CanadianGuy - self admitted scammer

[johnblaze]

to start, his quote:

like i said, I have no problem scamming YOU, as long as I have paid everybody else
...

does anything else need to be said?
heh.

full thread here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=229784.0

summary:

• CanadianGuy starts the thread, making a prediction that btc price will reach $120 by Monday, and accepting bets on it
• initially 3 people post that they will accept the bet
• i post that i will also accept the bet for 1 BTC, and i specifically ask for him to make another post confirming the bet (and one other bettor does the same)
• CanadianGuy posts and confirms our bets
• he loses the bet, comes back to the thread and says that he is paying only the 3 initial people, leaving out me and the other guy
• other people (4 total: other bettor, me, and 2 unbiased third parties) show him that he did in fact confirm our two bets and that he owes us as well
• he then responds telling everyone that we are wrong, telling us to "re-read the thread."
• at this point, i accuse him of being a scammer
• only after i accuse him of scamming, does he then admit that he does indeed owe us two
• however, he doesn't like the fact that i called him a scammer, so he refuses to pay me. he claims that i should have been more patient and polite. apparently if you are not patient, then it is ok to get scammed.
  
  

now, it is no longer an honest mistake.
now, he is willingly and knowingly scamming me, which he admits in his own words.

[1713986591]

1713986591

[1713986591]

1713986591

[1713986591]

1713986591

[1713986591]

1713986591

[SgtSpike]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

[Rampion]

"CanadianGuy" is not honoring a bet he committed to, that's obvious. Has the forum any policy on this?

[Matthew N. Wright]

"CanadianGuy" is not honoring a bet he committed to, that's obvious. Has the forum any policy on this?

Yes, immediate scammer tag followed by a probation period of "untrustworthy".  

Seriously though, people who change the terms of their payouts because of emotion make me sick. It reminds me of the children on the alt. currency sub forum.

"I paid you 10 BTC to finish this code"
"Yea but you called me a faggot on IRC so I'm gone because my feelings are hurt, and I'm taking these coins as a warning to not hurt my feelings again herp derp!"

[Kluge]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

[johnblaze]

he only "dislikes" me because i was most vocal about his mistake, because i was about to be ripped off.

i would have easily taken back my scammer remarks if he made good on his word. at the time when i made the accusation, it was the truth: 4 people already notified him of his mistake, and he STILL refused to pay. so i called him a scammer for his behavior. now he takes offense. all he had to do was say, "sorry, honest mistake, i should have re-read the thread myself. i wasn't trying to scam." and then make things right. instead, he chooses to remain arrogant and ignorant.

regardless, just like SgtSpike said, none of this matters. he owes and refuses to pay. simple as that.

[johnblaze]

"I paid you 10 BTC to finish this code"
"Yea but you called me a faggot on IRC so I'm gone because my feelings are hurt, and I'm taking these coins as a warning to not hurt my feelings again herp derp!"

^^

this is pretty much what he is doing.

[Vod]

Such behaviour should warrant a scammer tag.

Signed,
An honest CanadianGuy   

[SgtSpike]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

BFL owes customers either a mining machine or the money they paid for them.  BFL promises to eventually deliver, and is refunding anyone who no longer wishes to wait.

CG owes johnblaze 1 BTC, but says **** you, I'm not paying you anything.

[Kluge]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

BFL owes customers either a mining machine or the money they paid for them.  BFL promises to eventually deliver, and is refunding anyone who no longer wishes to wait.

CG owes johnblaze 1 BTC, but says **** you, I'm not paying you anything.

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

[johnblaze]

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

because the deal is already completed, he owes the money. in your BFL example, the deal wasn't complete, so they just cancelled the transaction

your comparison MIGHT be fair if the bet was still oustanding: if the bet was still active and the outcome wasn't determined yet. however, this bet is over, he lost. you cannot cancel a bet that is already lost.

if the outcome was still in the future and unsettled, MAYBE your comparison would work, but still probably not. suppose we make a bet on the basketball game tonight. then in the 4th quarter, my team is getting blown out. but the outcome isn't finished yet. is it fair for me to cancel the bet?

i see where you're coming from but a bet is different than an agreement to purchase something. surely you would agree.

[Kluge]

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

because the deal is already completed, he owes the money. in your BFL example, the deal wasn't complete, so they just cancelled the transaction

your comparison MIGHT be fair if the bet was still oustanding: if the bet was still active and the outcome wasn't determined yet. however, this bet is over, he lost. you cannot cancel a bet that is already lost.

if the outcome was still in the future and unsettled, MAYBE your comparison would work, but still probably not. suppose we make a bet on the basketball game tonight. then in the 4th quarter, my team is getting blown out. but the outcome isn't finished yet. is it fair for me to cancel the bet?

i see where you're coming from but a bet is different than an agreement to purchase something. surely you would agree.

A winner and loser had already been determined. BFL was at a huge advantage in canceling the order since they have a massive backlog and have dramatically increased the price for newer orders. BFL also gets to set an example of people who treat them "disrespectfully," similar to CG. Xian already made a bet on BFL and held it for a long time, with intention to hold it to completion.

It's not a perfect example, and sorry for threadjacking. I totally agree with you, fwiw -- just being an ass. 

[johnblaze]

A winner and loser had already been determined. BFL was at a huge advantage in canceling the order since they have a massive backlog and have dramatically increased the price for newer orders. BFL also gets to set an example of people who treat them "disrespectfully," similar to CG. Xian already made a bet on BFL and held it for a long time, with intention to hold it to completion.

It's not a perfect example, and sorry for threadjacking. I totally agree with you, fwiw -- just being an ass. 

heh ok

i'm not familiar with the BFL/Xian case, but if what you say is true, then BFL is definitely using poor business ethics

[SgtSpike]

I think the main difference is that BFL, as a company, can choose to do business or not do business with whomever they want.  It doesn't bode well on their reputation that they did it, but they didn't scam anyone in my opinion - they gave the guy a full refund.  It is certainly a gray area though.

With regards to the bet, there is no refund to give.  He paid exactly $0, but is still owed 1 BTC, because those were the terms of the agreement.

Think of horse race betting.
- Five customer gives the betting counter, say, $500 each to put on horse #32.
- Horse #32 wins.
- The betting counter says to those 5 customers, "Sorry, you said bad things about our establishment, so you didn't win the bet.  But we'll give you your $500 back."

Would you not call the betting counter a group of scamming liars?  Because this (with exception of actually taking BTC from the bettors upfront) is exactly what CanadianGuy is doing to johnblaze.

[Kruniac]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

I agree.

Like when you sell ~16 BTC to someone with perfect reputation, and they later decide they don't approve of how you may have gained those bitcoins. Then they cancel the wire and cost you $1600.

Scammers. D:::::::

[firefop]

I would agree with the giving cg a scammer tag only if johnblaze gets an 'asshat' tag along with it.

~

A few fine points:

jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."

Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted? or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?

After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.

~

Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation... I probably wouldn't have done so... but of course I would have been much more specific in my postings and kept the same format throughout. So there would have been no question about the validity or non-validity of the bet in the first place.

Personally, I chose to read 'all bets confirmed' as the op expressing that he was out of funds to cover bets and that no more would be confirmed... and since he started out posting with a quote of each bet he accepted that only those quoted with a confirmation were valid.

It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, it's usually in your interests to be as verbose as possible so you avoid misunderstandings.

[NewLiberty]

I would agree with the giving cg a scammer tag only if johnblaze gets an 'asshat' tag along with it.

~

A few fine points:

jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."

Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted? or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?

After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.

~

Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation... I probably wouldn't have done so... but of course I would have been much more specific in my postings and kept the same format throughout. So there would have been no question about the validity or non-validity of the bet in the first place.

Personally, I chose to read 'all bets confirmed' as the op expressing that he was out of funds to cover bets and that no more would be confirmed... and since he started out posting with a quote of each bet he accepted that only those quoted with a confirmation were valid.

It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, it's usually in your interests to be as verbose as possible so you avoid misunderstandings.

I also admit to a similar confusion, and so didn't make a bet.

[Crypt_Current]

johnblaze (probably unbeknownst to him) apparently decided to do business with a 13 year old and not hammer out the details. 
johnblaze appears to have said enough things to warrant at least the intelligence of someone of (akin to "legal age" or "age of consent) responsible age.  I don't know how true / relevant any of that is, though.

[happygeorge]

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

[Rampion]

Scammer tag for those not honoring bets would be good for the forums. Let's not forget that a bet involves money, and if "CanadianGuy" would have won, he would have gladly taken the money. If he loses, he doesn't pay - win/win for him, and definitely a scam.

I would even go further and apply a scammer tag to the jokers that a) create auctions and then do not honor the winner because the final price is not high enough, without having established a minimum price; b) do not honour their bids in auctions; c) pump the price in public auctions with "bids received by PM" that nobody can verify.

I know that all the above is not technically a scam (well, probably C is), but some control to the auctions subforums would do good to everybody. Otherwise, half of the auctions are just an ugly way to lose time.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Scammer tag for those not honoring bets would be good for the forums. Let's not forget that a bet involves money, and if "CanadianGuy" would have won, he would have gladly taken the money. If he loses, he doesn't pay - win/win for him, and definitely a scam.

I would even go further and apply a scammer tag to the jokers that a) create auctions and then do not honor the winner because the final price is not high enough, without having established a minimum price; b) do not honour their bids in auctions; c) pump the price in public auctions with "bids received by PM" that nobody can verify.

I know that all the above is not technically a scam (well, probably C is), but some control to the auctions subforums would do good to everybody. Otherwise, half of the auctions are just an ugly way to lose time.

This. Everytime I call these creeps out personally I get a general consensus of the sockpuppet army that it's "not scamming". Bullshit.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

I left scammer feedback for him.

[johnblaze]

I left scammer feedback for him.

thank you sir

[Matthew N. Wright]

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

I left scammer feedback for him.

Did he scam you? Were you affected by his intended scam? Did you ever even have a transaction with him that went bad? (No I'm not defending his sleezy actions, I'm just questioning allowing non-connected parties to give feedback to others).

This is what I'm not liking about the transaction independent ratings on this forum now. It's too easy to astroturf opinions. You could (as you do for all your advertisements) just pay 20 people to post a negative feedback on someone else and make it appear that they are in fact bad. This forum pretends to manage reputations by giving scammer tags to those who cheat and steal, but it fails to manage against the most fragile part of a reputation-- susceptibility to libel and slander.

I'm not talking about CanadianGuy here whom I know nothing about, but in this cultist community it's very easy for 10 people who are in cahoots to cast doubt on otherwise respectable people to the point that people will hesitate to do business with them. The forum needs to either start managing reputations fiercely, or stop doing it at all. Reputation should not be based on the opinions of those that have nothing to do with them.

Random sockpuppet: I don't like TradeFortress, so I'm going to create 10 accounts and call him a scammer on all of them.
Newbie: That tradefortress has too many scammer accusations, I'm afraid to do business with them.
Moderator: Free market herp derp

[johnblaze]

@firefop

apparently you have not actually read the thread, so i will clarify your fine points

jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."

Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted?

yes.

or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?

no.

After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.

no.

i asked for confirmation of my bet in the very first post that i made, when i initially offered to take his bet. as soon as he confirmed in his next post then the bet is on. i too believe it is best to be as verbose as possible and this is exactly what i did. if you notice, i was the first bettor to actually request confirmation, because i'm well aware of the ambiguities that can arise in these situations. this is not the first time i've made internet forum bets in this fashion.

here is the order of things that happened before i started "insulting" him (if you want to call it that)

1. he refused to pay out the bet to me and the other guy
2. FOUR people corrected him
3. he claimed all four people were wrong, and refused AGAIN to pay
4. i then called him a scammer

i guess this is an "insult" in your book

Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation

hey at least you and CanadianGuy share the same ethics. maybe you should get a "potential scammer" tag

[Rampion]

johnblaze (probably unbeknownst to him) apparently decided to do business with a 13 year old and not hammer out the details. 
johnblaze appears to have said enough things to warrant at least the intelligence of someone of (akin to "legal age" or "age of consent) responsible age.  I don't know how true / relevant any of that is, though.

i told my dad about this and he's talking to a lawyer who specializes in US-canadian cases.  Defammation of a minor is a serious offense.

Your dad should be beating your ass off for gambling with what probably is his money on the interwebz.

If he is really talking to a layer, he's a full retard - you can tell him to fuck off on my behalf.

Sorry guys, I couldn't help it, this kind of utter stupidity is really beyond me.

[Vod]

i told my dad about this and he's talking to a lawyer who specializes in US-canadian cases.  Defammation of a minor is a serious offense.

   No, it's not, and I doubt you would tell your dad you scammed someone.

You're a liar, boy.  I'm not going to believe another word you say.

[NoBit]

johnblaze (probably unbeknownst to him) apparently decided to do business with a 13 year old and not hammer out the details. 
johnblaze appears to have said enough things to warrant at least the intelligence of someone of (akin to "legal age" or "age of consent) responsible age.  I don't know how true / relevant any of that is, though.

i told my dad about this and he's talking to a lawyer who specializes in US-canadian cases.  Defammation of a minor is a serious offense.

I think you should pay johnblaze. apparently he is 12 y.o. and lacks patience but you lost the bet.

[SgtSpike]

Scammer tag for those not honoring bets would be good for the forums. Let's not forget that a bet involves money, and if "CanadianGuy" would have won, he would have gladly taken the money. If he loses, he doesn't pay - win/win for him, and definitely a scam.

I would even go further and apply a scammer tag to the jokers that a) create auctions and then do not honor the winner because the final price is not high enough, without having established a minimum price; b) do not honour their bids in auctions; c) pump the price in public auctions with "bids received by PM" that nobody can verify.

I know that all the above is not technically a scam (well, probably C is), but some control to the auctions subforums would do good to everybody. Otherwise, half of the auctions are just an ugly way to lose time.

I completely agree.  If you make a financial promise and fail to hold up that promise, and fail to make retribution for not holding up that promise, then you deserve the scammer tag.

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

I left scammer feedback for him.

Did he scam you? Were you affected by his intended scam? Did you ever even have a transaction with him that went bad? (No I'm not defending his sleezy actions, I'm just questioning allowing non-connected parties to give feedback to others).

This is what I'm not liking about the transaction independent ratings on this forum now. It's too easy to astroturf opinions. You could (as you do for all your advertisements) just pay 20 people to post a negative feedback on someone else and make it appear that they are in fact bad. This forum pretends to manage reputations by giving scammer tags to those who cheat and steal, but it fails to manage against the most fragile part of a reputation-- susceptibility to libel and slander.

I'm not talking about CanadianGuy here whom I know nothing about, but in this cultist community it's very easy for 10 people who are in cahoots to cast doubt on otherwise respectable people to the point that people will hesitate to do business with them. The forum needs to either start managing reputations fiercely, or stop doing it at all. Reputation should not be based on the opinions of those that have nothing to do with them.

Random sockpuppet: I don't like TradeFortress, so I'm going to create 10 accounts and call him a scammer on all of them.
Newbie: That tradefortress has too many scammer accusations, I'm afraid to do business with them.
Moderator: Free market herp derp

This problem exists whether there is a reputation rating or not.  People can sockpuppet threads and call a perfectly innocent person a liar and a thief just as easily as they can leave negative feedback ratings that point to such sockpuppet posts.  It's not something that can be easily dealt with by any service providing reputations for their members.  eBay, heatware, etc all have the same potential problem.

[bitwhizz]

your all getting a hard on becouse canadianguy did't payout to  an arrogant noob who offended him? give me a break. what is a SCAM is BFL JOSH or known on bitcoin talk forum IBANA, who has millions of dollars in pre orders which hasnt been delivered after a year on non existent product  ssuch as the mini rigs. much more important scam accusations than this

[johnblaze]

bitcointalk ethics:

its ok to steal from one person as long as its a small amount. its only a valid complaint if you steal millions

i'm sorry if i hurt CanadianGuy's feelings by speaking the truth. but that's no excuse for non-payment.

[SgtSpike]

your all getting a hard on becouse canadianguy did't payout to  an arrogant noob who offended him? give me a break. what is a SCAM is BFL JOSH or known on bitcoin talk forum IBANA, who has millions of dollars in pre orders which hasnt been delivered after a year on non existent product  ssuch as the mini rigs. much more important scam accusations than this

Let's recap the two situations.

BFL:
- Owes either a mining machine or a refund.
- Is happy to provide a refund to anyone who doesn't want to wait for a mining machine.

CanadianGuy:
- Owes johnblaze 1 BTC.
- Refuses to pay johnblaze anything.

[Kluge]

your all getting a hard on becouse canadianguy did't payout to  an arrogant noob who offended him? give me a break. what is a SCAM is BFL JOSH or known on bitcoin talk forum IBANA, who has millions of dollars in pre orders which hasnt been delivered after a year on non existent product  ssuch as the mini rigs. much more important scam accusations than this

Let's recap the two situations.

BFL:
- Owes either a mining machine or a refund.
- Is happy to provide a refund to anyone who doesn't want to wait for a mining machine.

CanadianGuy:
- Owes johnblaze 1 BTC.
- Refuses to pay johnblaze anything.

BFL forced a refund because the buyer complained. The buyer did not request it. The buyer was refunded the nominal amount he paid even though they had the buyer wait for months, well past when they were supposed to deliver.

[SgtSpike]

your all getting a hard on becouse canadianguy did't payout to  an arrogant noob who offended him? give me a break. what is a SCAM is BFL JOSH or known on bitcoin talk forum IBANA, who has millions of dollars in pre orders which hasnt been delivered after a year on non existent product  ssuch as the mini rigs. much more important scam accusations than this

Let's recap the two situations.

BFL:
- Owes either a mining machine or a refund.
- Is happy to provide a refund to anyone who doesn't want to wait for a mining machine.

CanadianGuy:
- Owes johnblaze 1 BTC.
- Refuses to pay johnblaze anything.

BFL forced a refund because the buyer complained. The buyer did not request it. The buyer was refunded the nominal amount he paid even though they had the buyer wait for months, well past when they were supposed to deliver.

I think the main difference is that BFL, as a company, can choose to do business or not do business with whomever they want.  It doesn't bode well on their reputation that they did it, but they didn't scam anyone in my opinion - they gave the guy a full refund.  It is certainly a gray area though.

[bitwhizz]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

[Rampion]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

No, he's just a scammer. He bets with other members of these forums and if he wins he takes the money, if he loses he defaults.

[shawshankinmate37927]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

I agree.

Like when you sell ~16 BTC to someone with perfect reputation, and they later decide they don't approve of how you may have gained those bitcoins. Then they cancel the wire and cost you $1600.

Scammers. D:::::::

You were trying to sell coins that were acquired through fraud and failed to inform the buyer of this.  No comparison.

[SgtSpike]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

It was his choice to use BTC to pay for his order, fully knowing that the miners were listed for sale with prices in USD, and that the price refunded would have been the equivalent USD amount.  He could have paid USD for his order, and not lost any price appreciation.  If he wasn't sure about the terms of BFL's refund policy, he should have contacted them to make sure about it prior to making an order.

[johnblaze]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

bitwhizz logic:

1. if the amount of money you lose is not a lot, then its ok to be scammed

2. if the person who scammed you is not a legitimate business, then it is ok to be scammed

[Matthew N. Wright]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

bitwhizz logic:

1. if the amount of money you lose is not a lot, then its ok to be scammed

2. if the person who scammed you is not a legitimate business, then it is ok to be scammed

3. if you use a sockpuppet, no one will know you're CanadianGuy

[SgtSpike]

the guy who was forced refunded lost 1000's of dollars from the bitcoin price appreciation, so yes he lost more

+

BFL is a company

Canadianguy is not a casino, betting exchange, or a legal contractor of bets

bitwhizz logic:

1. if the amount of money you lose is not a lot, then its ok to be scammed

2. if the person who scammed you is not a legitimate business, then it is ok to be scammed

It's not a matter of me being a legitimate business.  The point is I don't do business AT ALL.  I am not a business -- PERIOD.

So that gives you a right to rip people off?

The whole point of a trust rating is so that people can trust you.  The whole point of a scammer tag is to show people they can't trust you.  You deserve the scammer tag because no one can trust you after you refuse to pay out on a bet you obviously lost.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Nah, he deserves an Untrustworthy tag.

[SgtSpike]

Nah, he deserves an Untrustworthy tag.

Isn't it the same thing?  He scammed someone out of 1 BTC, and he's untrustworthy because of it.

[firefop]

Honestly the trust system is a deeply flawed idea in the first place. Tags mean nothing given the proclivities of the people handing out the tags... For legitimate business transactions... either use escrow or accept payment in bitcoins upfront. Simple and no risk. Personally I'm about through with accepting escrow. For the simple reason that it makes what could be a simple 1 day process as a seller turn into at least a week (or more) of waiting around for everyone to do their part.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Nah, he deserves an Untrustworthy tag.

Isn't it the same thing?  He scammed someone out of 1 BTC, and he's untrustworthy because of it.

Sorry, I was taking the liberty of poking fun at my own various admin bestowed custom tags that don't mean anything.

[SgtSpike]

Nah, he deserves an Untrustworthy tag.

Isn't it the same thing?  He scammed someone out of 1 BTC, and he's untrustworthy because of it.

Sorry, I was taking the liberty of poking fun at my own various admin bestowed custom tags that don't mean anything.

LOL, totally missed your tag.

[johnblaze]

I never said "please don't put a scammer tag on me".  I don't care about the tag, I just wanted to payout everyone except him as a way of beating some manners into him.  I bet he won't jump to conclusions anymore, and people in RL will respect him that much more.  I'm doing him a favor 

lol

now that is a good one

you are the one who needs to learn manners. ripping people off isn't very respectful either.

i did not jump to conclusions. the first time you posted that you would not pay, you could be forgiven for a mistake. then FOUR people corrected you. then you posted A SECOND TIME saying you would not pay and were rude to all 4 of us, showing us no manners at all. that is not me jumping to conclusions. that is you either 1. scamming like i accused you of, or 2. making multiple mistakes and not having the balls to own up to them.

[happygeorge]

johnblaze (probably unbeknownst to him) apparently decided to do business with a 13 year old and not hammer out the details. 
johnblaze appears to have said enough things to warrant at least the intelligence of someone of (akin to "legal age" or "age of consent) responsible age.  I don't know how true / relevant any of that is, though.

I don't think it is relevant!

[DiamondCardz]

He's not going to get trades anymore with this reputation, though.

Although I do agree, at the very least a scammer or Untrustworthy tag should be applied. You can't just make bets and refuse to pay out because someone hurt your perfect little ego.

[Kruniac]

He's not going to get trades anymore with this reputation, though.

Although I do agree, at the very least a scammer or Untrustworthy tag should be applied. You can't just make bets and refuse to pay out because someone hurt your perfect little ego.

You guys broke him. That's not pretty. Whew.

[johnblaze]

for reference

CanadianGuy has started another thread, demanding that all negative feedback be removed before he will uphold his end of the deal

apparently he thinks he can bribe his way out of being labelled a scammer, by holding hostage the coin he owed in the first place

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234514.0

you can't even make this stuff up

[Matthew N. Wright]

for reference

CanadianGuy has started another thread, demanding that all negative feedback be removed before he will uphold his end of the deal

apparently he thinks he can bribe his way out of being labelled a scammer, by holding hostage the coin he owed in the first place

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234514.0

you can't even make this stuff up

Well, it's alright to ask that it happen publicly, but threatening is not the right way to do it.

[johnblaze]

Well, it's alright to ask that it happen publicly, but threatening is not the right way to do it.

its alright to ask for the feedback to be removed AFTER you've made good on what you owe

its not alright to threaten to never pay UNLESS AND UNTIL the feedback is removed. that is backwards. that shows no intent to honor your agreement.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Well, it's alright to ask that it happen publicly, but threatening is not the right way to do it.

its alright to ask for the feedback to be removed AFTER you've made good on what you owe

its not alright to threaten to never pay UNLESS AND UNTIL the feedback is removed. that is backwards. that shows no intent to honor your agreement.

This!  I think after you pay, if you apologize to the community and it is sincere, you would be hard pressed to find someone here who wouldn't remove their feedback for you.  This is because we all make mistakes and most people will understand that.  Having it happen publicly is also fine.  What's not ok is extorting people with the feedback system as it shows that you have learned nothing.

[WuLabsWuTecH]

Just saw this on your trust page.  Did he pay you already?  Or is it just more lies?

I sent him 1BTC after acknowledgement of missed payment and he acted like he never got it. Since then him and his friends have added scammer tags to my profile. He is obviously trying to squeeze another 1 BTC out of me.

[johnblaze]

LOL no he did not pay me

now he is blatantly lying and posting false feedback out of spite and revenge