I can do this if it's OK funding the transfer with my credit card. My account isn't from the US either but its currency is USD.

Edit: You need someone to send funds to your PayPal account or to deposit to a PayPal's US bank account?
I can help with the former, not the later.

OK then if you read it you already know asking for a loan without valid collateral and without trust deserves negative trust.
Now don't PM me anymore. Just lock your thread and if you don't do anything else untrustworthy then I may remove the feedback in a few months.

Thanks for the info.


I've removed the feedback.

How would that prove anything? No I don't want a code.

Please answer these questions:

Indeed. I strongly believe OP is selling stolen goods because of the extreme low price and the fact he seems to have a lot of codes or even an unlimited quantity. OP can you explain how you get the codes? If I'm convinced the codes are not stolen then I'll remove the feedback. Even if the buyers haven't got any problems until now it doesn't mean the codes are legally obtained.

If that's the case with OP then I'll remove the negative. I'd need him to prove that's what happening.

I don't. I just want to help stopping illegal market here.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you recognizing you're laundering money but you think $20 is too little to get negative trust?


RHavar, regarding the positive trust you left to OP:
Could you post more details about how many codes worked and how many didn't? Did OP say why some codes didn't work?

When/if it is proven. At the moment there's some initial proof the funds were hacked from inputs.io. If the winner is willing to give the coins back then several users and the rightful owner can research more. Are you willing to return the coins if someone proves who the rightful owner is?


I don't think "too much hassle" should stop the rightful owner from getting their coins.
Yes there are a lot of shill/alt accounts. I'm not following what it has to do with giving the coins back.

Actually if you agree receiving stolen funds is wrong and therefore would be willing to give it back when there's proof about who's the rightful owner then it would be a good idea to post your address. At least there's a small chance the owner(s) get their coins back. Of course it's possible OP just wants to fake giving away the coins to himself but I can't see a scenario where posting your address would do any harm if you're willing to give the coins back.

Right now I see there are 4 options:

• The coins go to someone willing to give the coins back.
• The coins go to someone not willing to give the coins back.
• The hacker keeps the coins.
• The coins are destroyed.

I really prefer option 1. Don't you?

If it's proven that the coins were in fact hacked and OP really gives them then whoever wins should give them back to the rightful owner.

Since the signature does verify I guess it's worth a try.

1JwYm6t7TVj6pMa9vTGzLxo9eRyvVdTPrN

AFAIK MZ's loan wasn't paid by a third person (I mean not with the third person's funds). MZ sent the BTC to an intermediary and asked him to pay whom he owed.

As I said I'm keeping the negative here because this was not the first time OP defaults a loan without any communication and I strongly believe OP can't be trusted, at least not on no-collateral loans. The previous time I did make the feedback neutral. Actually this has nothing to do with it being paid by a third person.

I don't think Bipolarbob is expecting it to be repaid. I think he gave it away and it's not the first time he does that.

Anyway of course I'll read what OP has to say when/if he comes back. But I doubt that will change my mind.

No it will not. I've left a negative trust on his profile for a previous late loan and then changed it to neutral after it was repaid. Normally I do change feedback to neutral or remove it after a wrong is fixed, to encourage fixing it. However this has gone too far.

I strongly recommend not to ever lend to OP. If he has the chance again I think it's extremely likely he will be late at the very least or default completely. Therefore I won't remove the negative trust I left. Actually I did reword it after it was repaid by BipolarBob but kept it negative.

I agree it doesn't make sense (at least for the moment) to have more than 8 decimals in bitcoin. But it's not the same, the extra digits on the exchange would just be internal and every deal or balance could be rounded to satoshis. It's just to set the average price. No actual transaction would have more than 8 digits.

It's possible a bug can appear but that would be a matter of testing it enough and giving proper information to the users. There could be an extra parameter to enable the 2 last digits on the API so there's no chance it's used by mistake.



It's a very good option if you are a long term holder or believe in these intermediary coins. Not so much if you don't.

I'm buying DOGE at 35.5 satoshis, which is currently the average between the highest bid and the lowest ask on poloniex.

• Instead of buying at 36 satoshis and paying 0.25% as fee I'll pay 35.5 sat without fees (1.658% total gain for me).
• Instead of dumping at 35 satoshis and paying 0.25% as fee you'll receive 35.5 sat without fees (1.679% total gain for you).

We can use a very trusted escrow (more trusted than me, you pay any fees), you send first (in chunks if you prefer) or I send first if you're much more trusted than me. Minimum 200k doge.
I will use a different address for every deal. The address will always be signed with my PGP key (see my signature).

If this thread is locked it means I'm not buying for the moment. Otherwise feel free to post here or PM me with the amount and your BTC address and I'll reply with a signed message.

Thanks for your input.
Why does every digit have to have a meaning in the current 8-digit implementation of bitcoin?
A buy order at 36.5 satoshis for 1M doge means that I'm willing to pay 0.365 BTC for 1M doge. Why is it important that the average doesn't have more than 8 digits?
You can buy 0.3333 BTC for $227 even if the average price per BTC is $681.0681068 which doesn't have any meaning in real USD bills and coins.

Actually that's an example of what I propose. On bter for example you can trade DOGE for USD with up to 8 digits. But that market is almost dead.
Trading with just 2 digits there wouldn't make any sense because 1 doge is worth less than 1 USD cent. So they just added more digits and it's working fine.

Actually no. All 3 coins I mentioned (SC, DGB or DOGE) are generally in the top 20 in Poloniex with a combined volume of more than 300 BTC/day. Since Poloniex charges 0.4% in total that means they get more than 1.2BTC daily or more than 36BTC per month. While that's far from the top coins I really don't think that's despicable. If the change I propose could move the market and increase the volume by just 20% then they would be pocketing 7.2BTC more each month.

That's definitely an option but I consider it much worse than just adding decimals. You would need to buy a coin you don't necessarily believe in, trade it against the coin you think will rise, then get back the coin you don't believe in and back to BTC. A lot of things can go wrong there: most probably you'll lose when buying and selling the intermediary coin and it can crash at any time in the process.

I haven't read any real reasons why this can't or shouldn't be implemented.

---

No signature spam here please.

I've been wondering this for a while and I don't know if this has been discussed before. At least I couldn't find it.

When trading most coins on any exchange buyers and sellers can use a lot of digits to compete on the asks and bids. For example with ETC if the current highest bid is 0.01945112 anyone can make a new one at 0.01945113 and get first on the order list. That's about a 0.00005% increase to get first.

But with other coins which are normally traded below 100 satoshis like SC, DGB or DOGE it's quite different. If the highest bid is 0.00000036 and you want to get first on the list you have to bid 0.00000037 (2.7% more!) and almost always that's the same as the lowest ask so there's really no way to get first on the buy orders. Of course you can bid 36 too but that would put your order below all the other users who bid the same amount before. On a lot of cases this means not having your order ever filled.

What if an exchange adds one or 2 more digits for these coins? So if the highest bid is 36 satoshis anyone can bid 36.1 or even 36.01? Orders could even be rounded to satoshis before crediting the buyer's account if technically required, or just when withdrawing the coins. If you spend 1 BTC you'd get 2,777,006.38711469 DOGE at 36.01 satoshis instead of 2,702,702.70270270 at 37 (74,303.68441199 more DOGE). The bids and asks could be shown in either BTC with 10 digits or in satoshis with 2 digits, that wouldn't be important.

I really think this change would increase the volume of these coins and therefore would benefit the exchanges. Is there any problems or disadvantages I'm missing? Of course the extra digits would be just internal in the exchange's database. It wouldn't be required to change any coin.

Electrum is a hierarchical deterministic wallet. That means all its private keys and therefore addresses are generated from the same seed.
If you import a key then it couldn't be generated from that master key. To protect users from losing their coins importing an external private key is normally disabled.
It is strongly recommended to sweep your key instead (Wallet > Private keys > Sweep) so its funds will be moved to an address whose private key can be generated from the master seed.

Alternatively you can create a new wallet (File > New/Restore > Restore a wallet or import keys) but sweeping is the best solution most of the cases.

OP please offer valid collateral or lock this thread immediately. Otherwise you'll get negative trust in a few minutes.

Make sure you get a message signed with an address posted long ago as proof of ownership before getting the account and funding the loan.

Obvious troll/impersonator is obvious. What about signing a message with an address posted long ago by koshgel?

Just a FYI: This excuse doesn't work when the OP signs a message with an old address and even receives the loan there 

Not exactly. There are rules and if you know them then on most cases you can know what is allowed and what is not.
Posts are not removed just because they 'suck' but because they're against the rules. For example scamming is not against the rules. If you report a post because you think OP is a scammer then you'll get it wrong. But posts do get removed when they're clearly illegal, among other reasons.

Moderating is not too subjective, and it shouldn't be. It's the result of applying a list of rules.

---

It's up to you. You can decide to help the spammers by not reporting and keeping their account safe or help the forum by reporting the spam and help keep everything clean. You can't help both.