If you want to do a contract then please go to a bank, and don't forget to tell them about your "Guarantees" and skype video conversation and partnership... see how this will go.
In here the only thing that matters is the collateral that you provide, please see here what valid collateral is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.0. If you don't have any of that, the chances that you will get even a single satoshi are 0, no matter what you say and the chances of getting negative trust are 100%.

Don't waste your time anymore and lock this thread. Go and do something productive with your life, the times of scamming on this forum are long gone.

Best of luck.

Translation:

Guarantees:
0) None!

If you think otherwise, can you please explain how an investor can use any of your "guarantees" to recoup their money in case you default? Can he sell them?

He is so riiiight!!! I can see the light!

I have read the whole thread and this is my opinion on this:

goose20 defense is based on the fact that he is entitled to default the loan because BTC has increased in value from the time that he had taken the loan:



This position has no real world backup.

The fact is that goose20 took the loan in BTC and now is in default. A few years ago, the banks were giving loans in Swiss Francs for everything ranging from personal loans to mortgage loans (you can search on the web to see in which country). In the meantime, the Swiss Franc had increased in value so the rate payments had become extremely large in the national currency compared to when the loan was granted. People had complained to the government, and all the government could do in order to help was to talk with the banks to grant some extensions and this was it. Many people had lost their houses and are still in debt.

In conclusion, my point of view is that goose20 defense it's just an absurder excuse in order to default the loan: in his own words, it says that the increase of BTC value has a bearing on the loan repayment, when in fact it doesn't.

zazarb is entitled to the loan repayment as agreed in the original terms, if the loan was in BTC, then he is entitled to receive the payment in BTC also, if it doesn't specify otherwise in the original terms.

I really think that goose20 wasn't trying to scam, but his approach on this (with inventing excuses) doesn't show a trustworthy behaviour, so, for now, I will leave negative feedback to goose20 in order to warn others until this situation is resolved.

You see, here is the problem with your request: the collateral is freezed by a third party. No lender would accept this as collateral because it defeats the purpose: The collateral should be easily liquidated in the event that the value drops bellow a certain amount (eg: 105%).

If you could transfer the collateral directly to the lender (if it's trusted enought) or you could use an escrow from this forum, then surely you would get some offers.

Gresit.

1 satoshi = 0.00000001 btc
10 satoshi = 0.0000001 btc

Bitcoin Talk Name: jonsi
Rank: Legendary
Post Count (including this post): 1253
BTC Address: 15Y5gbHLCZ51aCbCPyKr52QGt9kDMs3rwd
Wear appropriate signature: Yes
Wear avatar: Yes

Bitcoin Talk Name: jonsi
Bitcoin Talk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=104461
Rank: Legendary
Post Count (including this post): 1252
BTC Address: 15Y5gbHLCZ51aCbCPyKr52QGt9kDMs3rwd
ETH Address: 0xC0011fB63624adB370955Ff0c3B8c1DBf18243FC

Signature, personal message and avatar have been changed.

Thank you for considering my application.

Kind regards,
jonsi.

M'am interesat mai bine si mi'am dat seama ca informatiile pe care le'am dat inainte sunt gresite.

Situatia ta este urmatoarea:

Intr'adevar ai platit un comision de 0.01 ETH deoarece ai fost tarifat ca si "SMALL DEPOSIT*". Poti vedea mai multe informatii aici: https://www.bitfinex.com/fees

Mai exact tu te incadrezi cu tranzactia in situatia urmatoare: "*A Small Deposit Fee is applied on deposits less than a 1000 USD equivalent. Many small deposits create an excess of tiny wallet inputs that can accumulate, requiring wallet input consolidation maintenance and eventually delaying customer withdrawals. In an effort to keep withdrawals flowing smoothly for all customers, avoid sending many small deposits. Instead, batch smaller deposits together into larger amounts."

Pacat de pierderea pe care ai suferit'o, dar poti sa o consideri ca o lectie de viitor sa te informezi asupra lucrurilor pe care urmeaza sa le faci. Succes in continuare.

Uite aici poti vedea detalii despre tranzactia ta: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x489df254cd18c5d383043ef1b2c7d0f7c04985aa7f60c8c0ab1371f52a7db6de

Exact cat ai trimis atat ai in portofel: 0.014409 ETH.
Ai platit un comision de tranzactie minerilor care au procesat'o (si nu Bitfinex'ului) de 0.001071 ETH.

Deci in concluzie poate ai calculat tu rau, sau poate a fluctuat cursul de la momentul cand ai cumparat acei ETH si pana i'ai transferat, sau poate ai platit un pret mai mare pe ei. Oricum, daca ai avut pierderi sunt din alta parte, dar in contul de Bitfinex au ajuns exact cat ai trimis.

Salut.

Acel comision nu este perceput de catre Bitfinex ci de catre retea.
Ce moneda ai trimis? Poti da un link spre tranzactie?

Bitcointalk name: jonsi
Bitcointalk account URL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=104461
Rank: Legendary
Current post count -(including this one): 1248
BTC Address: 15Y5gbHLCZ51aCbCPyKr52QGt9kDMs3rwd

Please let me know if I'm accepted so I can change my signature and avatar.

Thanks,
jonsi.

MrVuuu aka SwiftCoin786, because you left me false feedback with Risked BTC amount 1 after exposing you, you are now tagged as a scammer for spreading false information on both of your accounts. Enjoy.

Summary - SwiftCoin786
Name:   SwiftCoin786
Posts:   6
Activity:   6
Position:   Newbie
Date Registered:   10-12-2017, 13:25:26
Last Active:   10-12-2017, 22:54:31


So:

1. SwiftCoin786 created an account on 10-12-2017.
2. SwiftCoin786 loaned with no collateral to MrVuuu on 10-12-2017.
3. SwiftCoin786 never logged into his acount after 10-12-2017.


This is one of the worst atempt of trust farming and it might have the oposing effect on the trust rating of both your accounts.

We need collateral in the amount of at least 120% of the loan request. This should be no problem for you because on your own words: "you can provide whatever we would need".
If you can't provide this than you lied and it means you also lied when you said you are not trying to scam.

I bet that this is the moment when you realised that you can't scam so you had allready abandonet your worthless scamer account.

This!


Best answer! I had a good laugh. Thanks Vod.

If you can provide collateral in the amount of at least 120% of the loan request, then no, it doesn't sounds like a stupid request at all. In fact, this is the correct way of asking for a loan.

If instead, you can't provide collateral in the amount of at least 120% of the loan request, then not only it sounds like a stupid request, but in fact it is a stupid request and will only get your account painted in red. If you care about this and your intention is not to scam, that close this thread, read the stickys and open a new one properly.

Best of luck.


-- edited --

It seems that I was to late, Vod allready painted you in red. Well, in this case, best of luck with your next account.

Not at all, in fact this is the most common request over here: newbies asking for "loans" without collateral.

You, yourself have done it probably dozens of times allready. Did it ever worked? Aren't you tired of creating accounts and begging for free money?

Why don't you get a job instead, maybe because you are not of legal age? If this is the case, you can always make an account, contribue in a positive way to this forum and then earn money by participating in signature campaigns.

Yes yes, we know and we totaly believe you. Your explication is perfectly logic, because if you loose your account you will not be able to make a new one and "continue being a part of the bct community". You should said this from the begining and all the lenders would jump to provide you with the "loan".

(This is all sarcasm, just in case...)

Nu trebuie sa scada neaparat si o sa explic si de ce. BTC'ul devine din ce in ce mai putin o moneda de schimb si din ce in ce mai mult un mediu de stocare a valorii (o traducere cam bruta, recunos.. suna mai bine in engleza: "store of value").

Ca si exemplu poti sa te uiti la aur: Chiar daca il detii, nu poti sa intri in alimentara si sa iti cumperi ceva cu el si cu atat mai putin nu poti face cumparaturi online. Dar din acest motiv nu inseamna ca trebuie sa scada valoarea aurului.

Deja nu mai este practic sa cumperi bunuri sau servicii cu o valoare relativ mica cu BTC. Acesta a si fost motivul pentru care Steam nu mai accepta BTC (nu are rost sa platesti chiar si $20 pe un joc care costa $10 sau chiar $60).

Imi amintesc de o discutie de acum ceva ani (pe cand exista doar BTC, LTC si inca vreo doua monezi) prin care se preconiza exact ce se intampla acum, adica bitcoinul o sa fie folosit doar pentru tranzactii foarte mari (eg: imobiliare) si LTC'ul pentru tranzactii de zi cu zi. Partea cu litecoinul nu prea s'a concretizat, dar cu bitcoinul incepe sa prinda contur.