scammer gave me a Negative trust because He Defaulted in loan

[the joint]

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).

[BitcoinBoss666]

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 !

It's not how much the collateral is worth. You should have asked more BTC or gave less valuable collateral or at least pay him promptly. Note that, the account was Full Member when he used it as collateral. You didn't pay on time and now asking the account realizing it became Sr. Member and is more valuable. Go away!

What a bullshit. I know my account will be senior in 10 days after i take loan. And i even type in in request. He earn 300% on this loan and you call me scammers. Nice forums and nice members.

You didn't pay the loan and now asking the collateral back realizing the value? You should have repaid the loan if you don't want to loose this account. You are calling him a scammer because he was lucky to get a 300% collateral? Lender become the owner of collateral if the loan is defaulted. You should really learn more.

You have to be very careful on these forums.
It's a shitnest of bandits and thieves for the most part, so be alert.

Shame you got scammed like that. in the future maybe consider using escrow
99% of the time you use escrtow you'll be fine.. just make sure they are trusted.

Do you know what you are talking about?

P.S. @irfan_pak10: If BitcoinBoss666 wants that account, sell it to him at the current market value.

I know he is owner of this account now you dont need to teach me. And he tell my account worth 0.1btc that why i want it back becouse this is bullshit. He will earn this 0.1 in 2 weeks from signature campaign.

[Vod]

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).

That's a good point.  If I owed the bank $100 and they had $200 in my RRSPs as collateral, they would probably return the extra $100 to me after the initial debt was satisfied.

[Quickseller]

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).

[Muhammed Zakir]

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.

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 !

It's not how much the collateral is worth. You should have asked more BTC or gave less valuable collateral or at least pay him promptly. Note that, the account was Full Member when he used it as collateral. You didn't pay on time and now asking the account realizing it became Sr. Member and is more valuable. Go away!

What a bullshit. I know my account will be senior in 10 days after i take loan. And i even type in in request. He earn 300% on this loan and you call me scammers. Nice forums and nice members.

You didn't pay the loan and now asking the collateral back realizing the value? You should have repaid the loan if you don't want to loose this account. You are calling him a scammer because he was lucky to get a 300% collateral? Lender become the owner of collateral if the loan is defaulted. You should really learn more.

 -snip-

I know he is owner of this account now you dont need to teach me. And he tell my account worth 0.1btc that why i want it back becouse this is bullshit. He will earn this 0.1 in 2 weeks from signature campaign.

He can do whatever with that account. None of your concern.

[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).

Thank you. You have right.
Btw: They know i am alt becouse Muhammed Zakir(he was escrow) ask how to contact with me when i take loan.

[irfan_pak10]

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?

[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?

[Quickseller]

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.

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 !

It's not how much the collateral is worth. You should have asked more BTC or gave less valuable collateral or at least pay him promptly. Note that, the account was Full Member when he used it as collateral. You didn't pay on time and now asking the account realizing it became Sr. Member and is more valuable. Go away!

What a bullshit. I know my account will be senior in 10 days after i take loan. And i even type in in request. He earn 300% on this loan and you call me scammers. Nice forums and nice members.

You didn't pay the loan and now asking the collateral back realizing the value? You should have repaid the loan if you don't want to loose this account. You are calling him a scammer because he was lucky to get a 300% collateral? Lender become the owner of collateral if the loan is defaulted. You should really learn more.

 -snip-

I know he is owner of this account now you dont need to teach me. And he tell my account worth 0.1btc that why i want it back becouse this is bullshit. He will earn this 0.1 in 2 weeks from signature campaign.

He can do whatever with that account. None of your concern.

[irfan_pak10]

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?

Its Not the thing that How much profit I made from that Account, It's the thing that you defaulted in the Loan

[Vod]

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?

Its Not the thing that How much profit I made from that Account, It the you defaulted in the Loan

You have made your point.  I would just stop replying to him and do whatever you want with the collateral.

There was no agreement that you would refund excess amounts, was there?  (In the future, though, I think this might happen!)

[Quickseller]

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?

Who did he scam? He took out a loan and you ended up with something that is worth triple the amount you lent.

If you got a signed message from the OP to confirm ownership and you *really* feel scammed then I'll cover his loan, however I will need you to give me the collateral you received.

[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?

Its Not the thing that How much profit I made from that Account, It the you defaulted in the Loan

It is think becouse you earn much money on this loan. I dont pay it but you earn on it. Please learn what is scam.

[zee11224]

in my opinion You all guys should not  share your judgement without knows that guy or dealing with anything before

Maybe He got Any Problem and he not payback on Time. that doesn't mean that he is scammer. and U already is BCT Account which Worth is More than  0.3 BTC.

I don't understand why u calling him scammer  

[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

[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

I told you again. My account was senior before end of loan and i know it very good(I type it in request).

[Quickseller]

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). 

[Grand_Voyageur]

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

I told you again. My account was senior before end of loan and i know it very good(I type it in request).

Well..you both made the said deal fully understanding the meanings. So, you - both of you - shouldn't cry fool because you weren't earning more than you got. Live with it!

[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.

[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.