miTgiB
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 251
Merit: 100
Du hast
|
 |
February 14, 2013, 05:45:16 PM |
|
Loan policy update:
It's no longer possible to create anonymous listings. The borrower must have at least identity and address verified.
While I am not a borrower, I've had docs waiting about a week for address verification, is there a way to poke you with a stick? EDIT: Nevermind, you already have this taken care of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
February 14, 2013, 07:25:39 PM |
|
I think 2 active loan limit is fair. Recently got burned pretty bad by someone with the username "user3984". Basically lost all the profit iv made and am now in the red. This guy has like 31 repaid loans, but also has 19 that are currently active, and now half are overdue and he seems to have just peaced out with the money. Seems like he spent quite a bit of time building up loan rep then took out a whole bunch of smaller loans over time to make it not so suspicious.
If users were limited by the amount of loans to take out it could help get rid of this problem. Maybe have it so you can only have one "in funding" at a time, and max 2 active at a time.
No reason you couldn't just limit yourself to 2 loans per person when lending. There are too few quality borrowers as it is to lend to. If I am careful and only loan out to 2 loans per person but they are then allowed as many as they want, create a Ponzi and run, I am still out the BTC for a lender that became a Ponzi after I lend to them during the period of time they act like a responsible lender. A hard limit of two loans prevents this type of Ponzi. They can still increase their loan amounts on each subsequent loan but that is highly visible, everyone can see what is going on when it happens, and I don't have to rely on others to not loan to him when he increases his number of loans. |
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
miTgiB
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 251
Merit: 100
Du hast
|
|
February 14, 2013, 07:41:10 PM |
|
I think 2 active loan limit is fair. Recently got burned pretty bad by someone with the username "user3984". Basically lost all the profit iv made and am now in the red. This guy has like 31 repaid loans, but also has 19 that are currently active, and now half are overdue and he seems to have just peaced out with the money. Seems like he spent quite a bit of time building up loan rep then took out a whole bunch of smaller loans over time to make it not so suspicious.
If users were limited by the amount of loans to take out it could help get rid of this problem. Maybe have it so you can only have one "in funding" at a time, and max 2 active at a time.
No reason you couldn't just limit yourself to 2 loans per person when lending. There are too few quality borrowers as it is to lend to. If I am careful and only loan out to 2 loans per person but they are then allowed as many as they want, create a Ponzi and run, I am still out the BTC for a lender that became a Ponzi after I lend to them during the period of time they act like a responsible lender. A hard limit of two loans prevents this type of Ponzi. They can still increase their loan amounts on each subsequent loan but that is highly visible, everyone can see what is going on when it happens, and I don't have to rely on others to not loan to him when he increases his number of loans. With Identity and address needing to be verified now, I don't think a ponzi will be easy to create. Sure it is still possible, but not as likely |
|
|
|
|
ThaddeusB
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
February 14, 2013, 09:42:06 PM |
|
Loan policy update:
It's no longer possible to create anonymous listings. The borrower must have at least identity and address verified.
Interesting development... I guess BTCJam now feels it is necessary to protect lenders from themselves. Still, probably not a bad idea as it was becoming a real pain to scroll through page after page of "loan for rep" requests from 0/17 reputation people. (Few got funded, so people weren't being scammed in large numbers - just inconvenienced.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Monster Tent
|
|
February 14, 2013, 10:06:45 PM |
|
It would be better if you could show you actually owned assets rather than yet another social network account.
Do you mean proof of income, house ownership, etc? Titles/deeds and mortgage papers I assume. Something like that. Also assets on sites like btct.co and bitfunder etc. Theres an API that can be used to pull down the asset lists on accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Smoovious
|
|
February 14, 2013, 10:14:08 PM |
|
The wallet was changed after the attack, you should always generate a new address to make deposits. I will put the old wallet online and get the coins. Thnxy, appreciate it. Tulkas... How is the progress on this? I'm getting concerned... -- Smoov Hello Smoov, Put the old wallet online, the 8.30230209 BTC was there  . sent to your BTCJam account. Thanks a bunch, Tulkas, saw the coin made it and paid it out to my lenders a couple hours ago. Appreciate the work to get that straightened out for me. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas (OP)
|
|
February 15, 2013, 01:06:20 AM |
|
It would be better if you could show you actually owned assets rather than yet another social network account.
Do you mean proof of income, house ownership, etc? Titles/deeds and mortgage papers I assume. Something like that. Also assets on sites like btct.co and bitfunder etc. Theres an API that can be used to pull down the asset lists on accounts. Thanks, good suggestion, with check that out. |
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
February 15, 2013, 05:38:01 AM |
|
With Identity and address needing to be verified now, I don't think a ponzi will be easy to create. Sure it is still possible, but not as likely
ID does not matter to these guys. pirateat40 AKA Trendon Shavers is one of the most well know and identified members of the entire Bitcoin community. This guy ran one of the largest Ponzis on BTC Jam (stole 190 BTC): https://btcjam.com/users/394He provided ID, address and phone verification. He could have just as easily provided Facebook, etc. also. When he defaulted he had 19 x ten BTC active loans. What would have made it harder for him would have been a limit the number of loans. |
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
Tulkas (OP)
|
|
February 15, 2013, 12:50:04 PM |
|
With Identity and address needing to be verified now, I don't think a ponzi will be easy to create. Sure it is still possible, but not as likely
ID does not matter to these guys. pirateat40 AKA Trendon Shavers is one of the most well know and identified members of the entire Bitcoin community. This guy ran one of the largest Ponzis on BTC Jam (stole 190 BTC): https://btcjam.com/users/394He provided ID, address and phone verification. He could have just as easily provided Facebook, etc. also. When he defaulted he had 19 x ten BTC active loans. What would have made it harder for him would have been a limit the number of loans. Although some people may not care, not everyone is willing to become a well know thief. |
|
|
|
ThaddeusB
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
February 15, 2013, 06:14:38 PM |
|
With Identity and address needing to be verified now, I don't think a ponzi will be easy to create. Sure it is still possible, but not as likely
ID does not matter to these guys. pirateat40 AKA Trendon Shavers is one of the most well know and identified members of the entire Bitcoin community. This guy ran one of the largest Ponzis on BTC Jam (stole 190 BTC): https://btcjam.com/users/394He provided ID, address and phone verification. He could have just as easily provided Facebook, etc. also. When he defaulted he had 19 x ten BTC active loans. What would have made it harder for him would have been a limit the number of loans. Although some people may not care, not everyone is willing to become a well know thief. Except they won't really become "well known" if BTC Jam shields all their info from the public. Just saying... |
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas (OP)
|
|
February 15, 2013, 06:36:42 PM |
|
Except they won't really become "well known" if BTC Jam shields all their info from the public. Just saying...
Not for long.. |
|
|
|
yellowdog213
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
February 15, 2013, 06:45:32 PM |
|
Except they won't really become "well known" if BTC Jam shields all their info from the public. Just saying...
Not for long.. Meaning what exactly? |
|
|
|
|
|
velacreations
|
|
February 17, 2013, 03:46:29 AM |
|
I don't know if this has been mentioned before (it's a long thread), but it would be really nice if I could search/sort loans based on criteria and parameters. Like Rating above 5, interest above 2%, no medical, etc.
|
|
|
|
ThaddeusB
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
February 17, 2013, 07:46:10 PM |
|
I see that some multi-account scammers are being joined into one account now. It's a move in the right direction, but it sure would have been nice if BTCJam had caught these people BEFORE they ran away with investors money under 5 or 10 different accounts. Obviously, you have evidence tying these accounts together, so its pretty disappointing that you haven't acted on it until now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas (OP)
|
|
February 17, 2013, 09:08:32 PM |
|
I see that some multi-account scammers are being joined into one account now. It's a move in the right direction, but it sure would have been nice if BTCJam had caught these people BEFORE they ran away with investors money under 5 or 10 different accounts. Obviously, you have evidence tying these accounts together, so its pretty disappointing that you haven't acted on it until now.
with more than 2.000 active users this happened only with one user. This is what happened: 1- The user submitted documents the first time, accepted. 2 - Opened another account, documents not accepted, somehow managed to get funds with anonymous account 3 - repeat step 2 3x times 4 - Link paypal on last account, gets caught same day Now that we do not let anonymous borrowers the above scheme will not work anymore. I'm sorry we didn't do that sooner. |
|
|
|
ThaddeusB
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
February 18, 2013, 12:47:10 AM |
|
I see that some multi-account scammers are being joined into one account now. It's a move in the right direction, but it sure would have been nice if BTCJam had caught these people BEFORE they ran away with investors money under 5 or 10 different accounts. Obviously, you have evidence tying these accounts together, so its pretty disappointing that you haven't acted on it until now.
with more than 2.000 active users this happened only with one user. This is what happened: 1- The user submitted documents the first time, accepted. 2 - Opened another account, documents not accepted, somehow managed to get funds with anonymous account 3 - repeat step 2 3x times 4 - Link paypal on last account, gets caught same day Now that we do not let anonymous borrowers the above scheme will not work anymore. I'm sorry we didn't do that sooner. Darn. I was hoping this was the result of some new security feature(s). Guess it was just someone goofing up then. On a side note, I see that the multi-account scam I turned in a couple weeks ago hasn't had the accounts linked... |
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
February 18, 2013, 12:59:30 AM |
|
Guess it was just someone goofing up then. If you are talking about Tulkas then I think this is a bit harsh. I see the site constantly learning from mistakes and getting better. Eliminating anon accounts is a huge step in the right direction. Limiting the number of loans would also be a great advance. I think Tulkas is doing a great job of taking feedback and constantly improving the site. Over the last few months it has gotten better and safer with every update. Having said that, the day you are able to recover funds from one of the many deadbeats is the day business on this site will explode! |
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
boonies4u
|
|
February 18, 2013, 02:59:01 AM |
|
The site is already exploding with some great loans, and it isn't their job to recover your funds for your mistakes
Then they're obstructing people from recovering their funds from their mistakes. If Tulkas has no plans to start collections, then him refusing to let other people collect will be bad for business. |
|
|
|
|
|
boonies4u
|
|
February 18, 2013, 05:03:02 AM |
|
The site is already exploding with some great loans, and it isn't their job to recover your funds for your mistakes
Then they're obstructing people from recovering their funds from their mistakes. If Tulkas has no plans to start collections, then him refusing to let other people collect will be bad for business. Seriously are you going to file a lawsuit on people that default? No one has given a hard answer to this when I asked it before. Also what judge will rule with bitcoins? "File a lawsuit" is a bit of a strong way to put it. Paying 15-150$ in small claims court fees seems appropriate, getting them to show is another story. What do you mean by rule with bitcoins? Do you mean that the judge will award them defendent/plaintiff bitcoins? Certainly they won't do that as USD are appropriate for all debts public and private. Hopefully the judge would take into consideration the currently traded values of bitcoins or the value of the bitcoins at the time the loan was established. Seeking restitution in the courts and "Debt Collection" aren't the exact same thing though... |
|
|
|
|
|
boonies4u
|
|
February 18, 2013, 05:07:47 AM |
|
The site is already exploding with some great loans, and it isn't their job to recover your funds for your mistakes
Then they're obstructing people from recovering their funds from their mistakes. If Tulkas has no plans to start collections, then him refusing to let other people collect will be bad for business. Seriously are you going to file a lawsuit on people that default? No one has given a hard answer to this when I asked it before. Also what judge will rule with bitcoins? "File a lawsuit" is a bit of a strong way to put it. Paying 15-150$ in small claims court fees seems appropriate, getting them to show is another story. What do you mean by rule with bitcoins? Do you mean that the judge will award them defendent/plaintiff bitcoins? Certainly they won't do that as USD are appropriate for all debts public and private. Hopefully the judge would take into consideration the currently traded values of bitcoins or the value of the bitcoins at the time the loan was established. Seeking restitution in the courts and "Debt Collection" aren't the exact same thing though... LMAO small claims yea cause someone who scammed 100's of btcs would show up. Also you know that there has never been a victory with bitcoins in court so yeah how would over come that? How many losses with bitcoins in court are you aware of? http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/set+a+precedent |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
