If this is true, the only rational explanation is that both blazed and hilarious are actively trying to undermine the credibility of the trust system.

This is the only rational explanation as to why they would add a criminal extortionist and someone as immature and racist as pharmacist. This doesn’t even consider their lack of reputation, credibility and trading experience.

The screenshot was someone responding to an advertisement offering a payment up front if “proof” of accounts available to bump threads were provided. It would be possible that guy was giving a list of accounts he doesn’t control with the hopes of scamming the up front payment. I find it hard to believe this even needs to be said...

There is not anything besides that guy’s word that the OP is the same as that guy....

The screenshot might warrant further investigation to see if a connection can be made however it is not proof of anything.

The OP claims to have responded to bounties on telegram to ask questions about various ICOs.

It could be more complex than the lender not releasing the lien (this would be a fairly simple thing to fix), there may be issues if there is a discrepancy in the legal description, there may be issues with referenced recording information, if there are any issues with the release of the lien and the lender died before the issue is resolved, there may be additional steps needed to be done in probate court.

You are able to keep this thread open for as long as you wish if you want to.

As mentioned previously, I would advise both you and a potential lender from pursuing this for the reasons posted above, unless you are confident the lender knows what they are doing, and are experienced with these types of loans.

I am not sure what bank(s) you have applied with, nor what county you are located in, however you might want to inquire with smaller lenders who might be more willing to make the kind of loan you are seeking.

A handful of people have asked for these types of loans in the past, however to my knowledge, no one has funded this type of loan on the forum.

In addition to the issue you mention that the value of the property needs to be documented, and higher than the amount of the loan, someone making this type of loan will need to ensure the paperwork is done properly (such as having specific terms in the security instrument, and properly recording the security instrument, among many other things). A lender who does not handle the paperwork properly, in accordance with local law, the lender could potentially find himself with an unsecured loan, and even if the loan is paid off in a timely mannor, the lender not knowing what he is doing paperwor-wise could potentially cause you (the borrower) to have title issues down the road, that can be expensive to clean up.

I would not say either authoritivly links either with either. It might warrant an investigation to see if there are additional connections between the two.

With the above being said, I see little other reason for someone to send that many merits to a supposedly random low level user that for all intents and purposes has zero merit otherwise.

I don’t think someone “tagging” scammers should be a criterion to include them in your trust list unless they have nearly 100% accuracy and you can otherwise trust the person. I have seen a number of accounts over the years that were used to call out scams, however they often had very low accuracy, relied on conjecture, and often parroted what others already said, and many times turned out to be less than trustworthy people. Adding someone who “tags” a lot of scammers without substantial trading experience will also lead to poor ratings quality and it will be difficult to authoritatively say they can be trusted.

As mentioned previously, having people on your trust list that left you a positive rating should not necessarily be a bad thing as this is evidence you know the person well enough to trust them.

Also, someone no longer being active is not necessarily a reason to remove them from your trust list as prior trust ratings are not invalid because of this.

Yes absolutely, allowing someone to respond to allegations is the most basic ethical considerations that should be made when something is published that affects their reputation.

Until that happens, it would be more appropriate to leave a neutral rating rather than a negative. Also, many retaliatory ratings do not in any way address claim supposedly in dispute, they are more accurately described as them saying “you said something bad about me, so I ruin your reputation”. To be honest, giving retaliatory feedback really is evidence the person is trying to cover something up, and is very clearly evidence they are willing to cover up bad behavior in the future.

It looks like there is circumstantial evidence the OP is crazybtrade based on the high number of received merits. Someone should research this further to see if there is more solid evidence of this.

Oh the irony in this statement lol.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

Plenty of people who deal in physical goods use either a PO box or a drop shipping address, both of which are used in the regular course of business by many and it is generally trivial to obtain either of these without disclosing you identity.

Some people in the collectibles section also often have coins shipped to a third party, sometimes with the intent of the third party forewarding the coin to them, other times it appears they are making a proxy and/or straw purchase. Often times it is unclear that both physical transfer ownership transfer occurs in sales. I have also occasionally seen coins won in an auction only to have the buyer pay for the coin, have the seller not ship the coin and immediately list the coin for sale as being shipped from the original seller.

How do you know he wasn’t trying to up his post count?

With the exception of only a handful of countries, mostly in Africa, none of which lauda has any connection to, all countries require citizens to pay income taxes on global income.

It has been long established that many of the tether “prints” is bitfinex processing customer USDT withdrawals.

Bitmex also published a research report about a month ago concluding bitfinex likely has bank accounts in PR and that tether is iargely used for financial speculation.

If memory serves me correctly Sirius handed the day-to-day management of the forum in or around 2010/2011, and retained ownership and control of the bitcointalk.org domain, and later gave theymos partial control of the domain.

There is also another admin, Cøbra, whose account was created in 2014. If memory serves me correctly, at one point it was claimed he lived in Japan, and it was claimed that Sirius turned over the administration to both theymos and Cøbra at the same time. I am not sure off hand where these claims were made.

Any chance the donation address will be updated to SegWit?

A moderator will likely see reports from users in their trust list, which may play a role in deciding if they can be trusted or not. There also may be non-public information in the staff section about certain users.

I agree with your statement, however I disagree with your conclusion that this presents a conflict of interest.

With the exception of philipma1957, I don't think the change in trust score reasonably changes the community perception of how trusted these people are.

Except for hilariousandco, and SaltySpitoon I don't think any of the staff members engages in any meaningful trades on behalf of themselves, so their trust scores are arguably irrelevant. One could also argue that their global moderator tags contribute more to their ability to be trusted than their trust score realistically would.

Although dooglus has been involved in very shady activity, he has handled tens of millions of dollars (when bitcoin was in the low triple digits) worth of other's bitcoin, and returned said money when his website shut down. If someone is doing their research on dooglus, his trust score will probably be a very small factor.

Both tomatocage and OgNasty have handled millions of dollars of other people's money (over time), and have for a long time been arguably the most trusted members in the community, and their increased trust scores do not change that.

---

---

I would be more concerned about DT1 members adding people to their trust list, and the result is certain 3rd parties' trust scores are inflated substantially. This could be an indication that a DT1 member is using their trust list to increase the trust score of either their sockpuppet, or a potential accomplice in a later scam, and/or is giving certain users credibility that may not be warranted. This is much less transparent than what you are describing, and has the potential to cause damage multiple times.