When you trade with someone on eBay then any feedback that you leave is weighed equally to everyone else's feedback. With the trust system on this forum, certain people's trust ratings are weighed significantly more heavily then others. This means that some people actively seek to trade with people who have this significant trust weight.

Also eBay uses a trade feedback system. This forum uses a trust feedback system  there is a huge difference.

From the looks of it your spreadsheet just keeps track of your various wallets' (addresses) balances. I don't see how that is any different then any wallet software.

This isn't software lol. It is an excel spreadsheet.

This is either a confidence loan or a gambling loan. Either way I would say away from this "opportunity"

I think he is saying that he should not be labeled a scammer. He doesn't appear to be complaining about loosing the value of his collateral.

Okay so say the value is the same. The lender would still profit.

When altcoins are used as collateral a standard condition is that if the value of the altcoins falls below a certain threshold then they can be sold to cover the amount of the loan. I would say that often the borrower would not technically pay back the loan in those cases however they would not be a scammer.

There is not even a case of deception here. I assume the loan agreement to be something along the lines of the borrows will repay a certain amount by a certain date, and if this does not happen then the collateral will become the property of the lender.

I would restate my offer to make the OP "whole" by reimbursing the amount he was "scammed" aka the repayment amount if he is willing to give me the account (assuming he has a signed message). 

Who did he scam? He took out a loan and you ended up with something that is worth triple the amount you lent.

If you got a signed message from the OP to confirm ownership and you *really* feel scammed then I'll cover his loan, however I will need you to give me the collateral you received.

This was pretty clear that this was a gambling loan (there is no other reason to borrow such a small amount lol). I don't think it is his fault that he lost/busted/ect. The OP still profited from the deal. In order to be a scammer you need to either steal property from someone or try to steal property from someone. Who did he steal from? Please note that the OP ended up with more property then he started with.

It seems that the OP somehow knew that BitcoinBoss666 was an alt of the person who took out the loan, so he gave him negative trust ~a week ago. Then BitcoinBoss666 saw the trust and didn't like it so he left a negative on the OP saying that even though he defaulted the collateral was worth much more then the loan amount so he should not be labeled a scammer. (The fact that you cannot give any kind of trust rebuttal or response is a flaw in the trust system).

I don't think anyone got scammed here. The OP gave a loan for .1 but got .3 worth of collateral. He profits regardless if the loan is repaid. BitcoinBoss666 consented to giving his account as collateral for the .1 loan and when his gambling strategy didn't work out he lost his account (this is pretty clearly a gambling loan).

I don't think the trust given to the OP was calling him a scammer but was rather giving a rebuttal to the rating that was left on his trust profile.

IMO, if a rebuttal or a response could be left then we would probably see less retaliatory feedback left and would probably see less drama regarding the trust system (but maybe not very much less).

No. I am just pointing out that I previously looked into them and didn't think they would be a scam.

From the looks of it they chose their name poorly however I don't think they are the same as other ponzis as the rounds are scheduled to end at a certain time so you need to have enough people invested after you in order for you to not lose.

Although thinking about it a little bit, this does sound a little but like weekly ponzi which was run by scammer James Volpe aka TheGambler aka moreia so maybe it should be looked into to see if the OP,  is an alt of him. Otherwise they are really no different then any other Bitcoin casino but with a somewhat non traditional name.

How much are you paying?

Couldn't you say the same thing about any casino?

It looks like their thread is in games and rounds (and not the ponzi section).

I came across their thread a few times and didn't give them negative trust.

I have spoken to Fruitmandje and have agreed to accept his bid.

Auction ends tomorrow at 4:00 PM eastern time.

An ungraded similar coin recently sold for 1.75BTC and this is only one of three lealana MS-68 coins known to me. It grading this high makes it very rare 

Stop fucking writing in huge fonts as it this is very annoying.

I cannot make any promises, and I am not going to be the one who makes the decision for this. However, if you were to not evade your ban for a "long time" and don't otherwise cause problems in a 'good' amount of time then I would say that the chances of your previous accounts of getting unbanned if you ask nicely would be "good".

I just told you that you should wait 90 days. If it has been 30 days then wait another 60. You are more then welcome to browse the forum and read about what interests you while you are still banned (you are just not allowed to post outside of meta and cannot post regarding anything other then to appeal your ban).

If you were to post from your "primary" account then it would theoretically possible that things would be different.

Why don't you post from your "main" account?

Higher payments for the people who you give custom deals to

especially those who are about to expire

Yes you do. The value of your spam account would increase in the event that my negative trust rating would go away because I am removed from the default trust network. You would also expect to have a higher signature spam campaign revenue as a result of my ratings not showing up as default.
Please see Blazr's post in the thread that tspacepilot locked censored, to both prevent people from disagreeing with his viewpoint and allow him to claim victory (when this is not the case) in an argument. His post essentially says that tspacepilot essentially admits to breaking the rules of coinchat (by blazr's own conclusion - and not relying on any of TF's statements). Just because he scammed what turned out to be a scammer and what turned out to be an extortionist does not mean that what he did was okay.

If you want Bitcoin to succeed over the long run, then you will need to be blind to the fact that someone has scammed in the past or that someone is a scammer when deciding if you are going to be honest with such person (if someone is a scammer then you should still take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself from being scammed). I can say that who is probably the most reputable person on the forum (tomatocage) has refunded/released escrow to scammers a number of times in order to protect the interrogatory of the marketplace on the forum, I can also say that I have done the same and that anyone who will not honor their escrow contract with a scammer is themselves a scammer.

---

Regarding da dice overlooking the fact that tspacepilot is a scammer/spammer - the fact that they are paying him to advertise their website has caused me to withhold my business with them which is significant, it has also caused me to withhold my recommendation of playing at their site when asked the general question as to if I recommend playing at their site, and the outright recommendation against playing at their site when asked, all due to the fact that they willingly and knowingly choose to associate with a scammer.

No.

First of all, wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source in the educational world, in the professional world, in the media world, or pretty much anywhere. The fact that people cite wikipedia as often as they do on here baffles me. Secondly, wikipedia entries cannot come from firsthand knowledge, they must be from researched sources......meaning that just because I fake being sick to get out of going to school on 9/11 (2001), and as a result was able to personally witness the twin towers collapse a mere blocks from where I was standing at age 16, does not mean that I can write that the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11 in a wikipedia article, I would need to find a news (or other) source that says that the WTC towers collapsed, and cite those sources in order for me to publish that fact.

Additionally, it is generally considered to be acceptable to receive a small financial benefit as a(n) (indirect) result of a relationship with you being in a position of authority and the other person being a vendor, customer, or employee. It is generally within the boundaries of the code of ethics of most large companies for someone of authority to receive/accept up to between $25 and $200 (with ~$100 being both the mode and mean acceptable amount) worth of gifts without approval from the ethics board and without violating the code of ethics. In my experience, the limit is on a per customer/vender/employee basis, meaning that I can receive up to $100 worth of gifts from each employee/customer/vendor that I oversee/make decisions regarding. The exemptions to this limit tend to increase as your level of responsibility increases (for example congressmen are able to accept up to $3,000 per campaign cycle in campaign contributions from each person, in addition to other things).

I think it is fair to say that I have received an additional benefit of less then $100 (worth of bitcoin) as a (hypothetical) result (which is likely an invalid conclusion that prices rise as a result of scammer accounts getting tagged as scammers) of me giving negative trust to scammer accounts (tspacepilot for example) on a per customer basis - the price of bitcoin is currently ~$235/BTC which would mean the price of an account would need to rise by ~.42 BTC in order for the above $100 threshold to be breached while senior accounts have generally been selling for barely .3 BTC recently, and heros have barely been selling for .7 BTC recently (I don't think anyone will be able to provide evidence that over 60% of the value of hero accounts is the result of my negative repping scammers).

Additionally, it is common for respected members of various markets to call out scams in their markets. Stunna, for example has been accused to accusing gambling sites of being a scam a number of times (when they turned out to be a scam) in order to hurt his competition; however his ultimate goal was to prevent people from being able to scam in the first place and as a result raising confidence in his industry; this is actually something that I have discussed with him a number of times. Just because you call a competitor of yours a scam does not mean you are trying to quash the competition, as if you were to end up being wrong then your reputation will suffer over the long run. The purpose of pointing out scams in your industry/market is to ensure that people feel safe when dealing in your market/industry.

---

All of the above ignores the fact that I am no longer in the account selling market and have not been for several months now. I no longer am holding any inventory. The only time I would hold any accounts at all would be either for escrow or for me acting as an agent to a third party (which would actually harm me because I would need to purchase accounts at a higher price on behalf of someone else).

Yes there is. I know exactly how much the person was willing to pay for the default trust account, I know with a reasonable amount of certainty how much they were able to scam players/investors and I know with a reasonable about of certainty how much the accounts are worth now that the scam was uncovered.

I am fairly certain that there are few default trust accounts that are sold (or whose owners are considering selling their accounts) - (this is especially true now that CITM has been removed from level 1 default trust), however I can probably point to a pretty good number of default trust account sales as well as am aware of a good number of default trust accounts that may potentially be for sale, however it will be kept a secret because well a) it is none of anyone's business and b) people have incentives not to try to scam with these accounts because the potential for profit is low, the chances of success is low and the potential for loss is high, which makes an overall very bad risk profile.

As of the time that I pointed out that the account in question was purchased with the intent of scamming, no one was the wiser as to the above fact. I know that you cannot point to any post implying that the account in question was a scammer account that was made prior to me opening my scam accusation