As collateral definitely not more than BTC0.1. For final users of course more but that's too hard to say. If enough effort and time is put into it then maybe a lot more. It depends on the market.
But for collateral it has to be a price it can be sold immediately, without any effort at all, as easy as you can sell 1 BTC at market price.

Those are the highest prices. That and estibot are not very good ways to value domains.
Besides those are the highest prices for final users. For collateral that's a whole other story: again, read this.

I was considering the loan if the domains were worth more than 1 BTC as collateral, not for final users. No condition was met.
I was interested in granting a loan, not in buying domains.

Initial price is 0.003 BTC for each of those domains. My domains are most probably worth less than yours. None are close to 1 BTC at all.
Besides, I'm selling my domains there. Here you are using them as collateral. Prices can't be compared. Again, read this and stop playing foul.

That would be acceptable if your domains were worth close to the asked amount as collateral. However the collateral you offer is ridiculously lower than the asked amount.
You can't ask for a $6,6k loan with less than $600 as collateral and get away with it just by mentioning you could get a lower amount. That's asking for a loan without valid collateral and that deserves negative trust.

I do grant loans, I do sell domains and I do leave negative trust to untrustworthy users who try to fake a sale as a loan or who ask for loans without valid collateral, among other reasons. I do make trades and I do hate scammers.

Stop asking for loans without valid collateral. This is the last warning.

I was considering the loan and asked for the list of domains. They're under .xyz and other new TLD.

From my experience they're worth much less than 1 BTC even for final users. Of course to be used as collateral they must be valued very low so they can be easy to be sold (read this), so this is definitely a loan with invalid/insufficient collateral.

OP, if you don't lock this thread, lower the asked amount a lot or offer more collateral then I'll add negative trust to you.

So basically you want to force everyone to customize their trust list instead of using the default list?
That is something already being considered by theymos:

Bump

I've asked Topparkeds to reply here. I've left negative trust until this is solved. I hope it will be

But that's not the case. I don't know why you even mentioned this. Do you know whom we're talking about?
His account was already red thanks to KWH so me granting a few days for him to explain didn't make any difference in that sense.

What? If he proves he's not guilty then it wouldn't make any sense to leave negative feedback as a warning :/
But everything seems to show he is indeed guilty.

Last Friday COINMAN1 asked me to wait 3 days until he's able to properly respond because of personal issues. I've tagged him now

I'm auctioning these four gram.* domains:

gram.cheap

gram.claims

gram.gratis

gram.kaufen

All of them are registered on Namesilo and will be pushed for free to the winner's namesilo account.

Starting bid for each domain:
BTC0.003 for each domain.
Each domain has an independent auction.

Minimum increment:
BTC0.001. Bids must be multiple of BTC0.001

Buy it now:
BTC0.01 each domain, or BTC0.03 for all 4 (valid if no auction is closed yet).

End date and time:
72 hours after the first bid of a particular domain or 24 hours after the last bid of that domain, whichever is later.
Every domain has its own auction and ends independently.

Newbies:
Users with less than 28 activity can't bid, unless they BIN and pay immediately, or send to me the amount they're bidding for (to be returned minus TX fees if they don't win)

Payment:
Bids must be made in BTC. Payments can be made in BTC, ETH, LTC, GBYTE. I may take other crypto-currencies. PM me before bidding.
The payment must be sent to me or the escrow less than 48h after the auction is closed,
otherwise I may leave negative trust and may sell it to next higher bidder who must complete the deal according to their bid.

After an auction is closed I'll send a signed message (to be verified here, or here) with the payment address. If you prefer to use escrow instead PM me right away.

Yes, that's a drawback. Moderators would probably need to be more active on those boards.
Your suggestion makes a lot of sense regarding the Spam accusations board. However on Auctions the issue is no self moderation but the OP editing or deleting his own posts.

The advantage of this option I suggest though is that it's very easy to implement. Just adding a condition in a couple of places would be necessary. It could be considered as a temporary fix.

I like these 2 options more too. However they do require more development.

Threads can be moved to and from most (all?) boards, not just Auctions. I would think the purpose is to allow users to move them to the right board after posting on the wrong one and being told so by others. It can also be used to move closed topics to Archival for example.

That's not always true. The thread announcing the topic was moved is published only if the OP (or the moderator) chooses to do that. It's optional:

Besides, moving the thread is not a prerequisite for Auctions.

I don't like that idea very much. Then we wouldn't know who created the thread and the OP wouldn't have any control of it at all, he wouldn't just lose the disallowed functionality as he should. I think there are much better ways to prevent this issue

This (bug?) doesn't allow users to hack others' accounts, reading PMs, injecting code into the DB or other security vulnerabilities so I don't think there's a security risk here.

It seems several users are already abusing this so I think it's better to make it public so that users know their posts could be moderated even in Scam accusations and OP's posts could be edited or deleted even on Auctions until this is fixed. This can reduce the effect of the exploit. Besides making this public can add some pressure so it's solved faster.

If an Admin disagrees and thinks there's an issue in making this public then he can trash this thread. I guess some Admin would've already done that in that case.

Not necessarily, you can't assume anything not replied by theymos means he's explicitly against it

Yes, that's a valid drawback. However I really think that's much less of a problem than letting people get scammed and damage the appearance of the forum (and probably bitcoin by extension). Besides showing default trust to guests is not the only option as previously discussed

Disclaimer: This screenshot is fake. I'm just trying to make a point

---

I don't think you're faking the PM. But real proof is required to leave negative trust. Otherwise it can become an easy way to frame anyone in the future.
When reporting the PM I advice you to choose hilariousandco as he seems to be the most active admin. You may re-report it to him if you didn't include him the first time.

Bump. Non-registered users keep getting scammed by accounts already tagged as scammers because they can't see the warning:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3035620.msg33231264#msg33231264

I've PM'd theymos but haven't received any reply. I think this needs more attention

I've tagged him almost a month ago and others left negative trust to him even 5 months ago. He's a known scammer

Sorry about that. I and others are trying to find his (and other scammers') alts. If you have any information on that let me know

I agree. That's why I recommend everyone to register before dealing here and I've asked default trust to be shown to non registered users, among other options to solve this. I hope that will be implemented some day

That's not necessary as he's already tagged as scammer. But you can create a thread about that with proper proof here using the format shown here.

Rambotnic, please report the PM and ask the moderator to post here confirming the PM is real. That will prove ledigi sent that phishing link

The bug has been isolated. It does allow to self moderate threads on the scam accusation board (which normally doesn't allow self moderation) or to edit or delete own posts on auctions (which normally doesn't allow that).

I don't think negative is deserved. I'm adding neutral to him. I've replaced it with a negative after considering more factors.

Aventhe has granted me temporary access to his email account and I've verified this email.
I've checked the headers and compared it with notifications from PMs I sent to him and, to my knowledge, the email seems real.

I'm tagging AlexUAE777.

One of my posts on this thread in Scam accusations got deleted by the starter of the thread.

However the thread is not marked as self moderated and it's actually not allowed to create self moderated threads on that Board as shown in this capture.

It seems the started of that thread made it self moderated on another board, then it was moved to Scam accusations (either by him or a moderator). That made the thread to sop being self moderated and the warning to be removed. Since OP didn't like what I posted on his thread it seems he moved the thread to any other board, deleted my post and moved it back to Scam accusations. That's the only explications I could find. Let me know if you can explain it otherwise.

Other Boards have their own limitations, like not editing posts on Auctions. So I've tried this on one of my posts. I moved one to Digital Goods and, as expected, I was allowed to edit or deleted my posts. Then I was able to move it back to Auctions and the limitations were back in place.

This represents an issue because:

• Any user can be censured by the started of a topic without being aware that's a possibility, like it happened to me
• Users not aware of this issue can be mislead into thinking no post could have been moderated by the started of a topic on Scam accusations; or no post could have been edited or deleted if the thread is on Auctions. This can be easily exploited by the started of those threads

I see 3 options to solve this problem:

• The option to move the thread to another board should be disabled on Boards with this kind of specific limitations,
• The thread should be marked somehow so that those limitations are kept even after moving them to another board, or
• Threads moved from a Board with limitations should not be allowed back if the corresponding limitation was broken (if a post was moderated or edited for example)