the burden is on the accuser I agree. how can I prove my account hasn't been "possibly hacked"  you could possibly give someone like tomatocage access to your account to see the PM with your address that you could later sign a message with. Is this somewhat of an invasion of privacy? Yes. Would I personally do this to prove my account was not hacked? No. |
|
|
|
You have a bunch of worthless chits from a ponzi. I'm not sure how you think that is enough collateral for a $25,000 loan. If anything, it would make people question your ability to weigh risks and the likelihood of getting paid back, as you've obviously invested money you can't afford to lose in what was a pretty transparent scam. If you really need the money, have you considered taking out a traditional loan against your house if you own one? I am not here to argue about ltcgear but i think eventually everybody will get paid...chris is known to bunch of people and he can't afford not to pay. Anyway all my btc are stacked in ltcgear and bitstamp so i am stacked with nothing for now. I am providing id as extra protection and i know how it seems but this is the only thing i ve got left. I don't want to mess up with banks i really don't that is why i mostly use bitcoins. That's what i can offer, and i really hope things have gone different and i didn't need a loan. Saying that someone cannot afford to pay is a contradiction. Being able to afford something is based on how much money you have. When you pay then you end up with less money they you started with. ID is not going to protect the lender. You are obviously going to need to use a bank if you need this much money as the Bitcoin economy is not large enough to allow you to spend that much money |
|
|
|
I think the easiest solution would be a signed message. I agree that the trust should really not have ever been left.
It is up to you but whatever you do I would suggest not starting any kind of hate campaign.
You're assuming I've publicly posted an address which could be used to sign a message. I haven't, except in PMs. The recipients of those PMs (Carnth, DeadTerra and Friedcat) have better things to do than referee Vod's slap fights. Even if they didn't, Vod could still say my private key was "possibly hacked" because it's not a refutable claim. Given these facts, do you see an alternative besides "hate campaign?"  Maybe Thermos or BadBear will hold Vod to the same high standard they held TECSHARE, and remove him from default trust because of his demonstrated abusive malfeasance. i think that is the easiest solution. Weather or not you want to try to prove your self this way is ultimately up to you. |
|
|
|
|
I believe avatars will be allowed in the new forum and I would think avatars will be able to be changed in the new forum as well (although this is somewhat speculation)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the easiest solution would be a signed message. I agree that the trust should really not have ever been left.
It is up to you but whatever you do I would suggest not starting any kind of hate campaign.
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I would say this is probably not appropriate. He claims that it is a possibly hacked account, however his password was not changed in the last 30 days.
I think that Icebreaker's trust left for Vod is probably a misunderstanding of the entire situation, however he is entitled to his opinion about Vod's left feedback for TECHSHARE.
I think Vod should remove his trust for Icebreaker as this is more of an example of him trying to silence critics.
I would say this is somewhat of an example of leaving trust because of "trust abuse" and anyone who leaves those kinds of reports should not have any of their trust reports relied upon
My account has not been hacked. I've been here longer than Vod. This is clearly an abuse of his default trust, which isn't supposed to be used for petulant tit-for-tat retaliation. Like I said it is probably not appropiate. If you can provide a signed message from an address from an old unedited post then it would squash any hacking claim and if he wants to remain reputable then he will need to remove the trust. Although I do not think that should be necessary. I do think this is essentially leaving trust because they are engaging in "trust abuse" and any trust left for this reason makes the person's trust left be unreliable |
|
|
|
|
Your rate is low however I have two. If you are flexible on price I can sell mine.
|
|
|
|
|
If you still need them I have two $40 coupons. You can make an offer for them.
|
|
|
|
Hello,I want lend 2.1 btc,I have collateral:my coinbase account personal,which go step 1 verifications(3 bank accounts),and on 6 january I purchased 2.44 btc,from my bank accounts,in history I see its all pending.And bitcoin go in account upon end of 12 January 2015.May be earlier.I give you my coinbase account,anyone of lenders(trusted),may use escrow,I dont want wait 12 january simple.Bank account for me dont might need.If use escrow,I give you access to my account,and you see information of account.PLease PM!
A coinbase account is not collateral. You could easily put a stop payment at your bank on the bitcoin purchase which would result in coinbase not receiving funds which would result in them not crediting your account with bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
Looking at the feedback that icebreaker left it looks like it matches what Vod left on TECHSHARE exactly (with the exception of who is being discussed). I do find it strange that he would leave the exact same trust rating like that.
|
|
|
|
I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true.
Someone being hot headed makes them a scammer? I think you all are missing what negative feedback is for: "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." Will a reasonable person think "being hot headed" is a reason for "strongly believing this person is a scammer"? Okay, maybe I can concede on takagari, although I would say his actions show that if any business deal were to not go smooth then any deal would only get worse. I personally would "trade with caution" with him. In regards to TECHSHARE I think he is too eager to be on default trust list. I cannot point to anything specific as to how this makes him a scammer (I also have not given him negative trust) however I do have somewhat of a bad feeling about him wanting to be on default trust so badly |
|
|
|
He never could on the five pages of my thread, he won't here. All he has on me was saying he laughed and yelled in a pm, which wasnt what he said, simply the context I took from the pm.
I called him a liar, he also stated I was clearly not a canadian. So he is allowed to make an assumption, produce a lie based on it, and not have any repercussions, but when a member is wronged or insulted and get's mad. That's the end for them?
This, as well. Vod, can you quote any lie that takagari or TECSHARE has made, that justifies a negative trust rating? If either of them has deleted / edited anything, I'm sure the admins can recover it. I would say that Vod's rating for both takagari and TECHSHARE are valid, although the comments may need some editing. takagari is very hot headed and essentially blew up when the trust rating was not immediately removed and his comment about him being hotheaded is true. TCHSHARE seems to be a little too eager to be on default trust list and previously used his former position on such in order to silence people who were making valid concerns. He stood to financially benefit from such silence. VOD on the other hand does not stand to financially benefit from his critics being silenced |
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I would say this is probably not appropriate. He claims that it is a possibly hacked account, however his password was not changed in the last 30 days.
I think that Icebreaker's trust left for Vod is probably a misunderstanding of the entire situation, however he is entitled to his opinion about Vod's left feedback for TECHSHARE.
I think Vod should remove his trust for Icebreaker as this is more of an example of him trying to silence critics.
I would say this is somewhat of an example of leaving trust because of "trust abuse" and anyone who leaves those kinds of reports should not have any of their trust reports relied upon
|
|
|
|
|
All collateral should be held by a trusted third party
|
|
|
|
Why is it this laissez faire attitude was not applied to me?
This thread is for Vod, I understand that you feel you've been treated very unfairly but the thread would be more useful if we focus on the specific incident at hand -- ie, vod leaving you negative trust without substantiation, in what appears to be an attempt at stifling speech. The irony of this is blaring. TECSHARE is calling for the removal of Vod from default trust list because he feels like Vod is trying to silence him, while the exact reason that TECSHARE was removed was because he was trying to silence a critic who had very valid points in his posts/criticism |
|
|
|
any negative trust or neutral/positive?
i bid 0.4btc
Just one negative stating something not true. Is the negative from someone on default trust list? As asked above is the overall trust rating positive? |
|
|
|
Those loans were of similar small size. Sorry can't help :/ |
|
|
|
|
I only see one loan from haploid that was for <.02; do you have a think to threads with any other loans you have taken out?
|
|
|
|
There is no way the person selling Bitcoin will actually receive money for this.
Are you paying in USD? Would you be willing to pay by a less reversable method?
Huh? You do realize that int'l SWIFT and RBC client-client are irreversible direct deposit methods? I'm going to have to ask you to explain your FUD, you've been following me around for a while now, and I don't appreciate it. Please explain to me what you are doing in my thread making statements that people won't receive money for an escrow'd SWIFT/BTC transaction, thank you. As stated above RBC client to client is not a irreversible method. From http://www.reba.net/news/wtransferThe ability of a sender to recall a wire hinges primarily on whether or not the payment order has been accepted by the receiving bank. The reason for this is that the general rule under 4A is that a cancellation order is effective as long as it is received at a time and in a manner that affords a receiving bank a reasonable opportunity to act on the cancellation order before the receiving bank accepts the order. Put another way, as long as the seller’s bank hasn’t accepted the payment order, chances are good that the buyer can reverse the wire. However, after acceptance by the seller’s bank occurs, the scales tip in favor of the seller; cancellation orders are generally ineffective. The key time for a seller therefore, is the point in time at which it’s bank accepts the payment order.
The rules regarding acceptance of a payment order are set out in §4A-209. §4A-209 sets out a couple of different events which will trigger acceptance of a payment order. As far as a seller is concerned, by far the most important trigger is set out in §4A-209(b)(1) which basically states that the beneficiary’s bank accepts a payment order when it pays the beneficiary or notifies the beneficiary that it’s account has been credited. Therefore, once a seller or seller’s counsel learns or is notified by it’s bank that funds have been credited to their account, the seller can safely assume that the payment order has been accepted and that therefore, the funds cannot be recalled.
-snip-
§4A-211(c)(2) states that cancellation of a payment order after acceptance by the beneficiary’s bank is only available in instances where the payment was unauthorized or there was a mistake by the sender and that mistake falls into one of three categories: (i) duplicate payment, (ii) payment to a person or entity not entitled to the funds, or (iii) payment which resulted in the beneficiary receiving more that they were entitled to. The effect of this language is to take issues such as buyer’s remorse completely off the table and legally limit the instances where a buyer can even attempt to recall funds already credited to the seller’s account to only those instances where the buyer can make a claim that the seller received funds to which it was not entitled.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no way the person selling Bitcoin will actually receive money for this.
Are you paying in USD? Would you be willing to pay by a less reversable method?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
