idk, that is roughly $40, and a good quality paper would take several hours to research and complete (even if it is only 1.5 pages, and even if the person writing it is already knowledgeable in the subject).

If you were to double it then I might be interested assuming you either pay up front or fund escrow and set a certain set of guidelines that would guarantee that escrow would be released to me under a specific set of circumstances

All collateral should be held by a trusted third party

If someone is lending you .1 btc then you need to be very clear to any potential lender that you have another loan outstanding.

If you are not using your account as collateral, and are not offering anything else as collateral then you would be using your reputation to 'back' your loan and your reputation would be worth less then your account as a general rule (which I think would apply here)

How much are you offering for payment?

Well if you had enough alt coins then it would be worth that amount. I don't think it would be appropriate to use your account as collateral for that large of a loan though, I am not sure a lender could sell it quickly to recoup their investment if you were to default

What collateral do you have

The reason I think they are one and the same is because twipple did not start posting until almost exactly until the loan was due, then stopped posting at almost the exactly the same time that ume was banned, and resumed posting at almost the exact same time that ume was likely unbanned. Additionally the funds from the loan were not spent until after the loan was due.

Additionally, the posting style of both accounts is very low quality and spammy.

I was thinking they maybe donated something less then the 10 BTC required to get a donator tag, but still a 'good' amount (maybe 2-3 BTC) to the forum, sort of like a "hidden" donator status with different features then the current donator/vip features.
It is actually interesting because I have never actually heard of Angora before now (although the name does sound familiar, something similar to a name I heard when reading about various dark markets, although I doubt they are one and the same with what I am thinking about). I think it is actually kind of surprising that they have not had more scam accusations against them by scammers trying to effectively extort them out of money (just look at how many people try to do this to Prime Dice)

The reason Ume has negative trust is because he is a likely alt of tacoman71. The negative trust the ume first received was removed because of however it is back on now because of the reason stated above.

The fact that ume does or does not take back the account has nothing to do with me

I am not sure why you would buy an account that you thought, and had some level of evidence was hacked.

So this thread is from Ume? Looking at both Ume and twipple, I see both their post seems to be very short and insubstantial.

I don't exactly have a lot of experience in getting banned, but I don't think you receive notification for the exact reason for the ban, but rather a much more general reason (e.g. what rule was broken). I also understand that generally speaking, the lowest ban period is going to be 7 days, so if twipple was banned two days after ume was banned, then it wouldn't be able to post again until 2 days after ume started posting again, however they both started posting on the same day.

I don't think lolled is credible/trustworthy enough to believe he is a separate person from ume, so I don't think him posting is sufficient to have the trust removed. If he really did buy the account and Ume wants to be credible then he should refund lolled whatever he paid for it

If you are not accepting escrow then I can guarantee that you are scamming (or trying to scam).

Better yet why don't you sign a message that proves you control at least 2 btc that you are claiming to sell

I had previously registered close to 50 accounts, of which none of them had enough units of evil that they needed to pay, all while using PIA (this was back in ~July 2014). Now more recently (less then a month ago), I tried to register a newbie account to catch a scammer in the act via PIA and was asked to pay a fee to post/PM; I elected to turn off my VPN and create a new account and did so without being asked to pay a fee.

Out of curiosity, have you seen many people get your coins graded? Have you seen graded lealana coins sell for a lot more then ungraded lealana coins?

They would if they both want to gamble on Prime dice (for example) but also have CLAIMS (for example) and think they will increase in value over the corse of the loan

Well a 12 month maturity is going to be a lot more expensive for a 6 month maturity (probably at least 3 to 4 times more expensive).

Why don't you post an offer for a few strike prices on a per .01 BTC payoff basis, and I will see if it is attractive enough of an offer

Most smaller loans (less the .1 or so) are almost certainly going to be for gambling, (what else could they be for?) I don't think lenders particularly care though as long as they are sufficiently protected with collateral.

I would probably be interested in joining once funds as confirmed as being in control of devthedev (as a high profile user)

From the looks at it The Twipple account posted 15ZX2yUZio9HeSWUeWubxznQyaYcYFBFzB here on Jan 25, which is the address that connected the account to tacoman71. From the looks of it, almost exactly 60 hours later (5 days, which was the term of the loan), the twipple account started spamming short one liners, starting on Jan 30.

I see that someone mentioned that Ume was banned on Feb 1, however it looks like twipple stopped posting from Jan 31 to Feb 7. This is roughly the time that Ume was not posting so I think it is reasonable to say that Ume did not evade his ban via twipple.

However the tx that funded the loan was made on Jan 25 @ roughly 6 PM forum time with a public note (via blockchain.info) saying the loan was due on Jan 30 @ 6PM (forum time?), which is roughly the time the twipple account starts posting again. It is also before this transaction, which was made roughly 3 hours after the loan was due, which implies that twipple never spent the money until after he said he would repay the loan, which implies he was lending to himself. The transaction that spent the funds from the loan connected twipple to tacoman71.

The fact that both Ume and twipple stopped posting and resumed posting at roughly the same time (during a ban) links the two accounts together. The fact that the twipple account started posting on Feb 7 means that twipple likely was controlled by ume as of Feb 7. The fact that the security log does not show twipple changing his password within the last 30 days implies that it was not sold in the last 30 days (which includes feb 7).

I am not going to remove my negative trust for twipple, I am however going to add negative trust for Ume, for both likely lending to himself to build up trust for himself and for being a likely alt of tacoman71

What happens if not enough people put money into your "investment" in order to sustain these kinds of returns

I received the following PM from this account
I was not able to find any evidence of this account being given as collateral for a loan in the relivant time period.