 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
That is pure libel newtons1.
No it is not. Which part is incorrect? A, none of it, at least not materially incorrect. Simply starting the scam accusation and the title " Did turtlehurricane default on a 20 BTC loan? A: Yes" is defamation, definitely libel since it is printed in text. This is a malicious attack on my reputation by someone who is not involved. It's actually quite illegal so good thing your account is a throwaway.
That's not how defamation works, buddy. There's no defamation here! An attack on your reputation isn't illegal. The person not being involved doesn't make it illegal either. That would be because the statement is true. ^^this is a good explanation buddy. Why spend so much time deleting so many of your previous posts.
Just seems to be strange behaviour.
Legal purposes, think about it for a minute maybe you'll understand. Bitcoins and fraud do not mix, even if the allegations are libel it's still scary, any posts mentioning Bitcoins became a liability. I don't think this makes any sense. From my point of view, this is to cover your tracks. |
|
|
|
How is a newbie with the ability to post only once every 360 seconds suppose to quote a scammer's post with hundreds of posts before he deletes them all? By the time I even get halfway through his posts he will be in Mexico drinking Piņa coladas
Does anyone have his dox? If so then I would defiantly be interested in it considering how clear it is that this person is a serial scammer who selectively scammed many people over a long period of time. on 20 BTC ? Mexico must be very cheap  He defaulted on 20 BTC of loans. If you look through his history you will see this is clearly not the 1st time that he has scammed anyone. There have been multiple scam accusations against him over the last year or so that were all quickly resolved after turtlehurricane received negative trust. turtlehurricane also has a history of spewing out BS about defamation to people that claim he scammed them. I cannot say what the amount that turtlehurricane has stolen in total, although it is my firm belief that it is significantly greater then 20 BTC. |
|
|
|
Only people are banned if there is valid proof, i dont see that this idea is abuseable.
Can you explain to me in what way it is abuseable? If u choose persons from DT, what is wrong?
Way too much work for the mods, way too easy to make frivolous claims. People from DT are also not necessarily good choices for this role. The role also just seems like it wouldn't be a good fit for this forum, in my opinion. Either way, scams are unmoderated for more reasons than the mod workload it'd create. That's why the trust system exists. Yes i see that, trust system is builded to prevent another scam from the same user. But the user can easily create another account withtout other people knowing he was a scammer with an other account. So mayby if someone craetes an account and scams someone, and create another account then it should give a warning:"this is a scammers alt account!!!". U can easily do this by IP tracking. Is not that hard to not get scammed, just use escrow for any deal and you will be 99% safe unless the escrow himself turns a scammer but that does not happen too often, never exchange big amounts of money at once and you will be safe. What if the person you are trading with is an escrow himself? Should you still use escrow? If "escrow" is what is going to protect you from getting scammed then you might as well give your money away Scams are not moderated and this is a bad idea. I like the response of KWH the best  |
|
|
|
How is a newbie with the ability to post only once every 360 seconds suppose to quote a scammer's post with hundreds of posts before he deletes them all? By the time I even get halfway through his posts he will be in Mexico drinking Piņa coladas
Does anyone have his dox? If so then I would defiantly be interested in it considering how clear it is that this person is a serial scammer who selectively scammed many people over a long period of time. |
|
|
|
I believe that bitcointa.lk had stopped saving posts roughly a year ago. If you look at that link then you will see no posts from his profile. I would have thought that users who engage in what is clearly money transmission, and exchangers would be prevented from doing this kind of thing, especially users who have negative trust like he does. |
|
|
|
A majority of the posts here are like that and have been for a long time. From what I can tell this is perfectly fine here so nothing will be done. You are allowed to post only to get paid here so long as you make it over a few words. Useless walls of text are also fine so long as they are somewhat on topic and not just a copy/paste from elsewhere. I am sure that guy probably has several accounts to farm the campaigns with.
This is very disappointing. I do not think his posts are adding anything to any of the conversations and can be generally be described as useless. The fact that he was making one post every 106.05 seconds, on average should be fairly solid evidence that he was not even reading the threads he was posting on. |
|
|
|
What happened:: Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=255148Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190245.0Additional Notes: I just wanted to put it out there it appears that turtlehurricane now only has 378 activity but is still showing as being a "Hero Member". It is my belief that the requirement to be a hero is to have greater then 479 activity. If you look at his post history, you will see that a lot of his posts are somewhat old, and the ones that remain are mostly "..." and were last edited today. I would have hoped that someone in his position would not be able to delete posts like this. It is my belief that turtlehurricane could be attempting to cover his tracks after it was discovered that he defaulted on 20 BTC worth of loans.
|
|
|
|
Edit5: Fuck it, damage done seems he requested a refund from both master-p and neotox , total 0.325.Mayne should've been more careful
I think you should probably post the transaction identifier of the transaction that deposited funds to maser-p's control. This would also show the transaction of where the hacker had the BTC sent to after he hacked your account. |
|
|
|
User RGBKey is making a large number of one sentence posts at a high rate of speed and is making the viewing experience of the threads he is posting in to be unpleasant. He has made 17 posts in the span of 18 minutes and 3 seconds, proof. I would like to formally request that someone with legal ban authority to review his case to prevent additional unpleasant viewing experiences. |
|
|
|
I think this could be conclusive proof that the bitcointalk staff are selectively enforcing the rules regarding how many threads one person can create in the politics and society section.
Wrong. Anyone can make any number of threads anywhere as long as they are not breaking any rules. What's preventing you from starting interesting threads in that section? I think we should rename Meta to 'Drama' since this is the kind of stuff that's been often discussed here. Just useless threads about other people. The staff is not selectively enforcing any rules. I think your response to my post is clear evidence that your sarcasm detector is in need of repair. I do not see any reason why a non-marketplace thread should not be able to be updated more then once per 24 hours if substantial additional information is added to the thread/discussion. |
|
|
|
|
I think this could be conclusive proof that the bitcointalk staff are selectively enforcing the rules regarding how many threads one person can create in the politics and society section.
|
|
|
|
I'd be glad to escrow for this.
I would trust BiPolarBob to act as escrow. Even though this is probably a scam |
|
|
|
I'm selling a 12 BTC coinbase account for only 2 BTC.
Contact me ASAP if you are interested.
Escrow accepted.
What do mean 'a 12btc Coinbase account? Does it have 12 btc in it or is that just the full trade history balance? The account has a balance of 12 BTC right now. and those 12 can be widrawn ? im interested Yes the 12BTC can be withdrawn and used. There is nothing different between this account and any other coinbase account. I would be interested provided that you can deposit .05 BTC to escrow that I would receive in the event this is a scam (which I suspect), that will cover both the escrow fee and a small amount for my time. I can cover the escrow fee if the trade is successful. Escrow with Tomato can be used. |
|
|
|
there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.
There have been multiple examples in the past in which negative trust was removed after no-collateral loans have been repaid, and when stolen money has been returned to it's rightful owner. Often times a neutral rating replaces such negative rating, however this is nowhere nearly as detrimental as a negative rating. I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not. |
|
|
|
If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default).
that's really not the point, though. lenders are in the business of lending in return for interest + principal. they aren't in the business of speculating on collateral defaults---some may enjoy that aspect, but some (probably most) do not. i would have no interest in that if i were to lend here. The reason a lender will ask for collateral is to protect themselves in the event of a default. If the lender has no interest in owning/selling the subject of the loan then he should not be making the loan in the first place. I would assume that BitcoinBoss666 wants to get his name cleared of being a scammer, and I would ask you how he should go about doing that. I would assume that you would respond in saying that he should repay the loan that he defaulted on, however once BitcoinBoss666 repays the defaulted loan he would then be owed the collateral that has more likely then not since been sold, which would make the lender a scammer when he cannot produce the collateral. Should BitcoinBoss666 be forced to forfeit the collateral he provided even if he repays the loan? Should BitcoinBoss666 be forever be labeled a scammer over a $25 loan? |
|
|
|
The entire point of a loan is that you pay the money back within the set timeframe agreed. Trying to use the excuse 'he got the collateral so its okay' is irrelevant as it is then not a loan, it is a sale. Selling the collateral will then be a large inconvenience to the loaner.
Trying to justify not paying back a loan isn't possible; you shouldn't loan money you cannot afford to pay back, irrelevant of whether there is adequate collateral or not.
It is possible that the borrower intended to repay his loan, however encountered unexpected financial difficulties and was unable to do so. It would be my opinion that if a collateral loan default is a one time thing then the borrower is not a scammer. If on the other hand they make a habit of defaulting on collateral loans then it would be more appropriate to call them a scammer. Think for example if you gave a loan to someone who put up LTC as collateral, do you really think a borrower would be a scammer if he told the lender to sell the LTC to repay the loan plus interest and return the balance would really be a scammer? Would selling LTC on an exchange really be all that much of a hassle for a lender? |
|
|
|
When I registered my account, the page I was automatically directed to was the above page...as in I was directed to a page that contained all the threads that GermanGiant had created. I had initially thought this was some kind of list of threads that may be useful to read prior to browsing and posting on the forum. I was wrong.
On a related note, it might not be a bad idea to automatically direct newly registered users to a list of useful threads that may help them navigate both the forum and Bitcoin in general. You need to put in your own userid (in numbers), ie https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=557356I figured that out, however when I register, I don't have any need to view which topics GermanGiant (nor myself) has created. |
|
|
|
Yup, they are the same person, both bd69dc1c4c10c7258a11ec849c866ad09691b3b654f85b13c82b5284553bbcbd and 8e29686cd3930faaa1d3338f82e21d8cf15872503baecacff1f57a5063e6eac7 were signed with 1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either). On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely  not entirely unreasonable. however, i think lenders deserve to know if a prospective debtor has defaulted on loans, at least for some amount of time (maybe similar to credit reporting)......if i were a lender, i wouldn't want to liquidate collateral. wouldn't want the headache, and wouldn't want to risk losing money over it. If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default). In my eyes I would not consider BitcoinBoss666 to be a scammer, unless it can be well documented that the collateral he offered was not worth the amount of the loan as of the time he took out the loan. |
|
|
|
|
It appears that the OP previously was very much into selling domains, which does not appear to be the case anymore. It also looks like the OP was previously very much against Morality Bitcoin, to the point of opening up multiple threads against him, yet has not followed up with those threads in a long time.
I think it is a good chance the OP's account is a sold account and this should be taken into consideration when deciding if escrow should be used.
|
|
|
|
|
