Do you have any pictures of it?
You say that it is loaded with 3.5 BTC but can you confirm that the hologram is still intact?
Sure, let me take one. Yes, the hologram is intact. I planned to put my life savings in it, and use it when I'm old (because 1BTC will be sooo much money). Unfortunately I might need the funds quicker than that.  Maybe I'll sell it at auctions later, if needed. Are you taking offers or just trying to find out how much you can get for it? |
|
|
|
|
Do you have any pictures of it?
You say that it is loaded with 3.5 BTC but can you confirm that the hologram is still intact?
|
|
|
|
You should post this in the auction sub forum as this post can be deleted should someone take control of your account.
Posts in the auctions sub can't be edited or deleted by the user.
What if it gets moved to a different board then edited then moved back? Can you move a thread from the auction sub to another category? Yes. And doing so will not necessarily notify anyone watching. |
|
|
|
|
Are you flexible on price?
|
|
|
|
|
I think this rule is going to make people not want to bid because of the long delay in being able to actually buy the account.
|
|
|
|
|
Escrow.ms has effectively closed his escrow for probably 6 months now, or at least he is not actually offering escrow anymore.
|
|
|
|
This user let me know their username and if they are telling the trust they do not seem to have spammed at all. Will double check now.
Keep in mind that spam posts might get deleted along with the ban. I have seen this in the past IIRC when someone was enrolled in a campaign that paid per post. It has already been said that this is Ume. There are a lot of spam posts. |
|
|
|
|
I think the price the OP is selling for is very good however without a signed message there is a risk that someone will come back later claiming the account is hacked. If the OP has been posting from it for at least a month that probably won't happen but the risk is still there.
|
|
|
|
that offer was for an account that I believe I can procure that has deep/dark green trust and is on default trust (and is a legendary account). You are selling an account with "a bit of green trust" which implies is only light green and is not on default trust.
The market for these accounts is very small so if you were to expect to sell it quickly you would be disappointed. I believe that person is now accepting offers for "light green" accounts as well.
Did not know you were talking about a legendary acct. And mine has dark green trust (over 10). you should send that guy a PM. Are you willing to tell me the name of the account (via PM)? I think I may have asked this before but I am not sure if this was to you or someone else. |
|
|
|
|
Can you prove ownership of the account via a signed message from an old address associated with the account? I would probably be interested if you can.
|
|
|
|
escrow?
i offer 1.2 btc
It's a decent offer. but i'd sell it for around 1.8 - 2btc Yeah I am looking for 2 BTC. I see quickseller has posted in another thread that one of his accounts for sale with lots of trust is listed at 7.5 BTC. I think 2 BTC is reasonable for a Hero Member w lots of trust. Someone could easily earn that back with sig campaigns, loans, etc in just a few months. that offer was for an account that I believe I can procure that has deep/dark green trust and is on default trust (and is a legendary account). You are selling an account with "a bit of green trust" which implies is only light green and is not on default trust. The market for these accounts is very small so if you were to expect to sell it quickly you would be disappointed. I believe that person is now accepting offers for "light green" accounts as well. |
|
|
|
|
24 hours from last bid or from first bid?
|
|
|
|
Posts: 54
Activity: 54
Position: Jr. Member
Date Registered: June 02, 2011, 05:07:14 AM
PM me your price
dose it have a avatar ? back there accounts was able to set their avatar if its with one it may worth somthing otherwise jr member is so easy to make It is OP's account. Now people will know it is not him :/ wow i did not see that coming now this account have even more less value as everyone know this account is going to be sold Exactly! I recommend the OP locks this and keeps his account. He can be come a Hero member with an account that old. Just make 400+ posts. Sorted. no he can't. He hadn't posted in enough activity periods. |
|
|
|
|
Please know that sending PMs while you are banned is considered to be ban evading and sending PMs asking for negative trust is very annoying so please stop.
|
|
|
|
I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.
If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.
There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.
Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member. Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes". I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned. I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion. The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake) Yes you are right, but if I will send you 1 btc and after check and I just had to sent you only 0.50 BTC , will you send me back the 0.5 btc or not ? This is only a question about "honesty" (nothing else). I agree with you, the first mistake is from marcotheminer, but (I think) the alt account should send back the btc. This is just my personal opinion, and I will be glad to remove the negative trust if I was wrong. I would personally send the excess amount back because I would want to maintain my relationship with my trading partners. However if you send Bitcoin to someone then it is that persons property barring some prior agreement to repay amounts. There is also a claim that the funds were confiscated from the bit-x account and if this is the case then it would be 100% Marcos problem. This is also another example as to why payments should not be sent to a website account. |
|
|
|
I still think Eal should address the allegations. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now however this benefit should not extend forever. Particularly concerning is giving himself trust if these are in fact his alts.
If Marco paid too much then he should bite the bullet from the overpayment as he paid too much. If he kicked someone out of his campaign mid month then he should pay them for the posts made up to the date they were kicked out.
There is no reason why all the mods should not be regularly checking the scam accusacations section so there is no reason why eal has not yet read this.
Have you checked the latest posts of that account, he should be banned for 14 days ( insubstantial posts +sig ad). Everyone of us know he will never be banned because he (Eal F. Skillz) is a staff member. Do you think the proofs aren't valid, I doubt the bitcoin blockchain can be falsifiable. As I told him through pm "Everyone make mistake, but everyone should "correct" their mistakes". I am not in charge of handing out bans so I cannot speak to why (or if) any of the accused have or have not been banned. I do think the blockchain evidence does show they are the same person however I want to hear what eal says before making my own conclusion. The overpayment is Marcos mistake not eal's mistake (or whoever owns the account in question's mistake) |
|
|
|
|
All collateral should be held by a trusted third party
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
