has been changed.If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan. LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof. If someone tag you for some reason, no one will find you here with this account. Don't act too much. Edit- I see, it's actmyname? Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 06:55:00 PM With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows:
Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders. Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on June 18, 2019, 06:56:06 PM That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either.
The thing is, no-collateral loans are extremely frowned upon here, and it does not matter if the request comes from a Hero or Legendary member unless there's a long history of positive trades or some other extenuating circumstances which would lead the community to think the loan would be safe. That certainly is not the case with this guy, and the request is for a pretty decent amount (0.05BTC). That's probably enough for someone to exit scam a neg-tagged Hero account for, though I'm not saying this is the case here. Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging. I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 06:57:47 PM Do you think it will not impact his slot in the current signature campaign? Of course it will. I know you guys don't care. In fact, sometimes I found some of you guys enjoy destroying other reputation (account in fact) in the name of saving the forum.
It's not fair. Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging. I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely. I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread.On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 06:58:34 PM That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either. LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Quickseller on June 18, 2019, 07:00:37 PM 100% inappropriate. The OP of the thread is not posting from a newbie account/throwaway account.
If someone decides that guy is a low risk they may decide to lend to him. I’ve seen others receive no collateral loans. He may it may not be untrustworthy for other reasons but the loan request is not appropriate. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 18, 2019, 07:03:34 PM That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either. LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: The Cryptovator on June 18, 2019, 07:25:32 PM I can't agree with @LFC_Bitcoin in that case. A Hero member ask just for 0.05BTC loan, I don't think some would like to lose his/her Hero rank account for that amount. At least he wasn't newbie and negative feedback isn't appropriate in my opinion. Although I am not going to leave counter feedback but I would like to suggest LFC_Bitcoin for reconsider his/her feedback on this case.
Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Findingnemo on June 18, 2019, 07:26:05 PM Yes its not fair though IMO.Because as other said this is a high ranked member asking for a loan so actually some people might give loan and if its defaulted then its good to have a negative feedback on that account but just for warning may give neutral right?
Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on June 18, 2019, 07:32:40 PM I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread. LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it. Alright ladies, I did see the neg and for some reason thought there was going to be a flagging. Cut me a little slack; I did read the OP and did check the dude's feedback before I wrote what I wrote. Sometimes your brain just doesn't do what you want it to do. That's the case here with me.On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that. On a side note, why don't you actmyname aka ChemicalSpillage had clearly mentioned in the 2nd post, but sig spammers are not concerned about what's going on, they need to create a paid post. We have a new cunt in town.Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 18, 2019, 07:41:47 PM With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows: Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders. Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this. Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in. So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: bones261 on June 18, 2019, 07:45:38 PM Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in. So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much. No, the huge red banner is only triggered by old feedback. New feedback does not do anything to trigger the banner. I made an archive of the thread in question. http://archive.vn/tjkB9 (When I use the archive website, it always displays what a user will see if they are not online.)The user has no banner. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: suchmoon on June 18, 2019, 07:47:03 PM Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in. So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much. False. That's the second time today you're failing to read how it works, even after it's been explicitly quoted for you: Some changes: - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies. (emphasis mine) Edit: oh shut up bones with your 1 minute 25 seconds faster post... robbed me of an opportunity to yell at CH :) Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: marlboroza on June 18, 2019, 08:12:17 PM 100% inappropriate. The OP of the thread is not posting from a newbie account/throwaway account. Don't listen to QS, he thinks providing no collateral loan to account who doesn't have any trading history is not highly risky:~ He may it may not be untrustworthy for other reasons but the loan request is not appropriate. https://i.imgur.com/uk8LLWO.png He is not a newbie, he is a hero member. Oh, hero (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=406432) member can't scam, that must be it. Probably senior (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1000796) member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=844504) can't scam, legendary (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=288496) member can't scam and probably other ranks can't scam too. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 18, 2019, 08:25:11 PM I chose to warn potential lenders who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags. It is my opinion that asking for 0.05BTC (over $450 at the time of writing) with no collateral is shady.
My negative trust won’t affect the guy who was trying to get the loan from doing business here in the future. He can use escrow or if it’s loan related he can do what he’s supposed to do - offer valid collateral. As for QS questioning anything I do regarding leaving trust ratings - You lost your right to enter a valid discussion like this when you self escrowed deal. Pipe down scammer. I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape. Various DT’s have been following this practise for years. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: suchmoon on June 18, 2019, 08:41:13 PM I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape. Well, we can't let this new flag system diminish the need for drama, can we now... I'm expecting bitching over neutrals to start soon, I mean they're shown in this ominous black color with "=", which is obviously twice as bad as "-". Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 18, 2019, 08:45:38 PM I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape. Well, we can't let this new flag system diminish the need for drama, can we now... I'm expecting bitching over neutrals to start soon, I mean they're shown in this ominous black color with "=", which is obviously twice as bad as "-". Look at the gang of degenerates moaning about my neg too when it has literally nothing to do with them. Definite virgins :) Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: BitcoinSupremo on June 18, 2019, 09:29:56 PM LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing, the wrong thing here is done by the DT bullshit propaganda lobby that give people negatives for no reason in the name of the so called "saving the forum" while they are digging the forum grave.
The flags were a great move by theymos which these bullshit propaganda lobby of course do not like. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: marlboroza on June 18, 2019, 10:08:37 PM LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing, the wrong thing here is done by the DT bullshit propaganda lobby that give people negatives for no reason in the name of the so called "saving the forum" while they are digging the forum grave. I understand that you are butthurt because your account is still connected to scammerz accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2799778.0), you self vouched for payed gambling tips (https://archive.fo/dJJ6T), lied (https://archive.fo/0NQDL) and, to use timelord's words, "advocated physical violence" (http://archive.is/0aIwB#selection-4545.0-4545.247), but why do you think LFC did the right thing? We posted our reasons why we agree or don't agree but I don't see yours, and at this moment your point looks like this:The flags were a great move by theymos which these bullshit propaganda lobby of course do not like. LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Joel_Jantsen on June 18, 2019, 11:47:10 PM With all respect, I disagree with the Feedback left on the profile. Maybe a suggestion to lock to thread or asking reasons why they should be considered for a no-collateral loan could be done before tagging them. It makes sense to tag newbie throwaway accounts that come up with ridiculous requests but a genuine Hero member should be reviewed unless they have something shady going on with the account.
I'm just curious if I open a no-collateral loan request for 0.05 BTC will I be tagged as well? Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: actmyname on June 19, 2019, 12:12:35 AM After a lucky page surf, here's what I've found:
First Time applying for loan due to some personal problem Please can i know the status of my Loan Application whether i am eligible for this loan, if yes then i will put the sign message from the walletLoan Amount: 0.03 btc Reason : Personal Repayment Amount: 0.036 btc Repayment Time: 15 days Collateral : None BTC address: 0x931d262FB923630A65e3DCfFEF03f2B3d6b72271 Loan Amount: 0.03 btc HI, can i know the status of my loan application,Loan Repayment Amount: 0.036 btc Loan Repayment Date: 15 days Collateral: none Bitcoin Address: 1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q Due to personal problem applying for loan Two previous loan requests from two months prior. It is always good to have the real life Job and not to depend fully on Bitcoin or this forum, as both are necessary in life and what if bitcoin got ban totally or the price goes down and it takes longer time to recover. so it is always good to have alternative options always. I work in real life and also do cryptocurrency investments and work for it and earn. As real life pay runs my family life and what ever i am earning in crypto currency is a investment for my future and may family future also. And let's not forget the fact that susila_bai is very active in the Gambling discussion board, whether they're there exclusively to do quick/easy posts or not. Most recent gambling discussion posts within 40 posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150396.msg51370838#msg51370838 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141475.msg51370780#msg51370780 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084515.msg50965598#msg50965598 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123734.msg50948303#msg50948303 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3178163.msg50718393#msg50718393 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134270.msg50712570#msg50712570 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125693.msg50707623#msg50707623 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114470.msg50689880#msg50689880 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148053.msg50689030#msg50689030 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1135451.msg50688960#msg50688960 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148053.msg50687987#msg50687987 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103778.msg50687740#msg50687740 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114470.msg50686314#msg50686314 I'm not sure if LFC considered any of these as red flags when they were writing their feedback... but now here they are. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: BitcoinGirl.Club on June 19, 2019, 08:12:30 AM He is wearing OneHash signature (http://archive.is/Qm3G5) who are paying 0.0075BTC a week to the Hero member but upon checking their spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13ifTUNK1ESn6JRYE7KIGyDAQ8vXmSpRXVoQSAlhWFno/edit#gid=1633284273) I found he has not accepted but yet he is wearing the sig.
Is this for misdirection? Like anyone can think it will be okay to lend him since he is with a decent paying signature campaign. Not sure if I personally would consider a red or neutral but I can assure that if I was a lender then I would stay away from this loan request. 0.05BTC is a lot of money ($458.7 @$9,187). Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 19, 2019, 08:51:55 AM ...snip...0.05BTC is a lot of money ($458.7 @$9,187). With absolutely no punishment for not repaying. I was thinking about changing my tag to neutral but I’m not going to. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: o_e_l_e_o on June 19, 2019, 11:06:43 AM As mentioned, the criteria for leaving a negative rating has been changed to "You think that trading with this person is high-risk." If LFC_Bitcoin believes that asking for a no collateral loan makes someone high risk, then he is justified to leave a negative rating. Less senior accounts are tagged left, right, and center for the exact same behavior every day.
Is it too harsh? Maybe. But is it an inappropriate tag? No. As an aside, the sticky at the top of lending states: If you completely ignore this sticky and make a loan request with no collateral, without having massive trust on the forum, the chances of you getting negative trusted feedback and therefore having a Trade with Extreme Caution tag is almost 100%. Edit: oh shut up bones with your 1 minute 25 seconds faster post. You're too busy baking cookies. ;)Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 19, 2019, 12:10:03 PM Thank you actmyname and Pamoldar, both of you have brought a good point here.
Considering his earlier twice loan application and the post which refers that he is holding his crypto earning from the forum, I think as well that it was probably a scam attempt. Sorry @LFC_Bitcoin, although you didn't consider the fact referred by actmyname and Pamoldar, I think the tag must not be removed. I will tag the user as well. His recent behavior is fishy enough which I didn't notice. There was not any kind of personal attack or any kind of propaganda some of you have mentioned. I initially thought it was an abuse of the feedback/trust system since he was a hero member. @marlboroza I never said he wasn't a scammer or a hero/legendary can't be a sacmmer. You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case. I just have wanted to point out that this feedback was probably an unfair one which has now turned into wrong though. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 19, 2019, 12:14:39 PM Thank you actmyname and Pamoldar, both of you have brought a good point here. Considering his earlier twice loan application and the post which refers that he is holding his crypto earning from the forum, I think as well that it was probably a scam attempt. Sorry @LFC_Bitcoin, although you didn't consider the fact referred by actmyname and Pamoldar, I think the tag must not be removed. I will tag the user as well. His recent behavior is fishy enough which I didn't notice. There was not any kind of personal attack or any kind of propaganda some of you have mentioned. I initially thought it was an abuse of the feedback/trust system since he was a hero member. @marlboroza I never said he wasn't a scammer or a hero/legendary can't be a sacmmer. You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case. I just have wanted to point out that this feedback was probably an unfair one which has now turned into wrong though. Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls. It seems you now agree with what I did. Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 19, 2019, 12:21:39 PM Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls. It seems you now agree with what I did. Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 19, 2019, 12:26:02 PM Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls. It seems you now agree with what I did. Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so. In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case? It didn’t really have anything to do with you. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 19, 2019, 12:29:18 PM In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case? Why will anyone carry an inappropriate feedback?It didn’t really have anything to do with you. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 19, 2019, 12:32:38 PM In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case? Why will anyone carry an inappropriate feedback?It didn’t really have anything to do with you. I don’t think anybody leaving negative feedback against a poster who’s after a non collateral loan with 0 positive trust & trade feedback can be seen as inappropriate. See this - https://i.ibb.co/kGWhfBN/B20885-FB-F58-D-45-BA-BE10-45-B099-A02990.jpg If you think it’s inappropriate & he’s not seen as high risk maybe you could lend him the money without collateral? Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: unibitcoinist on June 19, 2019, 12:38:57 PM If you think it’s inappropriate & he’s not seen as high risk maybe you could lend him the money without collateral? As like other, I wouldn't consider giving him the loan but the tag would be inappropriate in case, the point brought by actmyname and Pamoldar wasn't exist. In that case, I would still fight that the tag was inappropriate.But now, we have something to count his loan application as scam attempt which we didn't have earlier. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: xolxol on June 19, 2019, 01:02:39 PM With all respect, I disagree with the Feedback left on the profile. Maybe a suggestion to lock to thread or asking reasons why they should be considered for a no-collateral loan could be done before tagging them. It makes sense to tag newbie throwaway accounts that come up with ridiculous requests but a genuine Hero member should be reviewed unless they have something shady going on with the account. Surely,if there are no double standards.These abusers are the reason why theymos decided to change/customize the system using flags.Negative trust abusers will be outcast if theymos is a man of his word.I'm just curious if I open a no-collateral loan request for 0.05 BTC will I be tagged as well? Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: marlboroza on June 19, 2019, 02:07:24 PM You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case. Yep, well, I have referred example where amount is lower (in loan thread). There are plenty examples, from newbie to legendary members, scamming probably from 20$ above. I would have posted better examples but unfortunately theymos made access to trust pages very painful, these accounts came first to my mind.Btw, warningsigns started with 0.075BTC loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1596878.msg32483857#msg32483857), if I am not wrong that was around 650$ back then (this loan request is around 450$) and amount eventually become big (IIRC it was loan - return - loan - return - loan - partially return - loan - exit scam). Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: ChemicalSpillage on June 19, 2019, 02:44:47 PM Btw, warningsigns started with 0.075BTC loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1596878.msg32483857#msg32483857), if I am not wrong that was around 650$ back then (this loan request is around 450$) and amount eventually become big (IIRC it was loan - return - loan - return - loan - partially return - loan - exit scam). The whole trick was to essentially use the interest as an investment in the exit scam.Who cares about 10%, 20%, 30% when you simply take back 200% at the end of the act? And if the lender is on DT and gives positive trust... oh lord. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Harlot on June 19, 2019, 08:20:00 PM The tag was appropriate for me, she doesn't have any previous transactions before and she has attempted to ask for a loan without collateral for a lot of times now all of which are denied because it will be risky for them to cover it for an unknown person. The tag doesn't stop people from covering it so its still really the member's choice if any of them wants to cover it. But do you think even without the tag given by LFC_Bitcoin it would increase her chances of matching is collateral-free loan? I don't think so.
Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Thule on June 19, 2019, 09:27:38 PM Quote who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags That's not your decission Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: actmyname on June 19, 2019, 10:16:32 PM Quote who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags That's not your decissionWe have different standards for high-risk/untrustworthy behavior. After all, the changed system is to incentivize users to investigate the feedback on a given user. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 19, 2019, 10:21:39 PM Quote who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags That's not your decissionWe have different standards for high-risk/untrustworthy behavior. After all, the changed system is to incentivize users to investigate the feedback on a given user. I don’t really see how anybody can question it to be honest.
If anybody has an issue with my feedback they’re welcome to prove me wrong & risk lending him thd 0.05BTC but I somehow think that won’t happen. Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust? The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: ThatRandom8543 on June 20, 2019, 12:26:24 AM Its surprising it took the creation of this thread for OP to realize that LFC was within his right to leave a negative feedback. Any user has the right to leave a feedback on any user as they deem it necessary, which can be a caution to other users, or give other users their feedback on how things went when dealing with the user. While not every person who ask for a loan gets a negative feedback (a few rare cases from what ive seen), a user who is new, has not posted in an extremely long time (eg 6+ months), recently changed email and/or password (and cant prove ownership), has no realistic trust, positive trading history, or no good and constructive post that ask for a loan will 99% of the time will take the money and not pay a sat back.
Its probably best for OP to go on and lock this thread since it looks like things are now figured out and it serve no further purpose other than for people to rant. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 10:01:58 AM Imo nothing wrong and the warning is @ its place.... Just asking a loan without collateral = shady and will go wrong in many cases, so a warning is due and then the members can decide what they do, probably ignore....
T'ill today I have had two people asking me for a loan (BTC-loan), still not knowing I did good with not tagging them actually, also been a while, going through my PM's and see what I will do with those.... Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: creeps on June 20, 2019, 10:58:30 AM Being a hero account doesn't mean you can't scam, everyone can scam people despite of their rankings just like on the previous loan before with other lender.
Having a 2 declined loan application before is not a good history after all, he must know how to provide collateral if he can really pay the amount of the loan. I appreciate the effort of LFC_Bitcoin to warn the lender because he might got lose big money, I guess it can still be deleted if there's no transactions being made well its all up to LFC_Bitcoin. This is not unfair, this is just a fair warning. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LoyceV on June 20, 2019, 12:10:59 PM I don’t really see how anybody can question it to be honest. I noticed your negative feedback before this topic was opened. On the one hand, I too think it was a bit harsh. But on the other hand, the request for an "education loan" without saying how he's planning to pay it back, looks a lot like an exit scam. 0.05 BTC is a lot of money for that account.
If anybody has an issue with my feedback they’re welcome to prove me wrong & risk lending him thd 0.05BTC but I somehow think that won’t happen. T'ill today I have had two people asking me for a loan (BTC-loan), still not knowing I did good with not tagging them actually, also been a while, going through my PM's and see what I will do with those.... Unless it's someone you've done business with before, asking someone who's not in the lending business for a loan is even more shady. That just means they assume you're an easy source of money.Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: xolxol on June 20, 2019, 11:35:07 PM Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust? if it comes from abuser like you there will be,smegma,copy paste redtag abuser like you should be remove from your awful unrightful position.The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 11:51:40 PM Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust? if it comes from abuser like you there will be,smegma,copy paste redtag abuser like you should be remove from your awful unrightful position.The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot. Still I would instant loan LFC some in BTC, I wouldn't trust you ::) So why is he in a unrightfully position?? Seems like the only position where he as a to trust member should be .... Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: xolxol on June 21, 2019, 07:37:28 AM Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust? if it comes from abuser like you there will be,smegma,copy paste redtag abuser like you should be remove from your awful unrightful position.The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot. Still I would instant loan LFC some in BTC, I wouldn't trust you ::) So why is he in a unrightfully position?? Seems like the only position where he as a to trust member should be .... Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 21, 2019, 10:04:56 AM Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust? if it comes from abuser like you there will be,smegma,copy paste redtag abuser like you should be remove from your awful unrightful position.The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot. Still I would instant loan LFC some in BTC, I wouldn't trust you ::) So why is he in a unrightfully position?? Seems like the only position where he as a to trust member should be .... Ignore him mic, he’s just another butt hurt Russian shit poster who has a worthless account due to red trust. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: Quickseller on June 21, 2019, 01:58:27 PM Based on LFC_Bitcoin’s response here, his trust rating, among other things, I have excluded him from my trust list. I would encourage others to do the same.
You can exclude him from your trust list by adding the following to your trust list: Code: ~LFC_Bitcoin Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on June 21, 2019, 02:24:06 PM Sadly for you, Quickscammer, nobody that matters will do this. Have fun recruiting a load of red trusted shit posters with less than 250 Merits between them, therefore, unable to have a say on anything.
I would suggest people distrust you but you’re already so distrusted & shamed across the whole bitcointalk.org community that there doesn’t seem a point. Have a great day! Edit - Just for the LOLS - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020 Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: xolxol on June 21, 2019, 03:48:58 PM Russian shit poster who has a worthless account due to red trust. i guess you arent stupid at all! im sorry but you're a wanker,rubbish racist douche twat.Im not a russian einstein. Title: Re: This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin Post by: The-One-Above-All on June 21, 2019, 04:03:46 PM Sadly for you, Quickscammer, nobody that matters will do this. Have fun recruiting a load of red trusted shit posters with less than 250 Merits between them, therefore, unable to have a say on anything. I would suggest people distrust you but you’re already so distrusted & shamed across the whole bitcointalk.org community that there doesn’t seem a point. Have a great day! Edit - Just for the LOLS - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=358020 LFC bitcoin should be excluded from trust lists This message confirms he is merely a bitch for others that are confirmed scammers and liars like lauda bill, I feel like a right ass hole but Lauda messaged me ... about you. She told me I should remove you from my trust list. I really didn’t want to do it because I do like you (a lot). For my own comfort & to make my life easier I did it. I don’t want to get on the wrong side of them. I am really sorry & I feel a dick for doing it. I had to tell you myself though before you see it yourself. I hope you can forgive me. LFC Laudas Feltching Clown How can such a pathetic dreg be on DT. A weasel and puppet. In this instance it is gray, i don't like no collateral loans but if a senior member wishes to risk his account hero/legend for a very small loan then this could be viewed as leverage to get them to repay. I expect the account would be worth more if they sold it than this. Not that we support selling accounts either. Really it should not be a red trust for hero to ask for such a tiny loan as non collateral - certainly NOT a flag now. It is the responsibility of the person loaning to do their own DD. We should not ask potentially innocent members to be paying for the greed and stupidity of others. You could view their rep and work to build the account as leverage to some degree. |
