|
Do you still need this loan?
|
|
|
|
|
If the number on the left is +6 it will show up as dark green. The number on the left is influenced by the age and weight (btc risked) of your trust. I believe the formula for the left side is something like (trust value * months trust has been there)/10. It's a bit more complicated than that, but it's done in a way so that the more trust you have, the shorter amount of time it takes for a +1 to be added to the left. For instance, having only one positive feedback takes 10 months just to change from black to light green (0 to 1).
|
|
|
|
Thanks, bud, with apologies. I'm lookin' at over 30K new nonactive members created since Jan. 23, 2015. I say somebody is getting paid to hand-create these accounts, possibly at slave labor pricing. I doubt these are being made manually, look at a sample profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=460897Clearly a bot that doesn't understand the profile fields. |
|
|
|
First of all, I would like to make it clear that at this point I do not think that these accounts are alts of Eal. At the same time, I think all evidence should be presented, so here is some more circumstantial evidence linking these three accounts together: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=962893.40All 3 post 15 minutes after one another. 15 minutes after Pandacoin posts, so does https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=223006, another Turkish account that hangs out in the same threads as Pandacoin. This account has also only left feedback for eal and pandacoin. Although the blockchain analysis is decent proof as well, I would like to hear what these users have to say about these accusations before finalizing my judgment. I think that there are legitimate reasons for these accounts to be linked so closely, although I'm not going to post them since they could be used to fabricate a story that seems legitimate. |
|
|
|
Done.
I think it would be a good idea to add a stickied thread explaining the risks behind these types of investments. |
|
|
|
Let's say I buy a fancy watch from a guy on the street, hot but I didn't know it. The long arm of the law somehow leads to me and the watch. It would be taken from me and I wouldn't get my money back. I have no recourse to go after the guy who sold it to me. He was a complete stranger.
That also doesn't strike me as entirely fair. If nothing can be gotten from the person who actually did the stealing, then the person who lost the stolen item and the person who bought it should somehow split the cost IMO. One thing that is very interesting is that the OP was trying to sell a senior account for .25 BTC. If marcotheminer is interested in keeping the account then he could potentially send the OP some amount of additional funds to "buy" the account so that it is "no longer hacked". I am not sure what a fair price would be though, the market is not good and both parties are at least partially at fault (assuming it is in fact hacked), I would say that the .32 BTC that he essentially bought it for is a lot less then what it would sell for. Another option would be (if both parties agree) to auction off the account and each party would receive a portion of the proceeds depending on the sales price. This would result in likely both parties taking some kind of loss and letting the free market determine just how much each party gets. It is also likely very similar to what marcotheminer would have done if the loan was not repaid In regards to your last suggestion, you have to remember that most people have some sort of attachment to their own account and don't just view them as commodities. I doubt yussuf would agree to this, although he could in theory bid on his own account and pay half of the bidding price. |
|
|
|
|
Today at 09:31:05 PM - GBattaglia - password reset via email
I would be wary of lending to this account until some proof of ownership is shown.
|
|
|
|
The username of this account is Slaxt  If this is true, any potential buyer should be aware of this thread. |
|
|
|
|
I disagree with your suggestion that mods be barred from wearing paid signatures. If they are so corruptible, as you suggest, that being paid to display an ad will alter their judgment, then they shouldn't be mods in the first place. Personally, I trust the administration's choice of staff in this respect. Passively gaining a decent amount of income for doing something you would already be doing anyway isn't being "desperate for money", you could say the same of forum ads or ads in general.
|
|
|
|
get off my case dude i never did nothing to you what i ran a ponzi who fucking cares its a gamble... i never scamed anyone You left yourself false feedback to your other account claiming you turned 5 BTC into 8 BTC in your own ponzi, this in itself is untrustworthy behavior. Good find xetsr. |
|
|
|
Try bitmixer. It pays to 0.035 weekly (50 posts)
You should actually read the thread before posting. |
|
|
|
|
Trust is unmoderated, so only the person who left it can remove it. Despite this, I wouldn't worry about it much, his ratings are untrusted and no one will pay much attention to it, given that he doesn't provide a valid reason for leaving it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you still offering to buy items off the market now that there is a 7 day restriction on trading items? Will BTC exchange rate be locked in at the beginning or end of this 7 day period?
|
|
|
|
|
Can you buy specific listings off the market? For instance, if I wanted to buy an item I inspected with a specific pattern, could you buy it for me?
|
|
|
|
They are all painted red already anyway so hopefully people will be cautious from doing business with WC or his alts again.
I think this revelation would change something. Personally, I only viewed WoodCollector as dishonest, not a scammer. He delivered a product that was artistically pleasing and unique. If I was to buy from him, I wouldn't particularly care how it was made (this is only my opinion though). On the other hand, The Observer is a blatant scammer, there is no middle ground when considering his actions. |
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain that The Observer account is now owned by WoodCollector and that is him you see logging in and posting. WC has a bunch of sock puppets he's using to scam.
Yes I am convinced that The Observer and WoodCollector are one in the same. Their grammatical "Your" errors instead of using "You're" is glaring. T.O. and W.C. are scammers, simple. Another stylistic element that indicates they are the same person is the fact that both of them never capitalize the pronoun "i". quotes?? Just go through their recent post history and it becomes obvious. Here are a few though: Sure can Bob, it's 9 p.m. here tonight but i will call some of my old venders first thing in the morning and see if i can get a piece of kiln dried walnut shipped to me right away.
Do you want it one of the standard sizes? Do you want it with or without the "trees for the future" brand on it? and are you going to want a QR code and address on the back of it?
Can you make one in walnut so it can match with my decor?
If your ok with Black Walnut i could have one done by the weekend, Its the only walnut i stock besides Walnut Burls which would be considerably more expensive. If you want regular walnut it would take me a week to get my hands on some that is already kiln dried. Seeing as Black Walnut is considerably cheaper than the exotic woods i could probably make you one a little larger too. If you wanted one with a gold overlay to accent the black walnut i could do from 10" on down for $130.00 as the original is 10" and i can only scale down not up yet. Shipping to the US on anything over 5.75" is $15.95 If you want regular walnut just let me know and i will find some. (both in locked topics can't quote) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948991.msg10418144#msg10418144https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=452850.msg5756581#msg5756581You get the idea I think. Fortunately, the locked ones can't be edited to disguise this fact in the future. Obviously, this isn't certain proof, but it is an unusual stylistic element that shows up in both their posts (more unusual than messing up your and you're*). Given this and the circumstantial evidence that The Observer happened to show up after a 10 month hiatus to defend WoodCollector, I would say they are probably the same person. By the way, The Observer's old posts show the same writing style, so I doubt it is a bought account. |
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain that The Observer account is now owned by WoodCollector and that is him you see logging in and posting. WC has a bunch of sock puppets he's using to scam.
Yes I am convinced that The Observer and WoodCollector are one in the same. Their grammatical "Your" errors instead of using "You're" is glaring. T.O. and W.C. are scammers, simple. Another stylistic element that indicates they are the same person is the fact that both of them never capitalize the pronoun "i". |
|
|
|
I would contact theymos about it. If someone is spamming their email address then he will possibly remove the email address from your trust.
My understanding is that the only exception to the policy of no trust moderation is in cases of obvious spam
I'm not sure if this is true, I believe the trust system is mostly left unmoderated except in extreme cases. For example dogie's untrusted feedback is almost entirely pointless spam, yet nothing has been done to remove it, although that might just be because dogie never requested for it to be removed. |
|
|
|
I am not sure how you got him bidding .01 to imply the price being .13. It looks like he is offering .01 for it while your min bid appears to be .12, it appears that his bid is invalid however that would be up to the two of you to decide
It says his starting bid is .005 em I wrong??? Since he listed the price as .12 and has a separate buy it now of .15, I believe the "min bid" of .005 was intended to be the minimum bidding increment, not the starting price (which is .12). The OP is worded pretty poorly, it would be unreasonable for anyone to think that you meant to bid .13. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
