A DT member can't delete this. And a mod won't because it's not against the rules, it's just untrustworthy.

Lock this thread immediately (and stop asking for any loans in this forum) or offer valid collateral or you will get a negative DT feedback.

Yes I did read the thread. Did you read my post?

• I think your account may be compromised. Other users have asked for loans before without signing a message and then claim their accounts weren't under their control. Maybe I'm wrong but this is just temporal
  
• You can't use your account as collateral because you can't sign a message, so a temporal negative doesn't affect you
• I'm not asking for a signed message now. Post it when you get home and I'll remove the negative trust then

For the moment just go back home and pay the taxi when you're there, as suggested by someone else.

Because some details of your story keep changing (like the fact you said Texas was a random place you entered and then you said you lived but moved) I think your account may be compromised.
And without a signed address you cannot use your account as collateral so a temporal negative won't affect you.

I'm adding negative trust to your account. When you get home just post a message signed with the address 1BMnMhtr5WcvNXvNQ4uXps9ssYFtCVX863 and I'll remove it. You confirmed it's on your desktop so you won't have any problems signing it.

Indeed I found it to be inconclusive. However I did find suspicious things and I strongly advice you or any other not to promote it. That would be more responsible in my opinion.
I just didn't find enough evidence to demand it or to add negative trust to those who promote it.

---

Regarding special attention to Staff, DT or trusted members I think we all should be more careful about who we promote, however I think this is specially true for Staff members because newbies see that Staff label on their profile and may think the prompted site is endorsed by the forum.
That's not the case with DT members, there's no 'DT' label which may confuse new members. Very trusted members should be extra careful too.

Of course that disclaimer is useless. I wasn't aware of a problem with betcoin.ag. Is there enough proof that it's scammy? Are you talking about this thread? Any other?

If someone promotes a site which is known for being scammy then they clearly deserve negative trust, regardless of their position or any disclaimer. Now the question is whether that site is clearly scammy. If it is (without much doubt) then I'll add some negative trust.

Also, I do believe highly-trusted users and staff should be specially careful with what they promote. As I said long ago in a similar case: if the staff promotes a site newbies will think it's endorsed by the forum (I know it's not the case but it can look like it because of the 'Staff' legend). So they definitely need to check any site before promoting it.

Update: I haven't found final proof against betcoin.ag so I don't think promoting it deserves negative trust. There are some suspicious things so personally I wouldn't promote it but the benefit of the doubt could apply. However I do think it would be more responsible for anyone to research a site before promoting it. This is valid for everyone and even more so for staff and trusted members.

And just a note to Vod and Quickseller: you obvious can't have a proper discussion with each other so please consider just ignoring each other for everyone's sake. At least that's what I try to do whenever I see any of you writing about the other. I have to say I do strongly appreciate your opinions otherwise.

Don't take it personally but I'll post here a concern I have about feedback left by cryptodevil and The Pharmacist (among others) regarding what Quickseller said about giving negative trust to all the users who run a specific type of business.
It's true that people should read the feedback and not just check the positive or negative overall trust rating. But too general comments don't help too much. Things like "Running a ponzi 'doubler' scam" on every profile that runs or promotes a ponzi (regardless of whether the ponzi follows the ponzi 'rules' or is just a fake site that steals any deposit) or "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" for every user that tries to sell or buy an account (regardless of whether the user sells to scammers or is just selling collateral from defaulted loans, among other factors) won't help much. People will open their profile, read the feedback and say "I won't worry, it's just the standard negative trust" and go ahead.

There are people who make related but much worse things. For example this user. He's running a site that fakes stats, deposits and users. He's not just running a ponzi, he's running a plain scam. Even if people understand what a ponzi is and are willing to risk their money that's not what they would get with him. They would just be directly scammed, even the first deposit. However cryptodevil just left the standard "Ponzi 'doubler' scammer". So anyone would just read it, think it's just a regular ponzi and continue.

More specific negative trust given after further analysis and with more details would be much more helpful for everyone.

That and this: You can't argue with this confirmed graph!. That's OP's best confirmation. The quantity of analyzed information is just overwhelming.

I would say the price paid for an account could be used as a warranty when making deals. For a brand new account the cost to create it was $0 so he can't be trusted with anything (escrow should always be used) and if he asked any loan without collateral he should receive negative trust.
With bought accounts that threshold would be the price paid for the account. Because we can't know the price for sure then a low estimation should be made.

That should be the only difference when treating a bought account vs. a brand new.

---

Did you read the thread and the updated OP before posting or just the title? It would seem the later.

I don't think "accounts that have been bought and are trying to buy, sell and exchange in the marketplace" is reason enough to leave negative trust. However it is a first flag.

For example if someone buys an account and instantly tries to get a loan giving that account as collateral then I'd consider leaving negative trust (unless the loan is a lot lower than the price of the account). Making deals just for earning trust is another flag. And asking others to trust them and refusing escrow just because of their rank and reputation (even if the account is not bought) is another red flag.

And if a user has 2 or more of these red flags then I'd definitely consider leaving negative trust. But as I said I don't think just the first one is reason enough.

Definitely not for me! Haha. But I'd be glad if you surpass him on the next updated list
That challenge would only help the forum.

Thanks. I've confirmed the PM is legit. Please change your password.

The PM is:


(I've just added spaces to his "ESCROW THREAD" so it's not click-able)

I've left negative trust to live627.
OP, would you be willing to grant me temporal access to your account to verify the PM? Or you can report it and ask a mod to confirm it's legit.

Yes, was and still is. I still see my own stats as "100%" when it's really 99.1803%

By the way it will be a long way for Lutpin or anyone else to overtake you!

Username : primedicer

Username : primedicer
 
Bet ID : 11,646,611,313
Bet ID : 11,646,571,021
Bet ID : 11,646,901,904
Bet ID : 11,646,604,644
Bet ID : 11,646,610,340
Bet ID : 11,646,568,604
Bet ID : 11,646,605,328
Bet ID : 11,646,626,212
Bet ID : 11,646,619,298
Bet ID : 11,646,714,306
Bet ID : 11,646,570,834
Bet ID : 11,646,738,307
Bet ID : 11,646,622,909
Bet ID : 11,646,779,146
Bet ID : 11,646,624,102
Bet ID : 11,646,718,376
Bet ID : 11,646,743,208
Bet ID : 11,646,834,372
Bet ID : 11,646,610,124
Bet ID : 11,646,714,046
Bet ID : 11,646,622,166
Bet ID : 11,646,777,514
Bet ID : 11,646,620,067
Bet ID : 11,646,624,805
Bet ID : 11,646,569,929

Did you contact giftrocket?
Please post here your message and their reply.

I'd make some small changes. Almost perfect but it does contain some too literal translations. Also it's using 'ustedes' which is used only in Latin America but it speaks about Spain so I'd guess you prefer the Spanish-from-Spain version 'vosotros'.


If it's intended for Latin America then use 'ustedes conocen' instead of 'vosotros conocéis'.

Yes I guess one year is short-term for a fiat loan on a bank. But here there are several loans of just a few days. So by comparison and because the value of BTC can change a lot in one year it's not the same here.

The rule for digital collateral is that the lender must be able to sell it easy, quickly and with little effort for more than the loan plus interests. So an estable alt-coin would work. Websites or businesses would be valid collateral only if they are worth much more than the loan so that the lender can sell it as bargain (and therefore quickly and effortless) for more than the loan.

Here you can read more about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577765.msg6311902#msg6311902

Yes. Several loans are given here, especially when there's a valid collateral, a good interest rate and a not-too-long repayment term.
Regarding your request personally I dismissed it because:

• The interest rate is extremely low. I didn't think it would be worth starting a negotiation
• There's no digital collateral. Physical collateral is much harder to process. It would help this point if you at least say where you are and what collateral exactly you can offer
• You want a loan based on USD-value while the BTC price is increasing. So it's very likely just holding the BTC would be a better deal than lending it to you
• It's a long-term loan. Normally short-term loans are easier to obtain

Most probably other users had a similar reaction.

I guess you didn't get any replies because there's too much to change to call lenders' attention. And those changes wouldn't probably satisfy your needs.
I really think in your specific case a bank loan would be better.

Everything is possible. Any account can be sold or hacked. That's why a signed message is required even if the loan request is cancelled.
I really don't like the fact OP ignored the sign requests and then went offline.