If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

Just to make it clear (in case it wasn't for you on my previous posts) I do not think it's OK to leave a negative trust if I just have a hunch someone is a scammer. But it's OK to do it if I'm 99% convinced he is trying to scam (even if he hasn't yet). As I've said I have left negative trust with only about 50% certainty but I never consider it closed on those conditions. I keep reading the replies and either keep it if that certainty goes close to 100% or remove it otherwise. Several scams are produced because of a newbie making a deal right after a scammer posts a thread. That thread usually has several red flags that older users can notice but not newbies. It's possible someone can show "false positive" red flags such as not using escrow or not providing collateral for a loan. But on those cases they will correct quite fast if someone points that out. If they do of course the negative trust should be immediately removed. I'm convinced it's OK to leave a red rating if I'm 99% sure someone tries to scam (as I also said that doesn't apply for a judge and someone accused of a crime). Although I'm not on default trust I think some people will read the feedback and I hope I prevented at least one scam.

There would be much more scams if only those who succeeded on scamming received red trust and not those with clear scammy/shady behavior. They could scam, get negative trust, create a new account and repeat knowing they won't get his account red until they scam again.

(Again your post and my response are somewhat off-topic. I'm talking in general here, not about OP.)

Edit:
Regarding this probably it's not worth commenting because I think OP's behavior was somewhat shady and you don't and that's that. However to make it clear I think it was shady mainly because the conditions he demanded didn't protect the seller and because he backed out of the deal even after all his conditions were met (OP recognized the conditions were met and he backed out just because he was angry). I don't think that's enough to tag him as a scammer but that's definitely not a professional behavior. It's like when someone bids on an auction and then cancels the deal after winning. The other party could have rejected other deals because OP already confirmed it. Personally I prefer not to deal with someone that does this kind of things.

Hi. I'm able to help on this. PM me what exactly you need so I can send you an estimate of time and cost.

You need to provide proof of traffic and income of your site. If it's really worth more than 2BTC+interest and you find a lender that takes that collateral you would need to transfer the domain and provide full admin access to the lender (or a trusted escrow) before you receive the loan, not after you default it. During the loan you must have no way to access the site or recover it before repaying it.

But first step: prove the site is worth more than 2.5 BTC.

You do need to offer a valid collateral. Read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0
Without this there's 0% chance you will get a loan and 100% chance you will get negative trust.

I bought BTC0.7449 from ghibly79 via PayPal. I sent first and he sent right after receiving the funds. Thanks for a smooth deal.

I only received proof of ownership of some sites. If you do have valid collateral let me know or even better post it here publicly. I don't mind if I don't receive advertisement but there's no way I will give this loan without a valid collateral.

Thanks. But as I said the advertisement is not a valid collateral because it's not worth more than 2.25 BTC (in the PM you say it's worth much more than the interest, even if that's true it's not worth more than the loan plus interest) and because you could remove if at any time if you wanted to.
You seem to have several valuable sites but even proving you can pay the loan back it doesn't guarantee you will.
I can't loan this amount without a valid collateral and I wouldn't advice anybody to do it.

Not sure if that was for me. Just to be clear I mean collateral as something that can easily be sold for more than 2.25 BTC if the loan is defaulted, as explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.msg6311902#msg6311902
Advertisement would work as part of the interest but not as collateral.

Can you offer a valid collateral? I will fill this loan if you do. I really doubt someone will without it.

What wallet did you use to send this transaction? Has the transaction changed any information (such as date/time) at all? (that could mean the TX is being re-broadcasted).
Normally a low priority TX without fees (like this one) is deleted after a few days (depending on the client). If that doesn't happen you must prevent it from being re-broadcasted as first option or you can try spending the same input on a new TX with fees.

You can't be serious. What collateral are you offering? Read this and include a valid collateral or cancel your request and lock this thread immediately before you get negative trust (too late): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0
Pro tip: The lender can't sell your home address for more than 1.04 BTC when you default your loan.

I recommend you to go through the posts and find a posted BTC address whose private key you control. Sending a PM only proves you control the account now but it's not a proof the account wasn't hacked. Most people won't bid without that guarantee.
I don't think extending the auction if a last-minute bid happens would be cheating as long as you decide to do so now and not when the auction is close to end. But it's up to you, just decide the rule now.
You didn't specify the minimum increment to bid.

Has the account you're selling posted a BTC address on an unedited post at least 6 months ago? Do you have the private key of that address? Those are the conditions for you to be able to prove ownership via a signed message.
Also what is the minimum bid increment? Will the auction be extended if there's a bid on the last minute?

You're doing it wrong. Post all the evidence publicly for peer review. Of course nobody will leave a negative feedback on that account without knowing whether or not it's really an alt of a scammer.
Read this and try again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0
P.S.: Do not PM me.

Escrow prevents that one side doesn't send at all (that's why you won't use it, so you can scam). It doesn't prevent charge backs.

Escrow doesn't prevent charge backs. Try offering a non-reversible payment method or use virwox as I already suggested in your other thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1028202.0

Also don't create several threads for the same trade. If the amount or other condition changed just update the same thread.  Read the rules before posting.

Fixed it for you

  ^ Here's an example of what I was saying. He will ask you to send first and he will never send you the BTC. Then he will give excuses to earn time until you can't charge back.

So it's just a suggestion? it's not mandatory?
If the emails and passwords are random does that mean that only you and the person who buys the account (in this case 00king00) have access to the credentials? So if his credentials were changed it means you made that change? In that case just send him the new credentials for the same account and stop changing it.
Or is it possible that someone (for example the person you stole the account from) has access to it and can change the email or password?


Note to OP: Update the "Amount Scammed" and any other fact that is not correct. If you lie all you get is losing credibility, I was very close to just ignoring you because of that.