Yea, not lending to him lol

I was referring to a situation where the person buying bitcoin is honest and goes first because "paypal can be reversed" but then cannot get a chargeback when the other party does not send the bitcoin and scams

This would not be acting honestly. It would not be the truth. I have never had to initiate a paypal chargeback before but I have had to initiate a credit card chargeback and they make you swear what you are saying is true under the penally of perjury.

I don't care how much money I lost, I am not going to lie under oath in order to get even several thousand dollars back. Doing so would effectively make me a scammer 

I don't believe that a donator/VIP status affects posting restrictions. However I do think it would be a good idea to allow someone to "donate" to the forum to remove or greatly reduce the posting restrictions as this would cause the donator to have "skin in the game" as an incentive not to scam/spam

This is not a valid reason to make the other party send bitcoin first. If you are concerned about the other party backing out of a deal then you should use escrow with specific terms spelled out as to when either party can back out of a trade.

You are not trusted and it would not be appropriate for anyone to send first to the OP

You change the email associated with a bitcointalk account:
1 - change the email address
2 - enter your password
3 - click 'change profile'
no email confirmation required

If you transferred an email account then there would be nothing to stop you from changing the email associated with the account making it impossible to recover the loan when you default.

You are right your account is probably worth more then the loan amount however when lending with accounts as collateral a best practice is to only lend a small percentage of the value of the account to give the borrower an incentive to repay as well as the fact that accounts can sometimes take a long time to sell.

I have seen a lot of people claim the trust system is being abused, but very few actual abuses. In my experience, in the few times the trust system is actually abused the abuser is removed from default trust list.
I personally doubt this. Just because this particular account does not have any trust does not mean you are not an alt and/or a friend of someone who has been effected.
Not true. Any one has the ability to exclude any one's trust reports, including those who they think do not make accurate trust reports.
I was not around when scammer tags were around, however I am fairly certain that you are an alt of someone else because I am fairly sure that scammer tags were done away with by the time you joined in February 2014. Also from what I have read scammer tags make the trust system even more centralized as only moderators (or administrators?) could add a scammer tag, as opposed to many more people on the default trust list, and if someone is given negative trust from someone on default trust they can also earn positive trust from someone else on default trust if they really are trustworthy
Donators and VIPs keep their donator/VIP stats even if they are a scammer. Since you were around prior to February 2014, just remember what happened with inputs/CL when TF lost 4k+ BTC in a hack. He was a VIP, got an insane amount of negative trust and still retains his VIP status. Also very few people have actually donated to the forum when compared to the total number of users, so the vast majority of people would show "zero" for this metric.

Again this does not prove anything. See above example.
Just because someone is smart enough and contributes to the Bitcoin protocol doesn't mean they are trustworthy. Just look at TBF (the bitcoin foundation).
Nope. Bad idea. Someone could buy up a bunch of higher level scammer accounts and make their own account(s) look trustworthy. Just because someone has been around a long time does not mean they are trustworthy.
There is not a monopoly on trust. Like I said above you have the ability to exclude whose trust reports you see. If someone makes a lot of bad trust reports then a lot of people will exclude them from their default view
The going price for accounts on default trust list is actually a lot higher then .1 BTC. If the price were that low then a scammer (at this point, I am thinking, likely like yourself) will be able to make a bunch of accounts then "pay" the very small fee to be able to leave default trust to manipulate others' trust ratings. Just because someone pays a small fee does not mean that their trust reports are accurate   

You are going to have to be much more specific. What user gave the trust and what user received the negative trust.

We just had massive drama about the trust system not even a week ago. There were probably at least 10 threads open about the trust system that were all active and at least 3 about one particular user

You can sign that address for other lenders but I don't think your collateral is sufficient.

It would probably actually be easiest to search for the address that you received your PD signature campaign payouts to in the services section. The enrollment posts should not be edited and you should be able to quickly find those address(es) in your wallet

Well for one, in order to use an account as collateral you would need to give control to either the lender or an escrow agent while the loan is outstanding. This allows the lender to sell off the accounts to recover the amount lent in the event that you default.

Second proving that you control the accounts is different then proving that you own the accounts. All you would need to do to prove control is to send a PM to a potential lender. In order to prove ownership you would generally need to produce a signed message from an address associated with an old unedited post.

I am still interested to know the approximate ranking of the accounts.

I also see that the last time you posted in 2014 was in late June. Then you did not post again until January 9 of this year. Are you able to explain your extended leave of absence?

It is understandable to only prove ownership privately. Have they ever posted a BTC address and/or send a BTC address in an PM? if so can you sign a message from a such address?

By very new member do you mean like junior member or lower?

can you prove ownership of the accounts? Are they senior accounts?

GLWS

Regardless the WU fee would eat up a lot of what you would receive. Take the guy's above mine advice and sell to bitstamp and withdraw via SEPA. According to him it costs $2 (I would verify this first)

If you are willing to come down on your price some (as in selling below stamp - $US) then I could do this.

It looks like the fee for sending money in person to Germany from the US is US$15 which would work out to be roughly 25% of what you would expect to receive. TBH you would probably be better off selling via coinbase or locally for that small of an amount.

The western union fees would likely eat up a very large portion of the money you would expect to receive.

You might want to specify if you are paying the WU fees (although walmart to walmart would likely be cheaper for whoever pays)

family and friends will only stop charge backs if the person initiating the chargeback is honest. If they admit to authorizing the transaction then paypal will not grant the chargeback.

The problem is that a scammer obviously has no problems lying to paypal about them actually authorizing the transaction as they would have had to have lied to you about sending the payment

I obviously read it if I was able to tell you that the price was nowhere near the levels that you said it was.

It really does not make any sense to me. Nor do I think it makes any kind of point.

It is really more trolling because it is not true and is greatly exaggerating how low the price went yesterday. There is no real way to have any kind of conversation with that post.

---

You mentioned that you usually get a PM notification when a message of yours is deleted. It is probably not a good thing that you know this because you really should not be making a lot of posts that get deleted, if you do then you are often breaking the rules