You don't reach a position to spend $14k on something by declining easy ways of making money. He would post on the forums anyway, so why not get paid.

The thing is, the case that was just mentioned in this thread was a bought account that was botting, which would likely be whitelisted. People bought whitelisted accounts all the time way back then.

I think the confusion here comes from the fact that you took his quote:


and made it a reason to show how difficult it is to actually bruteforce someone's password. I read his quote as agreeing with the idea that passwords are not guessable, given that he says the chances of guessing someone's password are "very low". The thing is, you begin your reply by saying:
 

Which sounds like you are disagreeing with him if you take that sentence out of context. He probably read this and assumed your post was contradicting his, which is why he responded to you with hostility, even though you both actually agree. You're both confused because you believe the other person has the opposite view, when you actually both agree that passwords are very secure. That's how I read your conversation at least.

Would be an interesting experiment to test this out somehow, without people actually losing their coins of course. I believe a lot of people would invest, if the idea was presented in the right way.

And how do you respond to claims that your account has been actively claiming the faucet 24/7? That is impossible without botting, as you are accused of doing.

This doesn't make any sense. If you do not have a unique deposit address, how can this exchange credit your deposit to a unique account?

Honestly, I don't see why this thread had to become so heated.

This was never an argument over whether or not TBZ should remove his feedback, it was whether or not his rating should be endorsed by default trust. TBZ admitted early on that he had no attachment to being on DT, so it should have been fairly simple to contact theymos and badbear to see whether or not they still wished to lend their weight to TBZ's feedback, given the rating he had left on Wardrick. It's pretty sad to see what this thread devolved into.

They aren't even discounted, look at his prices for the FN CH Butterfly (barely any blue) and his ST FN Cyrex, both can be bought for much cheaper from the steam market right now.

Most people have him on ignore by now, no one takes his feedback seriously. Don't worry about it.

This is actually no faster than going all in on your first bet to hit 50k tip minimum and then sending it to another account, it just has less variance.

1E6K8V4Pr3UiyUHXVFbMaGT7EeK29Mg3P6

Thanks!

He withdrew 40 btc and probably took a lot more without detection before this run. The thing is, there is no amount Stunna could really offer to make this worthwhile financially for any exploiter, since he can take a great deal more through theft.

Here is a recent 17.5 btc loan which was done at a rate of 1.75% per week.

You aren't very clear with your intentions here, this reads more like a thread asking to buy 1 bitcoin than a thread asking for a loan. Unless you have a reason for taking out a loan instead of buying, I would post this here.

I understand that scamming is not actually punishable under the forum rules, only via the trust system. The difference between this and other scams is that this involves a forum account, which the administration can and ought to intervene in, since it damages their forums directly. This shouldn't really be treated any differently than another method of account hacking which involves similar levels of deception.

An interesting point to bring up is that according to theymos, any account can be recovered if you sign an address or PGP key associated with the account. If the forum rules take no position on scamming as you say they do, then it seems to me that a user has the right to recover their account regardless of whether it has been sold or used as collateral, as long as they are able to provide the right verification. The administration does not condone account sales, it merely tolerates them because they would happen elsewhere if not here.

Most escrows are not free and many might not deal with a small amount like this. He seemed to need this loan as soon as possible, and finding a free escrow who was willing and available in the near future would have only added time to the transaction. He made a trade off between speed and safety and paid the price. There is always the problem of proving a transaction took place, which most reputable lenders solve by making transaction addresses public on the forums and keeping communications through PMs which can be checked later. In this case, stellar is denying loaning to the user at all. Both agree that payment was never sent, so this is not an issue here. No one has claimed to have bought the account, and no other lender has come forward to claim that the account is justly being held in collateral. There has been no legitimate explanation as to why the OP is no longer in control of the account he claims to be his, and if he can prove his ownership, then it should be returned to him.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow a user to scam, simply because someone is stupid enough to fall for it. Yes, he is an idiot, and should take a lot of the blame, but the scammer wins in the end if he is allowed to keep the account. It is a bit silly to use escrow for such a small amount, which is why he probably trusted the lender not to run off with collateral that will be even more difficult to sell now that the account theft is public information. If he can sign a previous address and prove his ownership of the account, I don't see why theymos shouldn't return the account to him.

In this case, the user allowed his account to be used as collateral for a loan, which he links to in his other thread. Given that the loan amount was for less than this account was worth, stellar funded the loan, knowing that he would still profit if the user defaulted. Apparently, the user repaid the loan and stellar refused to return the account, once again showing the risks of not using a trusted escrow.

You need to register an account to access the site.

This feature has been around for a long time, as far back as just-dice.