BonusGame = BitcoinBoss666 = known scammer

[figmentofmyass]

BitcoinBoss666:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159382.msg12218446#msg12218446


BonusGame
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159382.msg12285189#msg12285189


both transactions lead us to: https://blockchain.info/address/1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa
--> this address is controlled by BonusGame/BitcoinBoss666 (you can see over time he transacts with both Luckybit and Satoshibones through this address)

BitcoinBoss666's trust summary:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=397255


BonusGame: you are a confirmed scammer.

DT members, please neg trust him as appropriate. thank you.

[BonusGame]

"known scammer".
Please read first what is scam spammer;)
I dont pay my loan but he get 3 times more for this loan(my collateral account).
And i dont care what u think. You create new account to give me red feeback that was even funny.
Spam more to get payout from campaign  
Please spam more with same post

[ABitNut]

"known scammer".
Please read first what is scam spammer;)
I dont pay my loan but he get 3 times more for this loan(my collateral account).
And i dont care what u think. You create new account to give me red feeback that was even funny.
Spam more to get payout from campaign  
Please spam more with same post

Hilarious. So my spider sense was working properly. Thanks for outing them.

[BonusGame]

"known scammer".
Please read first what is scam spammer;)
I dont pay my loan but he get 3 times more for this loan(my collateral account).
And i dont care what u think. You create new account to give me red feeback that was even funny.
Spam more to get payout from campaign  
Please spam more with same post

Hilarious. So my spider sense was working properly. Thanks for outing them.

Abuser spider sense ? Just check you feedback when u judgement other guy's.
Close this stupid fight vs 1 spammer and 1 abuser.

[newtons1]

Yup, they are the same person, both bd69dc1c4c10c7258a11ec849c866ad09691b3b654f85b13c82b5284553bbcbd and 8e29686cd3930faaa1d3338f82e21d8cf15872503baecacff1f57a5063e6eac7 were signed with 1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa

Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either).

On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely

[figmentofmyass]

Yup, they are the same person, both bd69dc1c4c10c7258a11ec849c866ad09691b3b654f85b13c82b5284553bbcbd and 8e29686cd3930faaa1d3338f82e21d8cf15872503baecacff1f57a5063e6eac7 were signed with 1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa

Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either).

On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely

not entirely unreasonable. however, i think lenders deserve to know if a prospective debtor has defaulted on loans, at least for some amount of time (maybe similar to credit reporting)......if i were a lender, i wouldn't want to liquidate collateral. wouldn't want the headache, and wouldn't want to risk losing money over it.

[newtons1]

Yup, they are the same person, both bd69dc1c4c10c7258a11ec849c866ad09691b3b654f85b13c82b5284553bbcbd and 8e29686cd3930faaa1d3338f82e21d8cf15872503baecacff1f57a5063e6eac7 were signed with 1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa

Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either).

On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely

not entirely unreasonable. however, i think lenders deserve to know if a prospective debtor has defaulted on loans, at least for some amount of time (maybe similar to credit reporting)......if i were a lender, i wouldn't want to liquidate collateral. wouldn't want the headache, and wouldn't want to risk losing money over it.

If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default).

In my eyes I would not consider BitcoinBoss666 to be a scammer, unless it can be well documented that the collateral he offered was not worth the amount of the loan as of the time he took out the loan. 

[minifrij]

The entire point of a loan is that you pay the money back within the set timeframe agreed. Trying to use the excuse 'he got the collateral so its okay' is irrelevant as it is then not a loan, it is a sale. Selling the collateral will then be a large inconvenience to the loaner.
Trying to justify not paying back a loan isn't possible; you shouldn't loan money you cannot afford to pay back, irrelevant of whether there is adequate collateral or not.

[newtons1]

The entire point of a loan is that you pay the money back within the set timeframe agreed. Trying to use the excuse 'he got the collateral so its okay' is irrelevant as it is then not a loan, it is a sale. Selling the collateral will then be a large inconvenience to the loaner.
Trying to justify not paying back a loan isn't possible; you shouldn't loan money you cannot afford to pay back, irrelevant of whether there is adequate collateral or not.

It is possible that the borrower intended to repay his loan, however encountered unexpected financial difficulties and was unable to do so.

It would be my opinion that if a collateral loan default is a one time thing then the borrower is not a scammer. If on the other hand they make a habit of defaulting on collateral loans then it would be more appropriate to call them a scammer.

Think for example if you gave a loan to someone who put up LTC as collateral, do you really think a borrower would be a scammer if he told the lender to sell the LTC to repay the loan plus interest and return the balance would really be a scammer? Would selling LTC on an exchange really be all that much of a hassle for a lender?

[figmentofmyass]

If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default).

that's really not the point, though. lenders are in the business of lending in return for interest + principal. they aren't in the business of speculating on collateral defaults---some may enjoy that aspect, but some (probably most) do not. i would have no interest in that if i were to lend here.

[newtons1]

If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default).

that's really not the point, though. lenders are in the business of lending in return for interest + principal. they aren't in the business of speculating on collateral defaults---some may enjoy that aspect, but some (probably most) do not. i would have no interest in that if i were to lend here.

The reason a lender will ask for collateral is to protect themselves in the event of a default. If the lender has no interest in owning/selling the subject of the loan then he should not be making the loan in the first place.

I would assume that BitcoinBoss666 wants to get his name cleared of being a scammer, and I would ask you how he should go about doing that. I would assume that you would respond in saying that he should repay the loan that he defaulted on, however once BitcoinBoss666 repays the defaulted loan he would then be owed the collateral that has more likely then not since been sold, which would make the lender a scammer when he cannot produce the collateral.

Should BitcoinBoss666 be forced to forfeit the collateral he provided even if he repays the loan? Should BitcoinBoss666 be forever be labeled a scammer over a $25 loan?

[figmentofmyass]

If a lender manages his loans properly, then he will be able to be properly compensated for his time/effort necessary to liquidate the collateral that was securing the loan (and often actually end up being compensated very generously when borrowers default).

that's really not the point, though. lenders are in the business of lending in return for interest + principal. they aren't in the business of speculating on collateral defaults---some may enjoy that aspect, but some (probably most) do not. i would have no interest in that if i were to lend here.

The reason a lender will ask for collateral is to protect themselves in the event of a default. If the lender has no interest in owning/selling the subject of the loan then he should not be making the loan in the first place.

incorrect. a lender makes a loan in the first place to recover the principal + interest. if a loan is secured, that doesn't change that fact. and it doesn't make it okay to default on loans. If a savvy lender can profit off of loan defaults, that has nothing to do with how trustworthy a loan defaulter is.

I would assume that BitcoinBoss666 wants to get his name cleared of being a scammer, and I would ask you how he should go about doing that. I would assume that you would respond in saying that he should repay the loan that he defaulted on, however once BitcoinBoss666 repays the defaulted loan he would then be owed the collateral that has more likely then not since been sold, which would make the lender a scammer when he cannot produce the collateral.

Should BitcoinBoss666 be forced to forfeit the collateral he provided even if he repays the loan? Should BitcoinBoss666 be forever be labeled a scammer over a $25 loan?

the bolded assertion is beyond crazy. the collateral was secured in the first place for the express purpose of being liquidated in the event of default. this was known by all parties. also, not only is this customary, but it is entailed logically by the securing of collateral in the first place.

i would say that there should be a similar rationale to credit reporting. take the example of an overdrawn checking account. the bank will generally hold the debt for several months before eventually selling the debt and reporting the debtor to Chex Systems. if the debtor repays the balance before the debt is sold, the slate is wiped clean. if, however, the debtor cannot repay the debt in a reasonable amount of time, their record can only be repaired by time----3 or 5 years, i believe. like bitcointalk, it is at the debt owner's discretion whether or not to publicize the default.

similarly, if BitcoinBoss666's lender was forced to liquidate the collateral, BitcoinBoss666/BonusGame should not be let off the hook. the default is already public, so pandora's box is already open. there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.

"forever" may be a bit much, as my analogy implies. but for the foreseeable future: yes. the fact that he defaulted over such a tiny loan as $25 makes him all the more untrustworthy.

[newtons1]

there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.

There have been multiple examples in the past in which negative trust was removed after no-collateral loans have been repaid, and when stolen money has been returned to it's rightful owner. Often times a neutral rating replaces such negative rating, however this is nowhere nearly as detrimental as a negative rating.

I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not.

[figmentofmyass]

there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.

There have been multiple examples in the past in which negative trust was removed after no-collateral loans have been repaid, and when stolen money has been returned to it's rightful owner. Often times a neutral rating replaces such negative rating, however this is nowhere nearly as detrimental as a negative rating.

that's fine. like i said, it is at the discretion of the lender to publicize a default in the first place. he can choose to remove negative trust too, or use that as leverage to recover the debt.

but 1. once he has publicized the default, he cannot control how others report the incident and 2. liquidation of secured collateral, by definition, means both parties cannot be made whole---as you yourself suggested. the latter is purely a result of the debtor's lack of trustworthiness. the first point is practical---he will be marked as a scammer no matter what (so your points are sort of moot). the second point is why he should be marked a scammer.

I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not.

i never said the latter shouldn't be. but, like anything else, it is case-by-case. if a debtor is slow-paying or no-paying and eventually pays back the loan, i imagine his level of communication and believability throughout the situation would factor into whether or not a negative feedback would remain.

assuming the former is a loan defaulter, i am suggesting that they both remain marked. in the latter case, trust feedback is merely being used as leverage, and i can understand why recovering a debt would be more important than the principle of marking a defaulter with negative feedback.

all said, lenders want to know whether prospective debtors have defaulted in the past. the more disclosure the better. and lenders are also the very basis for whether negative feedback is given to loan defaulters. this is about the interests of lenders, not the rights of loan defaulters.