In the past reputation loans (which there has not been an explanation as to why the loan was given other then so tspacepilot can prove he will repay) has been something the community does not appreciate and others have received negative trust for both giving and receiving such reputation loans. The reason for this is that there is no reason for the trade other then for the trust rating.
This case is the opposite. There is no reason for the trust rating other than the trade.
Correct me if I am wrong, however from what I got from your prior posts about the loan is that you sent/tipped him ~1
BTC, he did nothing with that BTC (CLAM) that he received from you and then repaid/tipped the same ~1
BTC back to you. Or did I miss something?
This causes their trust rating to reflect that they have had more of a history of trading honestly then is true because they would have one trust rating and zero honest trades (and no receiving money and then instantly giving it back is not an actual trade).
Then that doesn't apply in this case either. My trust rating of him is very explicit. It says:
"I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems."
I'm not suggesting that I'm basing my rating on a long history of successful trades. I explicitly state that it's based on a single loan of 1 BTC worth of CLAM.
Reputation scammers (and trust farmers) will generally start out with smaller amounts, and then will say something along the lines of "dooglus trusted me with with 1 BTC here, so you can trust me with 1.5 BTC" Then when I
* decide that I can trust them with 1.5 because you trusted them with 1, then they can say "dooglus trusted me with 1 BTC and QS trusted me with 1.5 BTC, so I can be trusted with 2.5 BTC". Then the next person gets scammed when they run away with 2.5 BTC, and both myself and you (in this example) would partially be to blame for the third person's loss. (The amounts may not escalate as quickly and there may not be as few "steps" in these kinds of scams, but I think this example gets the overall point across).
*I don't think I would fall for this kind of scheme, but you never know if it was in a more complex form.
Nobody's claiming that tsp didn't receive more than TF wanted to pay him. That much is clear. What is being disputed is whether tsp is "a scammer".
From what I understand, you concur that tspacepilot was due
n from TF/coinchat (with the possibility of
n being zero), but instead received
n +
x (with
x being a positive integer).
Another way to put this is that tspacepilot received
x amount of money in error. The best (and most professional) way to resolve this would for him to have said, "I was due
n +
x in exchange for goods/services and here is the documentation that I delivered my end of the bargain", although in the US defendants are not required to present a defense. Another potential defense would have been something along the lines of "I was due
n +
x, but I don't have any evidence to back this up", this would essentially result in a push and the "tie" would go to the defendant (tspacepilot).
There is precent to calling someone a scammer when they receive money they should not have received. A very notable/high profile example of this is
KingOfSports (aka KoS). The tl;dr version of what happened with KoS is that someone agreed to lend him 2
BTC to place a bet at a sports book, the lender sent the loan to an incorrect address (that a- KoS has confirmed as controlling, and b- is/was strongly associated with KoS), then when the mistake was pointed out, KoS asked the lender to send an additional 2
BTC to his deposit address of the sports book. KoS only ended up repaying 2
BTC and claiming the other 2
BTC was a tip/donation.....KoS eventually acknowledged receiving this additional 2
BTC but claimed he (automatically) cashed it out to fiat, ended up in the hospital immediately after the BTC was cashed out until after the price of BTC shot up. KoS has not repaid the 2nd 2
BTC, although he has offered to repay the fiat value of what he received (but has not followed through on).
When I look at his trust score using my trust list, I see a trust score of
-1024: -10 /
+0, and when I view it from an account using the default trust settings, I see
-128: -7 /
+0. Either way, very deep into scam territory.
There are other examples of this being a scam as well:
After acting as escrow,
Kluge, accidentally sent ~3
BTC to
deeznutz, requested the money back, but never received any kind of a response.
Also, somewhat similarly (although, there are more differences between this case, and tspacepilot),
segvec directed someone to send ~17
BTC to an "incorrect" address because of a "copy/paste error" and never ended up returning the money that he caused to be lost.
As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money. tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done.
I would dispute that tspacepilot attempted to discuss the matter in a way that would result in tspacepilot repaying money that was sent to him in error. If you look at
]this thread closely, you will see that, although tspacepilot did "dispute" the amount that he owed, that TF providing an accounting of the amounts owed would be a waste of time because the overall consensus was that tspacepilot did not have any intention of paying
anything back. I counted 5 people saying something along the lines that they did not think tspacepilot was going to repay anything back, which included 3 staff members (tysat apparently is no longer a staff member, but was counted as one in this case).
Additionally, tspacepilot demonstrated his willingness to repay by saying that the amount he stole was closer to 0.01 (then .5), and then later said if the amount demanded was 0.001 that he would pay just to make the issue go away:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3270672#msg3270672Even if I do owe tf something because he paid me for messages that he wishes he hadn't paid me for, the total would probably amount to something closer to 0.01.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3272489#msg3272489If tf's ransom demand was 0.001btc I would probably just pay him to make this go away and hope that he didnt come back demanding more at a later date.
Also, IIRC, you had posted that he told you the amount was something closer to a few thousand satoshi (0.00002), so the amounts he is willing to admit to stealing keeps getting smaller
While yes, 0.001 is closer to .01 then .5 is, however this is generally not the way that people will speak/argue a point, so I think it is reasonable to say that tspacepilot was admitting to stealing
at least .01, but was only willing to repay .001 (which is 10% of the amount stolen). Additionally, I was not able to locate any reasonable attempt to repay any amount, even the ".001" that he "offered", and I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the .001 BTC remark was similar to the remark that he made saying that he might be willing to pay me to remove the negative rating but was unsure what amount to offer (something along those lines was stated either upthread or in another thread regarding this issue, and was clearly an attempt to misrepresent my ethics).
I'm sure you've heard this version of events many times yet you continue your attempt to paint tsp as a scammer. Why is that?
See above
