Answering this very basic question should address at least one part of my above concerns.

As it stands right now, even if one were to operate under the assumption that you are an upstanding person with impeccable and unimpeachable reputation, this loan would be a very bad idea to participate in as a lender. I am giving you the opportunity to try to change that.

I believe the comment made by codehtcmail is very interesting. I do not believe you are acting like a serious borrower when responding to enquries.

Target could spend the unconfirmed input they received from you, and attach a fee large enough to pay for transaction A and the transaction they are sending to themselves. In order for a miner to receive the second transaction fee, it must confirm both transactions.

This is called Child Pays for Parent, or CPFP. There is an interesting Blog Post by Coinbase on the subject.

Target could also have a special arrangement with one or more mining pools that involve Target paying the mining pool a special fee, offchain in exchange for the mining pool confirming transactions sent to Target with a low fee.

This was answered above

The miner of block 569000 (in your example) could mine trying to use a nonce that results in an outcome in its favor.

If you published the hash of the block numbers, plus extra "random text" you could avoid this attack vector because only you will know which blocks will be used until you disclose the result. You must include the additional text otherwise someone could brute force the block numbers.

I would like to repeat this question. Thanks.

user 'Stacey Lacey' does not appear to be banned, even though he gave a fake vouch to "The Prince Of Egifts" before.

Lovehacked is also .

This must mean he is not honoring his ban with sockpuppets

Do you have a job? Do you have any income besides your anticipated income from this venture?

I would also want to know why you trusted me with the details of your plan. You don't know me, except that you asked me to promise to keep the details of your plan confidential.

Thank you sir!

Anyone who wants to add something to this topic can send a Personal Message and I will unlock it for you.

He described to me what his plans were for the loan proceeds, and they were not to be used for anything resembling a ponzi.

What he described involved taking advantage of a limited time promotion being offered by a new business. The business would be trusted with the entire 5,000 EUR, and there is a chance the terms may not be met. The value of the cryptocurrencies may also decline below the 5,000 EUR lent and this is another risk.

The business in question is not one that I would trust with 500 EUR, and I am not entirely sure it is an entirely separate entity from marcotheminer. I have never heard of this business prior to me speaking with marcotheminer about this loan.

He claims to be unemployed and does not appear to have the means to repay the loan including interest if one or more of the above risks are realized.
If I completely ignore the fact that his
then I would conclude this is a bad idea to participate in this loan. I do not think it is an acceptable risk to ignore that his loan history indicates he will take the large loan and run away.

tl;dr - not a ponzi, still a very bad idea to lend to him

You are absolutely correct. The burden of proof when alleging a crime or a tort is always on the accuser, and the accused should be presumed innocent until the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to crimes, and based on the preponderance of evidence in terms of torts.

I have to say the evidence as is currently presented makes it appear that you scammed the token holders of your ICO by failing to buy back 10% of tokens every quarter. This is based on posts from your ICO OP and from your own statements.

I have to agree that JollyGood looks like he is pursuing a smear campaign against you and your business. It was in part because of this that when I started writing my first post in this thread, it was defending you, however once I worked through the details my opinion changed against you.

I believe there is still counterparty risk, although smaller when using 2-of-3 multisig escrow arrangement as you describe. If the escrow agent engages in collusion (no pun intended regarding current events in the States) with your trading partner, the money being held could be stolen. The escrow agent does not even need to make an affirmative statement agreeing to collude with your trading partner (risking his reputation), if your trading partner presented a signed transaction to the escrow agent sending the coin being held in part to your trading partner, and in part to the escrow agent, all the escrow agent would need to do is sign/broadcast the transaction.

A setup that involves less counterparty risk would be a 3-of-4 multisig setup similar to what you describe with an additional escrow agent acting as the 4th keyholder. If either escrow agent presents a signed transaction sending coin in a way it shouldn't be, his reputation is at risk and he may not end up with any illegitimate coin.

I spoke with marcotheminer via skype earlier this evening a couple of hours ago about his loan request. I have received evidence there may be a semi-legitimate reason to need this loan. During my discussion with marcotheminer, he also explained to me how he plans on earning the money to repay a lender, and my opinion is it is not a "sure thing" what marcotheminer plans on doing with the loan proceeds will be successful at all, nor that it will be successful enough to pay the offered interest.

My concerns stated in this post remain, and I will not be taking down that post. I do not want to keep up incorrect information in my posts, and at this time, I do not believe the above post contains any incorrect or misleading information, and I stand by that statement.

My conversation with marcotheminer was unable to address the issue that he does not appear to be trustworthy enough to trust him with 5000 EUR, nor that his "loan history is an indication (he is) intending (to) eventually (...) take out a large loan and run away"

That was probably done to avoid breaking securities law enforced in the United States. I am not sure if this setup actually avoided running afoul of these laws though.

One of the things taught in accounting classes is that businesses should take out loans in durations that match their cash flows of what the business is borrowing for, so if a business is borrowing money to build a factory, it should not be in a position to have to repay the loan before cash flows from the factory are expected to have been generated. In other words, the time frame for receivables should roughly match the time frame for due dates of debts. Similarly, a business that earns its profits in dollars should not take out debts in Euros in case the value of the dollar goes down a lot.

Before the extra interest from the bankroll profit is taken into consideration, Dean was paying approximately 42% interest for things like bounties and marketing in the form of additional tokens issued. I cannot imagine someone intending to repay their debt being willing to pay that large a premium.

 
He sold the tokens at 70 cents on the dollar because only 70 millions were available for sale, and 30 million were given to bounty hunters.

Who wouldn't want a free ~$400k, right?

I saw you talk about this in a previous post, and you said that you have a "hard-requirement of not exposing (yourself) to counterparty risk" and I wanted to point out that having Dean deposit the bitcoin collateral with a reputable escrow would expose you to counterparty risk with the escrow. I agree it is not a good idea to expose yourself to counterparty risk to someone offering an "instant" 42% return. It also is maybe a good policy to not expose yourself to counterparty risk to anyone who approaches you with a business proposal over a threshold. 


Can you explain how I was wrong? I do not want to keep incorrect information up, and will correct any mistakes that are noted.

Right now, the facts as understood by nearly everyone in this thread, and probably by most reasonable people reading this thread show you to be a scammer and as not honoring your obligations. If you can correct the record, then you should have an easier time conducting business if the record shows you have honored your obligations, and would probably result in you earning more profits.

I don't think any trust rating will do very much in warning most people. Businesses can advertise in many places on the internet, the majority of which will not be affected by the trust system.

The topic will allow anyone who is doing their due diligence to see what is going on and act accordingly. A thread that is locked implies the underlying issue is resolved/closed/no longer applies. 

The OP's trust page:
You have scammed many people via loans in the past. When will you pay these people back?

It appears the ultimate basis for saying BetKing.io scammed investors via the ICO is the lack of buybacks.

My reading of how the buybacks work is they are based on the total raised and the total profits of the bankroll.

There appear to be 70 million tokens offered for sale, and 100 million total. The price appears to be based off of only the tokens offered for sale.

As an example, if they raised $35 million in total, the price for the tokens would be $0.50 each ("Token Price").

The buyback price appears to be based on the bankroll profits for the preceding quarter ("Quarters Profit") and the Token Price. As an example, if the Quarters Profit was $5 million, they would take 10% to apply to the tokens, or $500,000 and add this to the Token Price, and offer to buy back 10% of token holders at this price. So the Quarters Profit portion of the buyback price in this example would be $0.05, and the Token Price portion of the buyback price would be $0.50, for a total of $0.55. In this hypothetical example, $3,550,000 would be used to buy back tokens.

According to how the ICO page described how the ICO proceeds would be used, only 50% of the ICO proceeds were to be used to fund the bankroll, and the balance was to be used for operating expenses.

In the above example, $17.5 million would be allocated to the bankroll, and $5 million would be bankroll profit, but after the buyback, the total bankroll would be $18.95 million.

If the profits were lower, things would take a turn for the worse for token holders. For example, if bankroll profits were only $2 million, then $3,520,000 would be used to buy back tokens, but after the buybacks, only $15.98 million would be left in the bankroll.

Adding to the risk is that bitcoin's price may decline (it did), and the "Token Price" portion of the buyback price may get more expensive in terms of bitcoin, and the bankroll and bets appears to be denominated in terms of bitcoin. It should be simple enough to convert any bankroll profits to dollars when buying back tokens.

The way I am reading how bankroll profits are used to fund buybacks, only 1% of bankroll profits are used for buybacks. This hardly sounds fair, but token holders were free to negotiate different/better terms before buying.

The entire setup appears asinine, and subjects everyone to unnecessary risks. I don't understand why a percentage of bankroll profits would not be converted to etherum, or a stablecoin that could be airdropped to token holders in the form of a dividend. A market may develop for these tokens to capture the anticipated future cash flows of the dividends.

The way I read the terms, betking needs to buyback token holders at the Token Price if bankroll profits are zero (he needs to buy back 10% of tokens).

A decreasing percentage of the original amount of tokens issued will need to be repurchased each quarter in order for 10% of the remaining tokens to be repurchased. The first quarter would see 10% of the original tokens repurchased, the second quarter would see 9% of tokens repurchased, the 3rd quarter 8.1%, and so on.

My question to betking would be: Were 10% of outstanding tokens offered to be repurchased at a price described above? If not, I believe you have not honored your obligations.

Anyone can correct me if there is an error in my understanding.

What is your skype?

I have not used LN to date, so I cannot say what these strings are. If you received those strings from a LN user asking you to send a payment to that person, they are presumably invoices.

If you are not the sender, nor the receiver of the transaction, you will not know if an invoice is paid.

To my knowledge, the current LN technology does not provide for a way to prove to a third party that an invoice is paid. This may be something the LN devs may provide for in the future, and it would probably be a useful feature. If you are paying a third party service to create invoices for you, and to notify you when they are paid, you would probably need to trust the third party to correctly tell you.....in this case, you would need to trust the third party to send money to you (presumably in batches), so you are already trusting them. 

I want to let you know both the transaction to fulluser and the change address was sent to the same exchange/business.

What business is 3FPrgjuzbpiKiBmFFEnJqPCG9PBnSWjXpa associated with? This is your deposit address to somewhere, yes?

I think you were pretending to lend money to yourself.

There is absolutely no way this is a good idea.

I will look past your recent delinquency in repaying your recent loans.

You have recently taken out multiple no collateral loans, all in increasing size, sometimes without first repaying the prior loan, and after returning from a long period of inactivity. 

Your recent loan history is an indication you are intending on eventually going to take out a large loan and run away.

I would avoid like the plague.

I don't think more DT attention is necessary. If a warning by one or two people is insufficient to stop you from doing business with someone, but 8 people warning you will stop you from doing business with the person, then you are AOC level stupid and no amount of hand holding will prevent you from loosing money to scammers.

Using sockpuppet(s) to bump your marketplace thread with fake conversations is not allowed. If you are using a sockpuppet to post, then you are bumping a thread. Further, a conversation with yourself is going to be considered a "low value or pointless" post, which is also against the rules.

On its face, this person is using sockpuppet account to post fake vouches to bump his thread excessively. There is no other explanation as to how his thread continues to get unlocked and then relocked so only his "customers" can post, only for the thread to get unlocked hours later to "thank" his "customer" for the feedback.

Notwithstanding the above evidence, the mods can review browser fingerprints and IP addresses to confirm these are in fact sockpuppets.

As an update, I received a reply to my message advising he is breaking the rules in using sock puppets to bump his thread:

I did not indicate any kind of interest in buying anything from him, nor did I indicate any interest in buying gift cards or "egifts", but I received an advertisement response to my message anyway.

After he sent the above personal message, he bumped his thread four times, all at least four hours apart from the last, and all within a single 24 hour spread.

OP - almost anyone claiming to be a "girl" is probably trying to scam you on this forum.

If this is a real offer, you should look for a venue that specializes in this type of relationship.

This is not a dating (or whatever you are looking for) website.