TheChin0s = SCAMMER?

[CYBER_COWBOY]

Everyone should be careful to do any trades with TheChin0s- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3506957 at least for the moment.

Couple of time ago he asked for loans on the forum, he also wanted to trade $500 with me. - I don´t see anything wrong with this... But when I put that together with what happens now.

1. Here OP says he got scammed by TheChin0s : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5452233.msg62226257#msg62226257

2. Then when I asked TheChin0s about this in his thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5451886.40
He straight away locked the thread instead of explaining what have happened.

So he had a opportunity to explain the situation in his thread, but choose instead to go silence and lock the thread.

Then I saw on his profile he got some negative feedback..

I don´t want to throw water on somebody and be wrong or create any kind of drama or be negative & I can gladly remove this if I am wrong.
I only want people to be careful IF trading with him before he have explained the situations.

I haven´t and wont give TheChin0s any negative feedback since I don´t have any proof of a scam, but I just think its very suspicious everything, so people should be aware until some kind of explanation have come out.

I do this for the safety on this forum.


Wish you the best.
Best regards CC!

[yahoo62278]

I cannot quote him since the thread is locked and I don't wanna go to ninjasticspace and get a screenshot but user Obari also said he was scammed by TheChin0s.

Great service you're rendering  but I think its time you try to consider repaying the money you took without repayment  and I'm sorry I had to make the post here but its unfair people have to trust you with their transactions even after giving you a red tag and that's really bad and I will do appreciate  if you refund the money as you earlier sent me a message about the refund.
Thanks in anticipation for a swift and favorable  response from you.

[Plaguedeath]

I did pointed his few suspicious behavior.

I'm surprised to see many members are trust this guy when he had asked a non collateral loan, a part of alt accounts, and asking someone to accelerate his transaction. It's true you guys don't need to pay anything to him since he's not ask any fee and there's nothing wrong to try, right? but don't put a big hope about it due to his suspicious activities.

I'd say @OP is trying to built his reputation and trust by offering a free service.

I see if many users were saying if his service is fake or bullshit, but since he's not asking any money, is he deserve to get negative feedback because he offer scam service without money involved? I would say he deserve because we not know what he will do if he get many merit and green trust.

But since he was once ask a no collateral loan, my feedback was appropriate too, I just not a DT member that's why the feedback not show.

[Free Market Capitalist]

But since he was once ask a no collateral loan, my feedback was appropriate too, I just not a DT member that's why the feedback not show.

I just left him a negative feedback, which someone could understand as aggressive, but if someone shows me arguments to think that the feeback is wrong, I will not hesitate to change it. I prefer to use the feedback in prevention of a scam than to use it when the user has already been scammed.

I think I'm still in DT, although I haven't even bothered to check lately, so I guess it will show.

It is not clear to me why he was not red tagged at the time for borrowing without collateral, when it is standard practice on the lending board.

By the way, Plaguedeath, probably the fact that you don't have a custom trust list is an essential reason why you are not in DT. I've had a look at your feedbacks but I see that you don't have a trust list and that's why I don't include you. There are cases of people in DT that delete their trust list and stay in DT despite having deleted it but if you want to get in DT you need a custom trust list.

[examplens]

I just left him a negative feedback, which someone could understand as aggressive, but if someone shows me arguments to think that the feeback is wrong, I will not hesitate to change it. I prefer to use the feedback in prevention of a scam than to use it when the user has already been scammed.

I think I'm still in DT, although I haven't even bothered to check lately, so I guess it will show.

It is not clear to me why he was not red tagged at the time for borrowing without collateral, when it is standard practice on the lending board.

Well, this case is definitely somewhere on the border. I would say it deserves a negative tag, but also not enough evidence for it. Personally, I prefer that there is some obvious evidence before a negative tag.
Both cases that the OP mentioned are also just the words of other members. TheChin0s already has some negative accusations on his profile, but they are all on the untrusted feedback list. The problem is that none of them gave a valid reference, so we would have to rely only on their word.
Asking for a loan without collateral is still not solid proof that spam has happened, nor that it will happen because I am not sure that any newbie will ever get a loan under such conditions.

[Little Mouse]

I cannot quote him since the thread is locked and I don't wanna go to ninjasticspace and get a screenshot but user Obari also said he was scammed by TheChin0s.

You can use BPIP extension to get the code for quote.

[LoyceV]

Well, this case is definitely somewhere on the border. I would say it deserves a negative tag, but also not enough evidence for it. Personally, I prefer that there is some obvious evidence before a negative tag.

Agreed. People should really start putting Reference links on their negative feedback, without that, it can never become Trusted.
I saw the case OP mentioned: a Newbie dealing with another Newbie on scammer's paradise Telegram. They'll never learn.

[Stalker22]

I am not sure what kind of sick game these individuals are playing, but their intentions are surely malicious and potentially fraudulent. What other explanation would make sense?

Linked accounts:

1. TheChin0s

2. MachineGam - BANNED

3. PalermoMoon

	Timelord2067		2022-09-28		Reference		Humbertin / DavidXXXX / ser1ck / lokos1913a etc - Chronic gambler & scammer.
	sujonali1819		2022-09-28		Reference		Account connected with Humbertin19_, HumberBaccarat, TimesSquareNY, GoldenBuzzers, SupremosKaiosama. Don't make any deal with this user.

4. LDU QUITO

	Timelord2067		2022-08-15		Reference		Humbertin / DavidXXXX / ser1ck / lokos1913a etc - Chronic gambler & scammer.
	BitcoinGirl.Club		2022-08-04		Reference		Do not risk your money with the user. Please read reference.
	owlcatz		2022-08-03		Reference		likely a serial scammer, do not risk your money with this user!
	DireWolfM14		2022-08-03		Reference		I recommend you avoid dealing with this user, he's very likely a well known scammer, check the reference.

Proof:

3NEabgbcpYWLV9QnGGcZPmUNEKSpYkPqNf

https://ninjastic.space/post/61609316

~
Bitcoin Address: 3NEabgbcpYWLV9QnGGcZPmUNEKSpYkPqNf

3NEabgbcpYWLV9QnGGcZPmUNEKSpYkPqNf

~
3NEabgbcpYWLV9QnGGcZPmUNEKSpYkPqNf

And before anyone says that TheChin0s may have posted the wrong address by mistake, here is a post where he mixed up his accounts and replied to shasan with the wrong acc:

Loan Amount: 0.001 BTC
Reason for Taking out a Loan: Trading
Amount to be repaid:0.00115 btc
Repayment Date: 27/01/2023
Type of Collateral: LTC
Bitcoin Address: 3NEabgbcpYWLV9QnGGcZPmUNEKSpYkPqNf

How much LTC do you want to send as collateral?

0,26542 LTC

TheChin0s later deleted that post, but of course it was preserved in the archives: https://ninjastic.space/post/61645094

[Broadanbig]

Thank you for revealing this mate. I was wondering how he could talk to convince people to dealing with him and after that it is a story line that comes up. I have carefully followed up with this post and I still found it very terrible to explain the way it is happening. Funny things happening everyday.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think I'm still in DT, although I haven't even bothered to check lately, so I guess it will show.

Even if you're currently not on the DT list (and I have no idea where I or anyone else stand, either), my suggestion is to still leave feedback as if you are--because chances are that with the rotating system you'll end up on it again eventually and it will light things up bright red for anyone you've tagged.  I'm probably telling you what you already know, but thought I'd say it anyway.

It is not clear to me why he was not red tagged at the time for borrowing without collateral, when it is standard practice on the lending board.

Vod used to do that consistently, but I can't even remember the last time I visited the lending section.  I always thought getting tagged for asking for a no-collateral loan was extremely harsh, because it really ought to be an issue between the borrower and any potential lender, and I've seen plenty of green-trusted members who've done it with no consequences.  A warning given within such a thread would be more appropriate IMO, but that's just me.

People should really start putting Reference links on their negative feedback, without that, it can never become Trusted.

Agree 100%.  If I'm looking at a wall of red trust and none of them have valid reference links, I'm inclined to believe they're retaliatory (*ahem* take a look at my trust page for instance).  Without a way to validate whether someone deserves a negative, it's a waste of time giving one IMO.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Personally, I prefer that there is some obvious evidence before a negative tag.

Well, I just think that red tagging Maddof when he's already dead of old age in jail doesn't do much good.

TheChin0s already has some negative accusations on his profile, but they are all on the untrusted feedback list. The problem is that none of them gave a valid reference, so we would have to rely only on their word.

That is wrong in one case. That of Plaguedeath, who put this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5438452.msg61721790#msg61721790
Although I think it would have been better to have posted a link to the OP of that thread using loyce.club.

And on the other hand, I recently left a red tag to someone who was connected with a ban evader, who had bought the account, etc. And when I saw a reasonable explanation I changed the tag to neutral. In total the negative tag lasted less than 12 hours on his profile. Nowadays that doesn't hurt anyone.

[Plaguedeath]

By the way, Plaguedeath, probably the fact that you don't have a custom trust list is an essential reason why you are not in DT.

Thanks to remind me about this, I forgot to create my custom trust list even though I've read about trust list before.

Vod used to do that consistently, but I can't even remember the last time I visited the lending section.  I always thought getting tagged for asking for a no-collateral loan was extremely harsh, because it really ought to be an issue between the borrower and any potential lender, and I've seen plenty of green-trusted members who've done it with no consequences.  A warning given within such a thread would be more appropriate IMO, but that's just me.

I think when a newbie ask a no collateral, it's 99% scam because he's not risking anything and he get the money first, he can ran away and create a new account, no one will know if he is a scammer. The only one way a newbie can ask a loan is, he offering a legit collateral.

Tagging a newbie account can be useless, but it's what it's.

[Mpamaegbu]

I do this for the safety on this forum.

Thanks for alerting the community. However, I do believe that anyone who gets scammed by a newbie account should've themselves to blame. I mean, on what grounds will anyone solely trust an account that young which virtually has nothing to lose even if it gets red trust? It doesn't make any sense to me. Now that the account has been tagged, the user will obviously create another account and continue with fresh gullible victims. Nothing to lose for them. A few days ago on a different thread I made a post suggesting why the lack of moderation on scam should be reviewed. It's because of related issues like this.