What about having a coin (or whatever new paradigm you're proposing ) with 2 separate independent tamper-proof stickers?

You would ask the buyer to send you a public key (while safely keeping the corresponding private key), you would create your own public key and generate a 2-of-2 multisig address. You would fund the resulting address and ship the coin with your private key protected with a sticker, along with another unused sticker. The buyer would receive the coin and add the private key he generated.

To redeem the coins the final user would need to remove both stickers and use both keys. It is a little complex and the buyer would need to be tech-savvy but I guess almost all physical bitcoin buyers are.

Edit: I guess on the secondary market there would always be a risk that the buyer didn't really include his key correctly, but at least because he never had access to the first private key he would have no motivation to keep the second one.
To reduce this risk the process could be done by you and another very trusted and experienced person instead of the final buyer. So you would add the first private key and send it to a trusted middle man who would add the second key and forward the coin to the final buyer.

So you confirm you did read this neutral feedback saying OP was waiting for a 0.3BTC payment due on the 23rd.


Sure it clearly says "everything is OK". Great sign to buy an account! Note the clear link to this thread in scam accusations.

You keep requesting more questions without giving a clear/credible response for the previous ones.

I think I'm done here. It seems I'm just wasting my time, I will just keep reading.

Really?  sometimes you use auxiliary verb "Do" and sometimes you forget it completely? Coincidentally you forgot to use it when writing on this post with your alt dznuts85 and when you posted that message I screenshot which you deleted immediately. English is not my native language either and I make a lot of mistakes but after I've learned how to use "Do" trust me I do use it.

So was this for another deal? Which one exactly? Or are you saying you left the review after you "agreed" but before actually getting the account?

Yep. The only questions I'd add are "will you refund OP?" and "seriously! do you expect us to believe that!?"

Because you scammed OP with your alt dznuts85 and you have enough to pay here: 12R9SPJBoiXmJiQ23HwM38gEWoBZ6FWk31
That's a very good reason in my opinion.

Did you come up with that ridiculous story just now? It's obvious what's happening but I'll just list some points that don't make sense:

• Why did you write with a broken English in the message I screenshot? "We not agree on price...". Did you suddenly forgot English for a minute and remembered it again now? Obviously you have multiple personalities including your imaginary friend, dznuts85 and yenzae0215
• Why did you leave a positive feedback on dznuts85's profile on the 21st? Explain why the way dznuts85 writes changed only today. Of course you didn't leave that feedback before "your friend" got the account.
• The way you and dznuts85 write are the same since a long time ago.

By checking the latest posts of dznuts85 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=372600;sa=showPosts) I see he was writing in an acceptable English in general. Then suddenly he forgot English today when posting in this thread, he forgot how to write verbs and started making several pretty obvious (as in intentional) errors. However TheGrapist left a feedback in his account on the 21st of April:

At that date, the 22nd and the 23rd dznuts85 still knew how to speak English.

Also, TheGrapist has always written a proper English so I wonder why dznuts85 (controlled now by TheGrapist) can't. So the question is: TheGrapist will you refund OP?

Oops! You posted with your wrong account TheGrapist?

Hehe that's the normal referral code. The person who is referred gets free $10 as long as it's a new account and the referrer gets $25. I'm sure anyone with an account there (myself included) would be more than willing to give this "invite" for free

OP stop your nonsense and just answer this question:
Are you willing to use a trusted member of this forum as escrow? Will you send the coins to him before receiving your payment?

The fact you write a story like this, your past trust, your irrationality to respond, the fact you avoid responding about escrow and the fact you want to sell way bellow market price are extremely suspicious. Nobody should deal with OP without using an escrow of this forum.

Yes sure. When did you buy it? From whom? What thread was is sold on?
I guess this means (regardless of it being true or a scammer's excuse) OP won't get his coins back.

Edit: According to seclog dznuts85's password was changed yesterday, presumably if the account was really sold it was then. However this thread was created before that.

I understand your logic completely. However I do think that those depths contain scammers and untrustworthy users because people don't really care about them. If the default depth was 3 or 4 then the users who understand the trust system would be more careful when adding users there and would also use exclusions more heavily.
Most probably default depth won't ever change and who knows if the lists would really be improved if more attention were given so this is just hypothetical. But I do understand what SaltySpitoon is saying. It would be nice to have a way to test new default settings by including a lot of (beta) users but not everyone.

Disclaimer: I'm in default trust on depths 3 and 4 and I just checked my profile looks awesome on those depths!

Edit: If more depths were included it'd be useful to be able to give them different weights:

Did you even read the linked post? There you can find ideas for valid collateral. If you can't provide any then you should cancel your request and just lock this thread. There's no chance you'll get a loan without collateral. All you'll get is negative trust.

I agree kashish948 should receive some more trusted negative feedback. I really don't like the fact this account shows green trust by default after he stole from OP.

Yes I think that chain of events is what happened but I find it so disturbing that we need to guess. We don't have the complete facts from either side.
Nice find regarding the connection between the accused and a known scammer. Someone from default trust must flag that account too until this is solved [done].

Wow this is the worst formatted report I've ever seen. At least remove the 'code' tags, format it correctly and include that in OP.
Regardless sharing the original agreement you reached would help. What was the amount you agreed? Was he supposed to give any progress reports? What was the time limit? You're also missing the proof of payment.

OP you should clearly explain exactly what happened besides just posting the PMs. Is dznuts the middle man to hire the designer? Why didn't you contact the designer directly? Or is making the design?
Include all the information as explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0, especially mention the exact original agreement you reached.

I will PM dznuts85 to ask for his version.

Just PM me your email and I'll send one for free.

Then why did you create an account just for this loan?

So you do have enough BTC to buy the car but you prefer to use someone else's money? Why would you prefer to pay interest instead of using your own coins? You can get more the same way you plan to get the coins to repay the loan. The only difference is you won't pay any interest.

Do you have any idea how suspicious this looks? Anyway tehre's 0% chance you will get a loan if you don't offer a valid collateral, read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.msg6311902#msg6311902
Meanwhile all you'll get is negative trust.

I use Electrum and I confirm the option to import a private key is no longer enabled (I don't know why it wasn't removed completely)


Instead of importing the private key it's much more secure to Sweep it if generating a transaction has some difficulties like an un-synced wallet or other reason.

Actually this can be automatic and save bandwidth (not only not waste it) if done properly:

Something like infinite scroll can be implemented via jQuery and that could be triggered only when the tab is on focus and a scroll happens. Another option is to query regularly (every 30 seconds or so) for new posts only when the page is on focus (even if no scroll happens) but only a boolean would be returned indicating whether or not new posts are available on that specific thread (cache could be used server-side if several users are on the same thread). If there are new posts then a message would appear and the user would need to click on it to have them loaded. Gmail does this for new emails on the current conversation.

Only a few bytes would be queried only when the site is on focus. This would prevent a lot of users to hit F5 just in case, wasting a lot of bandwidth and -even worst- DB queries and other resources.

By that you mean that the receiving address of that TX (17c2cHYmTT4LzRfi3UPP8ozcRHbxTrwca6) belongs to the same exchange and thus the coins are just being moved on the same wallet (or at least owner)? Let me know if I misunderstood you.

As shorena said, yes it's definitely possible. However it's not the only option. It's very likely that any external user of the exchange decided to withdraw 0.06 BTC and the exchange's wallet happened to have 3 unspent inputs that added exactly that amount, so no change was required (this is easier to happen because no fee was necessary).

Because a TX was created using the inputs of those 3 addresses then most probably (but not certainly) they belong to the same entity (the exchange) but you can't know anything for sure regarding the receiving address.