You have a bunch of trust for repaying loans late, however I believe this might have been the "work" of a prior owner of your account from years ago. You also have some recent negative trust for advertising the YoBit exchange.

yahoo62278 can take all of this into consideration when deciding if he wants to accept you or not. I don't know you well enough, and am not familiar enough with you to form an opinion if he should accept you or not.

He is trying to bring up information that does not affect his argument as a means to distract and discredit his argument. 

The amount of merit a person has determines some limitations, such as posting limits and restrictions a person has, so I don't think having people setup a network of merit sources would really be feasible.

theymos has used a fairly diverse group of people acting as merit sources, with the goal of having merit sources give out their sMerit supply to a wide range of people who are deserving merit.

Zuckerberg could go to the committee hearings, and answer questions to the extent he knows the answers -- there is probably a lot that is still in the planning stages that is subject to possible change, so he may not be able to give a lot of firm answers.

Once Zuckerberg is at the committee hearing, there is nothing committee members can do to force him to put the development on hold, above public pressure.

I am willing to listen to theymos’ opinion on the matter, however what he says will not be the deciding factor in my opinion on the matter, unless he is able to make an argument that changes my mind (or if someone else does the same).

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract. There was clearly deceit based on bon’s own words, and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

Account sales are allowed, and as such there are no public policy exceptions to not enforcing the contract. No portion of the contract forced bob to actually use the account he agreed to buy, so the argument that enforcing the contract would cause bob to do something immoral.

I think this is a pretty clear case that should not be controversial.

It is trivial to fake an IP address...you don’t even need to use a VPN. There are services that will allow you to have what appears to be a residential IP address of a distinct location.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable.

See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

Bob explicitly said he would buy the accounts upon receiving PMs from said accounts. He did not buy the accounts. The value of the accounts subsequently declined. As a result of bobs misrepresentation, the OP was unable to offer the accounts to anyone else. The value of what he was selling has subsequently declined.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Topic 3 was deleted years ago, and it is unknown what happened to it. Topics 1 and 2 were satoshi doing some tests, and topic 4 was some administrative notes left by satoshi.

See below for PDFs of the first topics:
topic 1
topic 2
topic 4

As an FYI, there are links to the above topics in the link you referenced.

Thank you!

If you are ever looking for posts to give merit to, I would subscribe to this post -- many people post what they believe to be merit worthy posts.

Any, and everyone is always welcome to give posts they find on this thread merit if they think they are so deserving. I have a limit amount of merit to give out, and can only give a small amount to each person.

1 - I think giving negative trust (and supporting a flag) against Csmiami, and subsequently removing both once he made his victim whole was is an entirely appropriate use of the trust system, and this is exactly how it is supposed to be used. That is to put pressure on people to repay what is owed to others, and to reword them once they have made their victims whole (via the lesser of the actual amount owed, or an amount the victim agrees to accept to be considered made whole).

2 - I think you should reconsider the negative rating against Thule. I don't think he is going to scam 1 out of x people he trades with, which I believe should be the criteria for negative trust (and the type 1 flags). His controversy was ignited by a single event that he was "caught" doing (IIRC) > a year after the fact, and I don't believe he had sufficient support to help him navigate the situation, which eventually escalated, in part because he was getting trolled by certain members. I don't particularly like him personally, but I do think he deserves to be treated fairly, and with respect, and the same as everyone else.

3 - Regarding:
I strongly disagree with this stance. If you have reviewed by stances on trust related matters, you will see that i employ the same standards to everyone, regardless of their position. You will also see that I have a long history going back years of risking my reputation to call out things that I believe to be wrong. I also would say there are few of my sent trust ratings that a do not explain why the person has scammed, or will very likely scam 1 out of x people he does business with.

It seems that google (and other major tech companies) are in fact abusing section 230 of the DCMA.

The tech companies have not quite gotten this bad -- it appears they are moving in this direction -- a company may ban all speech except those derogatory to a certain group of political ideology (or in favor of that groups competitor), and claim the content on their platform is user generated and as such exempt from libel liability. I do not think this is what was intended when section 230 was drafted, I believe the intention was to allow for competing ideas to be published.   

The only people who were banned were those who had some of their posts removed in the two week preceding the YoBit signatures being blacklisted.

No signature campaigns are whitelisted, except the Howeycoin campaign. 

I this thread says a lot about those who are defending bob effectively scamming the OP. I would not consider trusting any of these people with my own money, and none of these people belong anywhere near DT, or any other position of authority.

TBH, it is shameful.

OP created a flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292

The signed message doesn’t prove anything unfortunately. I also don’t buy the whole hacked argument either.

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.

Many other people have received and repaid loans of similar or larger size in reasonably similar situations as the OP.