I need a loan

[KWH]

whatever. I'll keep doing what I think is right.

if anyone thinks that I'm hurting anyone other than myself by giving out loans, feel free to open a thread somewhere telling me to stop. maybe in scam accusation.

By giving out the risky loans to low activity accounts, you will increase the chances of a loan then a default. Basically selling you the account via a loan. Why not buy the account instead of "lend" only to foreclose on the collateral later, add some useless posts and resell later?
The Lending section will slowly fill with these types of "loans". Also, this could lead to more Trust padding.
Marking these defaults helps keep track of who sold what to whom. We already have enough confusion on TX ID's from often sold accounts.
While you make some dust from these accounts, in general, it actually hurts the community in the long run.
But this is just my opinion.

[Yamato no Orochi]

whatever. I'll keep doing what I think is right.

if anyone thinks that I'm hurting anyone other than myself by giving out loans, feel free to open a thread somewhere telling me to stop. maybe in scam accusation.

By giving out the risky loans to low activity accounts, you will increase the chances of a loan then a default. Basically selling you the account via a loan. Why not buy the account instead of "lend" only to foreclose on the collateral later, add some useless posts and resell later?
The Lending section will slowly fill with these types of "loans". Also, this could lead to more Trust padding.
Marking these defaults helps keep track of who sold what to whom. We already have enough confusion on TX ID's from often sold accounts.
While you make some dust from these accounts, in general, it actually hurts the community in the long run.
But this is just my opinion.

please enlighten me how it hurts the community and why should the account collateral be marked with negative rep after the original owner defaulted and the ownership transferred to me.
and why shouldn't we give loans to people with their low activity account as collateral instead of buying it when we don't want the account? I am well aware of the risks involved, by the way.

[KWH]

whatever. I'll keep doing what I think is right.

if anyone thinks that I'm hurting anyone other than myself by giving out loans, feel free to open a thread somewhere telling me to stop. maybe in scam accusation.

By giving out the risky loans to low activity accounts, you will increase the chances of a loan then a default. Basically selling you the account via a loan. Why not buy the account instead of "lend" only to foreclose on the collateral later, add some useless posts and resell later?
The Lending section will slowly fill with these types of "loans". Also, this could lead to more Trust padding.
Marking these defaults helps keep track of who sold what to whom. We already have enough confusion on TX ID's from often sold accounts.
While you make some dust from these accounts, in general, it actually hurts the community in the long run.
But this is just my opinion.

please enlighten me how it hurts the community and why should the account collateral be marked with negative rep after the original owner defaulted and the ownership transferred to me.
and why shouldn't we give loans to people with their low activity account as collateral instead of buying it when we don't want the account?

Already been mostly explained.

[Yamato no Orochi]

whatever. I'll keep doing what I think is right.

if anyone thinks that I'm hurting anyone other than myself by giving out loans, feel free to open a thread somewhere telling me to stop. maybe in scam accusation.

By giving out the risky loans to low activity accounts, you will increase the chances of a loan then a default. Basically selling you the account via a loan. Why not buy the account instead of "lend" only to foreclose on the collateral later, add some useless posts and resell later?
The Lending section will slowly fill with these types of "loans". Also, this could lead to more Trust padding.
Marking these defaults helps keep track of who sold what to whom. We already have enough confusion on TX ID's from often sold accounts.
While you make some dust from these accounts, in general, it actually hurts the community in the long run.
But this is just my opinion.

please enlighten me how it hurts the community and why should the account collateral be marked with negative rep after the original owner defaulted and the ownership transferred to me.
and why shouldn't we give loans to people with their low activity account as collateral instead of buying it when we don't want the account?

Already been mostly explained.

I don't think the lending section will slowly fill with these types of loans because most people will just sell/auction those accounts for a larger price than 0.01BTC and there's nothing stopping them from doing that.
marking defaults sure does helps keep track of things but why should it be marked with negative rep and not just neutral?

[KWH]

whatever. I'll keep doing what I think is right.

if anyone thinks that I'm hurting anyone other than myself by giving out loans, feel free to open a thread somewhere telling me to stop. maybe in scam accusation.

By giving out the risky loans to low activity accounts, you will increase the chances of a loan then a default. Basically selling you the account via a loan. Why not buy the account instead of "lend" only to foreclose on the collateral later, add some useless posts and resell later?
The Lending section will slowly fill with these types of "loans". Also, this could lead to more Trust padding.
Marking these defaults helps keep track of who sold what to whom. We already have enough confusion on TX ID's from often sold accounts.
While you make some dust from these accounts, in general, it actually hurts the community in the long run.
But this is just my opinion.

please enlighten me how it hurts the community and why should the account collateral be marked with negative rep after the original owner defaulted and the ownership transferred to me.
and why shouldn't we give loans to people with their low activity account as collateral instead of buying it when we don't want the account?

Already been mostly explained.

I don't think the lending section will slowly fill with these types of loans because most people will just sell/auction those accounts for a larger price than 0.01BTC and there's nothing stopping them from doing that.
marking defaults sure does helps keep track of things but why should it be marked with negative rep and not just neutral?

Because the previous owner defaulted on a loan. What if he wasn't the actual owner but was hacked and he recovers the account from you? You do know there has been a few hacks as of late as well as the constant barrage of malware?
The point is: You took this risk of losing your coin.

All that being said, I normally leave a Neutral for a sold/bought account unless it already had a Negative from me and as already discussed, the account does have a previous Negative although that person's Trust is messed up. "Asking loan without proper collateral i doubt he has any intention of repaying."
It's kind of a gray area and I do understand your side of it and why I changed it to a Neutral.

[guitarplinker]

Because the previous owner defaulted on a loan. What if he wasn't the actual owner but was hacked and he recovers the account from you? You do know there has been a few hacks as of late as well as the constant barrage of malware?
The point is: You took this risk of losing your coin.

Usually this problem can be prevented if the account owner provides a signed message to the loaner, stating that the account is being used as collateral. However looking through the post history on the ThomM account, there wasn't an address posted until July 21st, 2015 which was after the database hack, but before the Fastminer malware started showing up here. So that's definitely a grey area, but if the loaner can get a signed message from a post a few months old, then there should be no worries about the account being recovered from the original owner.

I think leaving neutral trust ratings on defaulted accounts is fair, but I wouldn't agree with negatives. Neutral ratings help just as well as negatives for tracking ownership of the account, but by giving negative trust you basically screw the lender over and they can kiss away any chance of recovering some of their losses, and I don't think they deserve that.

[Yamato no Orochi]

I'm still not sure if I fully agree with you because I think BTCBLOGGER just left the feedback without noticing that the original owner included a collateral which is his account that have 112 potential activity at the time, but I realize that arguing about this all day is not worth it.
so let's agree to disagree.

[KWH]

I'm still not sure if I fully agree with you because I think BTCBLOGGER just left the feedback without noticing that the original owner included a collateral which is his account that have 112 potential activity at the time, but I realize that arguing about this all day is not worth it.
so let's agree to disagree.

I have no problem with that. World would be boring if we all agreed on everything.