Well the topic is deleted now so that is good, however 5 minutes is very quick for a mod to respond to a report, in my experience it usually takes much longer for action to be taken on my reports in general, and in my experience malware reports take the longest for action to be taken (I assume that fewer moderators are able to handle these kinds of reports).

Also you should make the fact that the above dropbox link contains malware more prominent.

It is possible, it looks like one of his threads that he created was deleted shortly before he got banned, although it is not the thread that he was saying was containing malware in the OP. According to the Security log his password was changed ~12 hours prior to making this thread. There are no timestamps on the mod log so it is difficulty to say when exactly he was banned and when the thread was deleted. I personally think it is a little far fetched for someone to claim their account was hacked immediately prior to them spreading malware, although it is possible that he was the subject to some kind of phishing attack. I would not personally give him the benefit of the doubt though.

If you search for his profile you will see that his U# is 378211. If you go to https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php you can search for this number and see that he was "auto banned" within the last 30 days (an auto ban is just a specific way that a moderator banns someone, it is either a button on their profile or a button on the moderator console - I forget which - if a moderator banns someone the other way then the ban does not show up on the mod log).

I can say for certain that erwin45 was in fact banned

What thread did you find the trojan wallet in? Did you report the post for having a link to malware so others do not have the same fate?

The reason for my skepticism is because someone recently made a very similar claim in this thread and it turns out that his account was banned.

I don't see where it says that. His post is expressing interest just like the many other people who have posted here.

^^^this is the only time he posts in this thread. The OP does not subsequently name him later.

I sent you a PM. I am also interested.

Your account was banned. It was not hacked.

#fail

Looking at your last 40 posts, I see that a lot of them are shit posts. Also the "hacker" appears to have not logged in nor posted from your account.

Did your account happened to get banned?

There is the risk that the escrow service makes some kind of mistake and ends up not providing the lender the bitcoin they are owed in the event of a default.

A lender on bitfinex can also lend their bitcoin at similar rates that they can lend their dollars and would not endure the risk of the price rising. The risks are different on bitfinex not higher.

I am interested in this loan, just not at the rate you are offering.

Not true, you could potentially claim incompetence and that the funds were stolen from you and/or your computer was hacked and bitcoin was stolen. Since you have zero trading history this would be plausible.

Assuming you are a shill of the company it would allow the company to retain a positive image and would allow the company to continue to be able to recruit additional advertisers.
Also not true. Most people have been silent on the issue (it is generally rare that once someone is actually participating to speak out against the person who will end up paying them). The few that have not been silent have either requested escrow or asked for a 10 day payout. Even if they ask for a 10 day payout they are still risking giving free advertising, only for less time.
The "shills" are likely the campaign participants who do not want to speak out about the person who will pay them (as I mentioned above). You also do not know which accounts are actually "shills" and which are voicing legit concerns.

There are several very trustworthy escrow providers that I am fairly certain would be able to provide escrow for free or for very little. A few that come to mind are devthedev (I think he might be on vacation), dooglus, tomatocage, monbux, among others.

Macro has a history of trading on this forum and his trust rating reflects that. Although the amount of funds in question would represent more then he has ever been trusted with in the past (at least according to his received trust feedback) the chances of macro actually paying are much higher then the OP actually paying

12% interest is much lower then the interest rate you will generally see on these forums, and is really not enough for someone who does not wish to sell their bitcoin and risk that the price will increase in the future. The rates on bitfinex are roughly double of what you are offering (although the risks involved with lending on bitfinex are different) which should be a starting point to base any negotiations on.

You also mentioned that the lender can cancel the loan at time time to protect themselves if the price has gone up too much. Would you be willing to allow the lender to cancel if the price has gone down? This would result in the escrow releasing more funds (in terms of btc) then were lent.

I can do this (if the loan is still needed - this is unclear) however you would need to raise the amount of interest you would be paying and agree to a clause that the amount you will repay (in terms of bitcoin) will not be below a certain amount (TBD).

You can either post here or PM me to negotiate details, and then we can arrange escrow to be setup.

i replied to your pm.

i think the rates you are asking for are you high and unrealistic. Your rates are higher then what users can earn on fixed rate deals. He might need to raise rates above my suggestion if stunna opens the pd campaign soon in order to attract participants but not that much.

if you are too picky about who gets to participate then you will not be able to fill your budget which means your site will not get the exposure it is trying to pay for. You should offer pay per post and have strict criteria as to what is counted as a constructive post and make this criteria public. Your criteria should be such that anyone can look at any members posts for the month and realistically be able to say how many posts they should get paid for.

If you pick users to participate in any way other then first come first serve then people might think you are using your shills/Alts to participate plus it would not be transparent.

I would make it competitive with prime dice's old rates with potentially a lower rate after someone has made a lot of posts (so people will not try to spam as much).

I would say .0014,.0012,.001,.0007,.0005 per post for legendary, hero, senior, full and members (when they apply) for the first 250 posts then lower each rate by .0003 for posts after that up to 500. You could potentially make the limits lower for lower ranking users as they tend to spam more.

If your campaign will last more then a month then you should kick out users who make a lot of low quality posts for at least a month.

I don't think you understand the meaning of giving someone trust. Someone should receive negative trust if they are scamming or trying to scam. The sig campaign participants are not scamming, trying to scam nor are they promoting a confirmed scam. They are the ones likely being scammed.

Someone pointed out on the signature csmoaign thread that carra is suspiciously making more decisions then would be expected. I would say that the account is likely a shill of the website. It was previously participating in the bitdice campaign so it was appearing to previously be active and not appear to be a purchased account. I checked the seclog yesterday and didn't find his account having his password changed in the last 30 days. I think what he is doing is unique and appears to be circumventing many "checks" that people will look for when trying to spot a scam.

for the next few hours your posts will be watched the same way bipolarbob's posts are watched

Why would participants deserve negative trust? They would be the ones getting scammed. It is not 100% clear yet that the site is a scam so they wouldn't be advertising an obvious scam.

the 7 btc is probably all they have. If they accepted more members then they would need to "prove" they controlled more Bitcoin then they really have based on their rates. any time someone offers to pay above market rates is almost certainly scamming and/or has zero intention of following through on their offer.

I would say the site has a high probability of being a scam. The account may or may not be a shill (he could just be too dumb to ask that funds are actually in his control prior to him posting that he is in control of the funds)