I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
whywefight is doing good work on cleaning up the digital goods section. More than I can lay out in the open, but that's the reason I trust him and his feedback.
He's been doing that longer than I do, hence calling him my "apprentice" is kinda funny.
Also, whywefight has not been mooved "out of the DT network", but stands on DT3, shortly outside the default settings, backed by several users, including mexxer-2 and me.
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
The topic at hand was the possibility of a hacked account. Altcoins4life accepted a hacked account as collateral some time back.
What you have at the end of the day is the account of someone who didn't take your loan in hand, not the account of the scammer/defaulter, who vanished with your $5 satoshis.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I didn't even give you a negative. I gave you a neutral, because I think people should know about this. Your lending practices are below standard, and this might result in some problems down the road.
It's not that we didn't have similar situations in the past and could not speak of experience.
