defcon23 is the blackmailer in this matter, and he has a history of blackmail.
-snip-
I have no idea why Lauda would leave that blackmailer POSITIVE feedback while he continues to insult Lauda.
Honestly, from the conversation that I had with them I got the idea that they genuenly wanted to make peace and get this over with. Additionally, they were really friendly yesterday. I guess I was wrong, the feedback has been reduced to neutral in light of the new situation and is going to stay that way.
I do find it strange that someone who has been as uncontroversial as Lauda in the past is going to such great lengths to protect their identity, especially considering the reputation of those Lauda has traded physical items with.
So people who are genuinely concerned with privacy and anonymity are strange? There was only 1 person here besides Mitchell that ever shipped to me directly, but they are deceased.
are there any txid's that might backup these trades?
You could either get IRC/Slack/PM logs to back these up or TX ID's (in some cases there are none since there's a trade-in). However, I'm sure that most of these people don't want to get involved.
I think this looks very bad on the side of Lauda. For starters, it appears this is more evidence that Lauda is engaging in trust farming.
No. I had suggested and even labeled it (optional) to him while we were discussing. I asked several times whether the other party felt like something had to be done differently, they insisted several times that they just wanted to make peace and we came to a mutual agreement. The user in question suddenly backed out of everything for something that has no connection to me(?) and thus I've changed my rating to neutral. I'm really done with this. I will neither remove nor change my rating anymore.
From what I can gather, you are somewhat close to Lauda, and appear to be backing him.
If occasionally talking, mostly about forum related matters, equals being somewhat close and 'backing him', maybe.
Lauda offered to buy a coin from defcon23 for $25. After defcon23 declined the offer, Lauda said she was going to leave negative trust (see screenshot
here). Lauda claims that her threat of negative trust was a "joke".
I have never stated I'd leave the seller negative rating for that and have not done so.
it might have been said that Lauda was not aware of the auction at the time the negative trust was left, but I am not 100% sure). The negative trust was over something that allegedly happened ~a year ago. The coin ended up selling for ~7 times the amount of Lauda's offer.
No. I was aware of the auction that day, however the rating has nothing to do with the bogus escrow situation but their bad retaliatory feedback (which they have rewritten properly with my help) and thus I have removed my rating. Also: Defcon23 refused to sell at all (mentioned even possibly keeping it, not refused to sell just at $25.
You left out the reason why there is a dispute in the first place.
Again, defcon23 insisted on keeping it short.
Yes, you said that you expected to be asked to pay a price that was higher then the $25 you were offering. You knew that you would not be able to buy the coin for $25 in the open market.
There were no sales of a #1 in the open market (I had 3 private sales so far) beforehand and the offer was genuine. The user in question didn't provide a counter-offer (e.g. higher asking price) and thus it was left at that.
I guess I will have to take your word for it. Although that does sound like an awful lot of steps for a couple of $25 coins.
The situation was specific. For some reason chronicsky was unable to ship directly to NL.
Show Posts
