SgtSpike
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
 |
June 13, 2013, 10:34:27 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in
Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it
will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
|
|
June 13, 2013, 10:37:03 PM |
|
Nah, he deserves an Untrustworthy tag.
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 13, 2013, 10:50:52 PM |
|
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
|
|
June 13, 2013, 11:03:50 PM |
|
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
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
|
|
June 13, 2013, 11:27:44 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 14, 2013, 03:54:26 AM |
|
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 (OP)
|
|
June 14, 2013, 07:01:39 AM |
|
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
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 146
Merit: 100
In da Jungle!
|
|
June 14, 2013, 06:39:00 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1105
|
|
June 14, 2013, 07:17:24 PM |
|
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.
|
BA Computer Science, University of Oxford
Dissertation was about threat modelling on distributed ledgers.
|
|
|
|
Kruniac
|
|
June 14, 2013, 09:03:22 PM |
|
You guys broke him. That's not pretty. Whew. |
|
|
|
|
johnblaze (OP)
|
|
June 15, 2013, 01:57:41 PM |
|
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=234514.0you can't even make this stuff up |
|
|
|
|
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
|
|
June 15, 2013, 03:16:15 PM |
|
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=234514.0you 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 (OP)
|
|
June 16, 2013, 01:28:33 AM |
|
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
|
|
June 16, 2013, 02:51:23 AM |
|
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
|
|
June 16, 2013, 02:53:22 AM |
|
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 (OP)
|
|
June 16, 2013, 04:24:35 AM |
|
LOL no he did not pay me
now he is blatantly lying and posting false feedback out of spite and revenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
