If you want genuine accounts with chance of 0 fraud than pm me.I sell accounts with the email account associated with it.So you have everything to yourself.Nothing to worry.
Why don't you make your own thread instead of advertising in other people's? |
|
|
|
|
Username: Unknown
Would love to see a functional stop-loss feature.
|
|
|
|
Now your ticket price is really high for a lottery; ticket price should be BTC0.001, if want to attract more people. Good luck on your new project @marcotheminer  That will not happen, since he is only expected to make a profit at the moment if he sells tickets for more than .0022 btc. If he want to make a profit, he can try 'gain from demand' strategy. As I know he is a trustworthy member of this forum, if he set prices to BTC0.001, lots of people like me will join this lottery. I don't think you seem to understand, given the current payout structure, the expected return from buying 1 ticket is .0022 btc, so he must sell tickets for more than this to make a profit. There is literally no reason to sell tickets for .001, since his most profitable option at that point would be to sell 0 tickets. |
|
|
|
This sort of behaviour is clear abuse of the system in my opinion. This is no different than buying trust, except you're just abusing your position to get it for free. I noticed mine and Stunna's feedback went up today even though we had no new feedback so I guess this is the reason why. Does anyone know when philipma was added and all these people were added to his list?
He was added by CanaryInTheMine, I think that's why, Madz posted here about this issue.  ~~MZ~~ No, he was not added by CanaryInTheMine, he is at DefaultTrust depth 1, the same level as Canary. I posted this here because he has done what people complained Canary did, and has been even more blatant about it. |
|
|
|
Now your ticket price is really high for a lottery; ticket price should be BTC0.001, if want to attract more people. Good luck on your new project @marcotheminer That will not happen, since he is only expected to make a profit at the moment if he sells tickets for more than .0022 btc. |
|
|
|
I wasn't really aware of that rule, but I think there should be a stickied topic regarding the bumping problem.
For your information, there is a sticky thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.0 in the marketplace section. Marketplace rules and guidelines 1. Trading of goods that are illegal in the seller's or buyer's country is forbidden. 2. Insert a [CLOSED] tag to the subject line when your offer is no more open. 3. To prevent illegal trades involving hacked accounts, there are special restrictions when selling accounts and invites for invite-only sites. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.04. Bumps are limited to once per day (24 hours), yes this includes "updates", that's what the edit button is for. Old bumps should be deleted as they serve no purpose, and only clutter up topics and make it more annoying to read. It also says you are not allowed to "update" the thread and I see you doing that sometimes Quickseller. I'm now aware of the rules and I'll stick to it. You should stop using your alt accounts to bump your threads as well. You should stop accusing me of things when you don't know shit. Maybe go outside and socialize. I only have one alt account (I'm selling it) and I did not bump my thread in the digital goods section with alt accounts. that Quickseller is talking about. Don't bother deleting it. |
|
|
|
I wasn't really aware of that rule, but I think there should be a stickied topic regarding the bumping problem.
For your information, there is a sticky thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.0 in the marketplace section. Marketplace rules and guidelines 1. Trading of goods that are illegal in the seller's or buyer's country is forbidden. 2. Insert a [CLOSED] tag to the subject line when your offer is no more open. 3. To prevent illegal trades involving hacked accounts, there are special restrictions when selling accounts and invites for invite-only sites. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.04. Bumps are limited to once per day (24 hours), yes this includes "updates", that's what the edit button is for. Old bumps should be deleted as they serve no purpose, and only clutter up topics and make it more annoying to read. It also says you are not allowed to "update" the thread and I see you doing that sometimes Quickseller. I'm now aware of the rules and I'll stick to it. You should stop using your alt accounts to bump your threads as well. |
|
|
|
So he's basically just added (nearly) everyone who gave him positive or are they on other people's trust? Where is the trust tree where you can see who has added who to their list? Doesn't seem to be linked anymore. philipma1957
dentldir
CrazyGuy
Unacceptable
kano
champbronc2
Cablez
davecoin
RicRock
Delarock
iluvpcs
crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
ssinc
razorfishsl
btceic
Swimmer63
buysolar
SilentSonicBoom
TookDk
jc328
Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
klintay
stex2009
Beastlymac
boldar
de_ixie
Stratobitz
EvilPanda
Blazedout419
btcxcg
bronxnua
DyslexicZombei
tripppn
xZork
crocko
mchu168
itsrealfast
Albertdroid
MoreBloodWine
BITMAIN
CoinGeneral
dance191
RitzGrandCasino
crowetic
dyland
pcfli
Diddyu
Zoomhash_michael
RockDaddy
SDRebel
MunkeySpaz
Xtra7973 He added them to his list. |
|
|
|
I'm think I'm sufficient competent, because I'm learning from my mistake/forgetfulness; but someone make me really trouble. Thanks again to the community.
What happens when your mistakes/forgetfulness cost someone a lot of bitcoin or the admins don't step in (which they luckily did for you in this case) and the account is forever ruined or perma banned? Can and are you prepared to foot the bill? You need to take that into consideration because being an escrow isn't a responsiblity or worry-free job as people are depending on you for a smooth and safe transaction and you need to be able to guarantee this from your end. That's the only way to do it. If someone asks you to provide escrow for their transaction and you lose the collateral or fail to secure the transaction, you're responsible. Unfortunately this is the risk with providing escrow, which is why most charge a fee. I'm surprised yours is still free, but you seem to be aware of your responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Fuck,
I just bought like $100 worth of CSGO keys from the store :|
At least I unboxed a knife!
Would you show proof of transaction as a vouch for seller? He is referring to the official steam store, not this thread, and is upset that he spent $2.50 per key instead of $1.80. |
|
|
|
Is this the same account from this thread? I don't see the need to start a new thread. |
|
|
|
Red should pay 0.8 formthe fail,and we are done fo thisndrama
Why is this? He has recovered the collateral and will be returning it to moreia once he repays the loan in 6 days. |
|
|
|
I'm confused, are you selling for $1.8 or $1.6? The title contradicts the body of your post.
;)price is growing up ,but if you buy from me ,you never need to worry about banned . Please clarify, are you selling for $1.8 or $1.6, you have not fixed the discrepancy yet. |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who finds it extremely unlikely that Moreia just happened to randomly attach an email to his account that someone related to Bitcointalk happened to own? Assuming it wasn't posted publicly, unless I'm missing something, the only two people who should have had access to the email name are Moreia and redsn0w. Are people really believing that some random third party was the culprit here? Come on.
On one of the many threads about this fiasco it was pointed out that the email was displayed publicly so someone could have hacked the email address that was displayed. Is there proof of this? I'm not sure what the exact communication between redsn0w and moreia was, but it appears moreia explicitly stated beforehand that the email was invalid and not under his control. Assuming redsn0w was not the one who set the account's email information to public, this is mostly moreia's fault. Anyone could have taken control of the account after he did this, even if redsn0w planned on changing the email in the future. The proof is in this thread. I have figured it out
Last escrow, you switched email privacy to Public to show the account was in escrow
I changed the email to random characters, someone on this forum saw it and tried to recover the account by registering the email and recovering the password
This seems plausible. For as long Moreia was in control of his own account, his security settings are his concern and his concern only. When an escrow is holding collateral it is their responsibility to keep the collateral secure while they are holding it. This includes changing certain settings that would cause it to be vulnerable to getting hacked. That does not count as proof, it is in moreia's best interest to have said that because it clears him of all responsibility for what was posted on his account. As theymos said, it is a plausible explanation, but I would not take moreia's word as proof. Keep in mind that redsn0w claims that he did not set the email to public, nor was it public when he received the account: I just missed one part: How did redsn0w regain control over the acc?
The troll posted this : https://i.imgur.com/qABTCrH.jpg and I quickly changed the password , email & forum question. was it publicly displayed?
Now yes , before I don't think it was visible. Also, please have the decency to respond on your charlieSeen account, even if you want to farm activity on both of them. |
|
|
|
|
I'm confused, are you selling for $1.8 or $1.6? The title contradicts the body of your post.
|
|
|
|
Amount Requested:0.1btc
Date repayment: 5 days
Repayment Amount / % interest:15%
Collateral: 115GH/s in mining Hashlets
BTC address to fund the loan to: 1FnqxQWZPoJsAdYdmxP5RsSPkDTyfFSn8z
Have you repaid your loan from Marco yet? According to his thread, the loan is still active (and overdue). |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who finds it extremely unlikely that Moreia just happened to randomly attach an email to his account that someone related to Bitcointalk happened to own? Assuming it wasn't posted publicly, unless I'm missing something, the only two people who should have had access to the email name are Moreia and redsn0w. Are people really believing that some random third party was the culprit here? Come on.
On one of the many threads about this fiasco it was pointed out that the email was displayed publicly so someone could have hacked the email address that was displayed. Is there proof of this? I'm not sure what the exact communication between redsn0w and moreia was, but it appears moreia explicitly stated beforehand that the email was invalid and not under his control. Assuming redsn0w was not the one who set the account's email information to public, this is mostly moreia's fault. Anyone could have taken control of the account after he did this, even if redsn0w planned on changing the email in the future. |
|
|
|
Redsn0w tends to only point out scams that everyone should see or scams that he is told about (he usually doesn't require evidence for this). The only reason he is on default trust list is because he gave CanaryInTheMine positive trust a while back.
[...] has removed his trust.
Vod is very good at spotting scams and calling out scammers. His feedback is accurate as you were buying trust.
Your trust rating to Redsn0w is accurate because you are right he should be more careful with others' property. I am actually surprised that the community did not react more negatively towards him (maybe because he did not have enough time to 'make it right' for all parties involved before the situation resolved itself)
No. Vod thought I was buying trust because he thought I didn't need the loan. His feedback states "By his own admission, he does not need loans because he has the BTC to use as collateral. He *requires* you to leave him positive trust after he repays the loan or he will leave you negative feedback." Neither of this is accurate. I explained why I needed the loan several times and why I was willing to use LTC as collateral. If you look at the reference he points to, I ask that positive trust be given to me as a courtesy. This is not about trust buying. Prior to the negative feedback I asked Vod to discuss with me how I should word a loan request to satisfy his criteria. I pointed to the escrow/collateral sticky at the top of the forums several times but instead of responding to me and helping me understand, he ignored me and negrated me. I view this as unacceptable behavior. You were clearly trying to buy trust, here is a direction quote from your loan request: Once the interest is paid to you at the end of the loan period (within 48 hrs), you must give positive feedback (with a reference) for the full amount of the loan. Failure to give positive feedback will result in you breaking the terms of our contract and I will get to keep the money you lent me. If this is not possible for some reason you agree to receive a scammer tag until I am paid or positive feedback is left on my account for this loan.
Contractual obligation to leave positive trust under threat of default is not "a courtesy", it is trust buying, and you deserve the negative feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
