Trust Abuse - Lutpin - With Reasons

[Quickseller]

I would tend to agree that Lutpin probably should not be in the DefaultTrust network, as he does seem to be inconsistent in his trust ratings and leaves a lot of negative trust ratings for things that are really not scams.

I would say that there is a good chance that Lutpin is more closely associated with CG then just being a chat moderator, although I am not 100% certain that he is an alt of either of the owners. He did (as did mixxer-2) put in a lot of effort into getting me to remove my negative ratings for the CG accounts.

There are no rules against having multiple accounts, and many people who farm accounts are likely to have many accounts that have roughly similar stats. Also any lender considering to lend BTC while taking collateral to secure such loan should make sure that the collateral is worth more then the loan amount in order to protect himself against a default. A smart lender will require collateral that is worth much more then the amount of the loan in order to give sufficient incentives for the borrower to repay, and the will result in the lender making more money from the borrower defaulting verses the borrower repaying the loan as agreed.

A smart borrower who needs BTC (cash) quickly will take out a loan using some asset that he is trying to sell to satisfy his immediate cash needs, and then can use the proceeds from the sale to repay the loan plus interest, and keep the difference. For example if someone were to own a 5 BTC casascius coin, and need 5 BTC quickly could take out a 5 BTC loan using such coin as collateral, then continue to attempt to sell the coin while the loan is outstanding, thus avoiding having to sell the coin at a "fire sale" price. As long as the coin is unredeemed, it will be worth much more then the 5 BTC loan, and if the borrower ends up defaulting on the loan, then the lender would likely make a lot more money selling the coin, even at a fire sale price then if the borrower had repaid the loan.

Edit: also that signed message above does not prove anything as it is not associated with your account in any way. It is also possible to buy private keys (which are somewhat frequently traded, especially for reasons like to redeem CLAMs), so considering that there are dust amounts in that address does not even prove that the BTC sent to that address was the result of BTC being sent to you.

[Joel_Jantsen]

--snipe--

Sorry ,I'm not aware of the general matters but in this case I was the one who messaged Lutpin and asked to give OP a negative trust which he didn't. Although it was quite obvious that OP was taking the loan on the same account as collateral which he was auctioning,Lutpin left him a neutral feedback.Not sure how this is miss use of DT power.You might have other issues which I'm not aware of but as far as the current thread is concerned ,the feedback is 100% accurate.

[Quickseller]

--snipe--

Sorry ,I'm not aware of the general matters but in this case I was the one who messaged Lutpin and asked to give OP a negative trust which he didn't. Although it was quite obvious that OP was taking the loan on the same account as collateral which he was auctioning,Lutpin left him a neutral feedback.Not sure how this is miss use of DT power.You might have other issues which I'm not aware of but as far as the current thread is concerned ,the feedback is 100% accurate.

I believe that I saw Lutpin give the OP negative trust for this same issue (it now appears to have been removed), although I may be mistaken.

I am not sure what the reasoning behind the neutral even is. The OP is trying to take out a loan, which means he has some immediate need for cash, which applies to every other person who is attempting to take out a loan.

[Lutpin]

I believe that I saw Lutpin give the OP negative trust for this same issue (it now appears to have been removed), although I may be mistaken.

You are. I didn't leave OP a negative rating, at any point.

Edit: also that signed message above does not prove anything as it is not associated with your account in any way. It is also possible to buy private keys (which are somewhat frequently traded, especially for reasons like to redeem CLAMs), so considering that there are dust amounts in that address does not even prove that the BTC sent to that address was the result of BTC being sent to you.

It's not supposed to prove anything, I posted that for fun.

[Joel_Jantsen]

I am not sure what the reasoning behind the neutral even is. The OP is trying to take out a loan, which means he has some immediate need for cash, which applies to every other person who is attempting to take out a loan.

Okay I really need to break down Op's plan then:

1.He was taking a loan out by putting his account as collateral.
2.He had put the same account for auction.
3.Once he gets the loan,he will surely default it
4.The account will be sold in the meantime
5.Since the loan is defaulted ,unaware of it,the new owner of the account get's a negative trust.
6.OP makes 0.04 + 0.04 by selling/defaulting loan by the same account.

[Quickseller]

I believe that I saw Lutpin give the OP negative trust for this same issue (it now appears to have been removed), although I may be mistaken.

You are. I didn't leave OP a negative rating, at any point.

Well I am still not sure about the neutral rating though. Like I said before, a borrower/seller can continue to attempt to sell an asset being held as collateral while there is a loan against it, and if both the borrower and lender are smart, they will both benefit from such loan.

Edit: also that signed message above does not prove anything as it is not associated with your account in any way. It is also possible to buy private keys (which are somewhat frequently traded, especially for reasons like to redeem CLAMs), so considering that there are dust amounts in that address does not even prove that the BTC sent to that address was the result of BTC being sent to you.

It's not supposed to prove anything, I posted that for fun.

Trying to derail the thread?

[suchmoon]

WOT

Kinda irrelevant seeing that the OP indicated it wasn't the same account but refused to provide any proof (even in private) of owning 4 or at least 2 accounts with the same stats. Yes, there might be some shades of gray somewhere in this story but unless the OP can come with an explanation that is plausible, verifiable, and doesn't contradict earlier stories (seems impossible but what do I know) then it's safe to assume it's just a failed scam attempt.

[Iseecookies]

Should this not be between Luptin and OP,see no need for the gang up. Even if it is just to support it does not look good seeing it in every accusation thread.

[suchmoon]

Should this not be between Luptin and OP,see no need for the gang up. Even if it is just to support it does not look good seeing it in every accusation thread.

Seeing that the OP titled the thread "Trust Abuse - Lutpin - With Reasons" it stands to reason that it's not unreasonable to expect such reasons to be provided.

[Quickseller]

WOT

Kinda irrelevant seeing that the OP indicated it wasn't the same account but refused to provide any proof (even in private) of owning 4 or at least 2 accounts with the same stats. Yes, there might be some shades of gray somewhere in this story but unless the OP can come with an explanation that is plausible, verifiable, and doesn't contradict earlier stories (seems impossible but what do I know) then it's safe to assume it's just a failed scam attempt.

Even if you were to assume that the OP was trying to both sell and take a loan out against the same account at the same time, then I don't see how this is a scam attempt.

The OP is not trusted enough for someone to send BTC first to him, so it would make little sense for him to be able to receive payment for the account without first sending it to either the buyer (if trust enough) or an escrow. As I mentioned previously, the lender should setup the loan so that he would profit in the event that the OP defaults on the loan.

[Iseecookies]

Should this not be between Luptin and OP,see no need for the gang up. Even if it is just to support it does not look good seeing it in every accusation thread.

Seeing that the OP titled the thread "Trust Abuse - Lutpin - With Reasons" it stands to reason that it's not unreasonable to expect such reasons to be provided.

But its the same people every time was the point,if you had new blood in the conversation it would be reasonable to expect the issue to breathe but its not. Either people do not care as much or are scared to speak up,either way its a sad state of affairs. Was not trashing anyone just noticed this seems to be the same thread every time with a different name at top.

[suchmoon]

WOT

Kinda irrelevant seeing that the OP indicated it wasn't the same account but refused to provide any proof (even in private) of owning 4 or at least 2 accounts with the same stats. Yes, there might be some shades of gray somewhere in this story but unless the OP can come with an explanation that is plausible, verifiable, and doesn't contradict earlier stories (seems impossible but what do I know) then it's safe to assume it's just a failed scam attempt.

Even if you were to assume that the OP was trying to both sell and take a loan out against the same account at the same time, then I don't see how this is a scam attempt.

The OP is not trusted enough for someone to send BTC first to him, so it would make little sense for him to be able to receive payment for the account without first sending it to either the buyer (if trust enough) or an escrow. As I mentioned previously, the lender should setup the loan so that he would profit in the event that the OP defaults on the loan.

Except that's not the explanation the OP provided. I know lying is widely accepted on this forum but that doesn't make a person trustworthy, or specifically in this case it doesn't make someone's neutral trust rating for such person any kind of "abuse".

But its the same people every time was the point,if you had new blood in the conversation it would be reasonable to expect the issue to breathe but its not. Either people do not care as much or are scared to speak up,either way its a sad state of affairs. Was not trashing anyone just noticed this seems to be the same thread every time with a different name at top.

I think there is a fairly open discussion going on (except when the OP throws a fit and locks the thread temporarily). What exactly are you not happy about? Feel free to contribute to "breathe" some fresh air into it.

[Next BillGates]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

Basically you gave rating for the same reason , right ?

Then explain it , I believe humanity is still alive as someone stood up for me.

And yeah Lutpin, I want to ask you something

You have given positive trust to almost everyone related to crypto-games , I mean from moderator to admins .. it seems like half ( or more) of your positive feedbacks are given to crypto-games related people here, dont you find it suspicious yourself ?

Moreover you have on occasions left positive trust even when the guy went first, you know that can make abuse of DT, as people will trade with you and you leave them trust in return ?

1 example : http://prntscr.com/afp3pq

Moreover you think everyone related to crypto-games deserves a +ve trust even when they havent done anything as such great in here ?

Most people claim you and mexxer are same and well, see this rating : http://prntscr.com/afp4hi

If you know someone you will simply give him trust rating ? Even without any proper reason of being trustworthy in forum ?

Moreover please see this : http://prntscr.com/afp68t , here you left him rating based on his posts , while forum has a rule that DONT GIVE TRUST RATINGS BASED ON POST QUALITY OR SUCH. Confirm here : http://prntscr.com/afp91v

[suchmoon]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

So which is it then? Did you lie about having 4 accounts with the same stats?

[Next BillGates]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

So which is it then? Did you lie about having 4 accounts with the same stats?

Why are you changing the question here ? OK I will prove is other thing, but didnt lutpin left that rating for the reason QS explained ?

[mexxer-2]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

Its shady, which is why it deserves a neutral. It is to inform any future individuals who might loan you, or make a trade, of this.

You have given positive trust to almost everyone related to crypto-games , I mean from moderator to admins .. it seems like half ( or more) of your positive feedbacks are given to crypto-games related people here, dont you find it suspicious yourself ?

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Also, go on. Accuse Stunna of doing the same. He has trusted those individuals even before he was on DT, and any recent additions are indications of trustworthy acts. Also, you call 1+ BTC investment in a site not risky?

Moreover you have on occasions left positive trust even when the guy went first, you know that can make abuse of DT, as people will trade with you and you leave them trust in return ?

Ratings are given for a trade. Regarding trust farming, thats a completely different issue and I don't see Lutpin giving anyone feedbacks because he had a low amount deals with the person(after he got into DT). If he did, he has stated in the risked amount that he did not risk any amount with the person
Once again

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Moreover you think everyone related to crypto-games deserves a +ve trust even when they havent done anything as such great in here ?

He has risked his money with the admins. He trusts mods in there as he likely has loaned a few individuals from what I know. And as such, you trusting someone!=you have to have a trade with them here on bitcoin.

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Most people claim you and mexxer are same and well, see this rating : http://prntscr.com/afp4hi

Seriously, stop making horseshit claims without any base. Its not even funny anymore

Moreover please see this : http://prntscr.com/afp68t , here you left him rating based on his posts , while forum has a rule that DONT GIVE TRUST RATINGS BASED ON POST QUALITY OR SUCH. Confirm here : http://prntscr.com/afp91v

It is a guideline, as stated. You can choose to follow it or ignore it

[Next BillGates]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

Its shady, which is why it deserves a neutral. It is to inform any future individuals who might loan you, or make a trade, of this.

You have given positive trust to almost everyone related to crypto-games , I mean from moderator to admins .. it seems like half ( or more) of your positive feedbacks are given to crypto-games related people here, dont you find it suspicious yourself ?

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Also, go on. Accuse Stunna of doing the same. He has trusted those individuals even before he was on DT, and any recent additions are indications of trustworthy acts. Also, you call 1+ BTC investment in a site not risky?

Moreover you have on occasions left positive trust even when the guy went first, you know that can make abuse of DT, as people will trade with you and you leave them trust in return ?

Ratings are given for a trade. Regarding trust farming, thats a completely different issue and I don't see Lutpin giving anyone feedbacks because he had a low amount deals with the person(after he got into DT). If he did, he has stated in the risked amount that he did not risk any amount with the person
Once again

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Moreover you think everyone related to crypto-games deserves a +ve trust even when they havent done anything as such great in here ?

He has risked his money with the admins. He trusts mods in there as he likely has loaned a few individuals from what I know. And as such, you trusting someone!=you have to have a trade with them here on bitcoin.

You trust this person or had a successful trade.

Most people claim you and mexxer are same and well, see this rating : http://prntscr.com/afp4hi

Seriously, stop making horseshit claims without any base. Its not even funny anymore

Moreover please see this : http://prntscr.com/afp68t , here you left him rating based on his posts , while forum has a rule that DONT GIVE TRUST RATINGS BASED ON POST QUALITY OR SUCH. Confirm here : http://prntscr.com/afp91v

It is a guideline, as stated. You can choose to follow it or ignore it

If I ask questions you get angry and you are allowed to do whatever you want ( oh you are in DT ) , sorry i didnt knew it

[mexxer-2]

Posted from wrong account ? Lutpin or mexxer its your own personal answers ?

You asked for a question publicly, I gave an answer from what I know.

[Next BillGates]

Posted from wrong account ? Lutpin or mexxer its your own personal answers ?

You asked for a question publicly, I gave an answer from what I know.

Actually its like I ask how are you Lutpin and you say in chat I am good, its still common in chat but seems suspicious so asked , maybe.

Also mexxer , is asking questions not allowed ?

[suchmoon]

Actually QS raises a valid point here @suchmoon and @Lutpin .. why is selling something and putting it as collateral at same time a scam ?

So which is it then? Did you lie about having 4 accounts with the same stats?

Why are you changing the question here ? OK I will prove is other thing, but didnt lutpin left that rating for the reason QS explained ?

I don't think I'm changing anything. That's pretty much the only question I'm interested in this whole thread and you're posting a shitload of excuses but no answer or proof about about your 4 (or at least 2) accounts. Why is that?

You were the one claiming you own 4 accounts until QS came up with a "better" excuse for you. That doesn't make you trustworthy, quite the contrary.