scammer gave me a Negative trust because He Defaulted in loan

[BitcoinBoss666]

It seems that the OP somehow knew that BitcoinBoss666 was an alt of the person who took out the loan, so he gave him negative trust ~a week ago. Then BitcoinBoss666 saw the trust and didn't like it so he left a negative on the OP saying that even though he defaulted the collateral was worth much more then the loan amount so he should not be labeled a scammer. (The fact that you cannot give any kind of trust rebuttal or response is a flaw in the trust system).

I don't think anyone got scammed here. The OP gave a loan for .1 but got .3 worth of collateral. He profits regardless if the loan is repaid. BitcoinBoss666 consented to giving his account as collateral for the .1 loan and when his gambling strategy didn't work out he lost his account (this is pretty clearly a gambling loan).

I don't think the trust given to the OP was calling him a scammer but was rather giving a rebuttal to the rating that was left on his trust profile.

IMO, if a rebuttal or a response could be left then we would probably see less retaliatory feedback left and would probably see less drama regarding the trust system (but maybe not very much less).

I shouldnt gave him a Neg trust so that he can SCAM Others too?

I never scam nobody. You earn +200% on this loan and you call it scam? What is wrong with you?

You defaulted a loan. Isn't that a scam? When you took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased and you aren't scammer and you want the account back?

Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?

You are a scammer because you didn't repay the loan.  Not difficult to understand.

This is interesting.  In an extreme case, if someone hypothetically provided 10x collateral on a loan and defaulted, you would label them a scammer? 

I would've assumed the collateral is part of the "deal" such that, whether or not the original loan amount is repaid, the lender is satisfied (else the conditions of collateral wouldn't be agreed to).

The defaulted borrower deceived irfan_pak10 for his financial gain. So he is a scammer.

This was pretty clear that this was a gambling loan (there is no other reason to borrow such a small amount lol). I don't think it is his fault that he lost/busted/ect. The OP still profited from the deal. In order to be a scammer you need to either steal property from someone or try to steal property from someone. Who did he steal from? Please note that the OP ended up with more property then he started with.

But... When he took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased. Then telling he isn't a scammer because Irfan got more than he gave doesn't make sense. Scam doesn't mean "stealing", it means deceiving a person for financial/personal gain

Okay so say the value is the same. The lender would still profit.

When altcoins are used as collateral a standard condition is that if the value of the altcoins falls below a certain threshold then they can be sold to cover the amount of the loan. I would say that often the borrower would not technically pay back the loan in those cases however they would not be a scammer.

There is not even a case of deception here. I assume the loan agreement to be something along the lines of the borrows will repay a certain amount by a certain date, and if this does not happen then the collateral will become the property of the lender.

I would restate my offer to make the OP "whole" by reimbursing the amount he was "scammed" aka the repayment amount if he is willing to give me the account (assuming he has a signed message). 

I can give you signed message to all addies.

No use unless irfan_pak10 is ready to give account to QS for 0.1BTC. IMHO he should sell it for a higher price.

He should give it becouse he call it scam ! Higher price ? that mean he will earn on this loan? And you call this scam. You are his friend and you will always defend him.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It seems that the OP somehow knew that BitcoinBoss666 was an alt of the person who took out the loan, so he gave him negative trust ~a week ago. Then BitcoinBoss666 saw the trust and didn't like it so he left a negative on the OP saying that even though he defaulted the collateral was worth much more then the loan amount so he should not be labeled a scammer. (The fact that you cannot give any kind of trust rebuttal or response is a flaw in the trust system).

I don't think anyone got scammed here. The OP gave a loan for .1 but got .3 worth of collateral. He profits regardless if the loan is repaid. BitcoinBoss666 consented to giving his account as collateral for the .1 loan and when his gambling strategy didn't work out he lost his account (this is pretty clearly a gambling loan).

I don't think the trust given to the OP was calling him a scammer but was rather giving a rebuttal to the rating that was left on his trust profile.

IMO, if a rebuttal or a response could be left then we would probably see less retaliatory feedback left and would probably see less drama regarding the trust system (but maybe not very much less).

I shouldnt gave him a Neg trust so that he can SCAM Others too?

I never scam nobody. You earn +200% on this loan and you call it scam? What is wrong with you?

You defaulted a loan. Isn't that a scam? When you took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased and you aren't scammer and you want the account back?

Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?

You are a scammer because you didn't repay the loan.  Not difficult to understand.

This is interesting.  In an extreme case, if someone hypothetically provided 10x collateral on a loan and defaulted, you would label them a scammer? 

I would've assumed the collateral is part of the "deal" such that, whether or not the original loan amount is repaid, the lender is satisfied (else the conditions of collateral wouldn't be agreed to).

The defaulted borrower deceived irfan_pak10 for his financial gain. So he is a scammer.

This was pretty clear that this was a gambling loan (there is no other reason to borrow such a small amount lol). I don't think it is his fault that he lost/busted/ect. The OP still profited from the deal. In order to be a scammer you need to either steal property from someone or try to steal property from someone. Who did he steal from? Please note that the OP ended up with more property then he started with.

But... When he took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased. Then telling he isn't a scammer because Irfan got more than he gave doesn't make sense. Scam doesn't mean "stealing", it means deceiving a person for financial/personal gain

Okay so say the value is the same. The lender would still profit.

When altcoins are used as collateral a standard condition is that if the value of the altcoins falls below a certain threshold then they can be sold to cover the amount of the loan. I would say that often the borrower would not technically pay back the loan in those cases however they would not be a scammer.

There is not even a case of deception here. I assume the loan agreement to be something along the lines of the borrows will repay a certain amount by a certain date, and if this does not happen then the collateral will become the property of the lender.

I would restate my offer to make the OP "whole" by reimbursing the amount he was "scammed" aka the repayment amount if he is willing to give me the account (assuming he has a signed message). 

I can give you signed message to all addies.

No use unless irfan_pak10 is ready to give account to QS for 0.1BTC. IMHO he should sell it for a higher price.

He should give it becouse he call it scam ! Higher price ? that mean he will earn on this loan? And you call this scam. You are his friend and you will always defend him.

In his point of view, this is a scam but I don't see why he should give the account he owns to you.

[irfan_pak10]

Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?

You are a scammer because you didn't repay the loan.  Not difficult to understand.

Yea im scammer becouse he earn 0.2BTC on this loan. Good job. That why he get collateral worth 300%, and now he call me scammer. If i take loan without collateral he can call me scammer. But he earn 300% on this loan !

And you Know that you are Not going to Return me Loan you got from me? LOL, Did you paid me on Time? If you had had repaid me then I surely return this account to you before the end Date. But you never paid me, And Now you are asking me for that account.
If I say I had sold that account for .1 BTC when It was a full member?

Just sell the account to someone else.  Recover your 0.1btc, and if you make a little profit, good for you!  Maybe BB666 will learn to repay his debts on time.

I will act upon the Vod's Advice and other people, And going to lock that thread.
Thanks