What's more important to judge whether or not I should be trusted?

[iluvbitcoins]

One day I provided a loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=772348.0) and took the account as collateral, the person defaulted
I held the acc for a couple of years, just decided to get rid of it if I find a legitimate buyer, I wouldn't sell it to just anyone.

Did this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4441505.msg39675193

So, seems like my account is ruined.

If you count up all the risked trades in my positive feedback there's ~50BTC left on my profile

Aside from that, I've been running Gringotts depository with 1300-1500 XMR since 15th August 2017
XMR ATH was 494$, which means I escrowed 800k$ just there, I was escrowing some 20 000 DNR etc. (at the time I think around 10k or so) and some other things

I'm still escrowing 1350 XMR, at these prices ~150k

So, I'm asking you, what's more important to judge my trustworthiness?

Am I 'not to be trusted' because I tried to sell an account once or that I held a million USD in escrow and didn't scam anyone?

EDIT:

I know this is more off-topic, but since it's about the trust system itself and negative feedback, I assume it should be here to represent what the trust system has turned into, it's not about 'trust' anymore, it's about personal whims and thinking whether or not you yourself approve or disapprove something


Is trust really here to let us know if we should 'trust' someone with our BTC?
Or what is it for?
What is its purpose if trust isn't?

Example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1053331

[1714828091]

1714828091

[Lauda]

You can't even a draw distinction between fact and fiction, which alone makes you unpredictable. You are not trustworthy to me, nor anyone who is thinking clearly. Therefore, the system is working as intended.

[iluvbitcoins]

You can't even a draw distinction between fact and fiction, which alone makes you unpredictable. You are not trustworthy to me, nor anyone who is thinking clearly. Therefore, the system is working as intended.

Dunno, seems like  you have moved your users funds to an exchange and can't provide accountability for the transfers while I have managed a million $ worth of XMR for over a year without a single complaint.

Dunno which one of us deserves more trust.

[MagicSmoker]

One day I provided a loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=772348.0) and took the account as collateral, the person defaulted
I held the acc for a couple of years, just decided to get rid of it if I find a legitimate buyer, I wouldn't sell it to just anyone.
...

That's a sad tale, OP... however, you surely knew that anyone involved in account selling is all but certain to get red trust, so I'm not sure what your beef is here?

[Lauda]

One day I provided a loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=772348.0) and took the account as collateral, the person defaulted
I held the acc for a couple of years, just decided to get rid of it if I find a legitimate buyer, I wouldn't sell it to just anyone.
...

That's a sad tale, OP... however, you surely knew that anyone involved in account selling is all but certain to get red trust, so I'm not sure what your beef is here?

His problem is not getting his way. OP PM'd both The Pharmacist and me asking us to remove their rating. Upon not answering said PM, OP proceeded to leave false negative ratings on both of us which is absurd. However, this doesn't come as a surprise as people who get caught doing shady things do not tend to respond rationally.

[Dig Bicks]

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

[iluvbitcoins]

One day I provided a loan (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=772348.0) and took the account as collateral, the person defaulted
I held the acc for a couple of years, just decided to get rid of it if I find a legitimate buyer, I wouldn't sell it to just anyone.
...

That's a sad tale, OP... however, you surely knew that anyone involved in account selling is all but certain to get red trust, so I'm not sure what your beef is here?

His problem is not getting his way. OP PM'd both The Pharmacist and me asking us to remove their rating. Upon not answering said PM, OP proceeded to leave false negative ratings on both of us which is absurd. However, this doesn't come as a surprise as people who get caught doing shady things do not tend to respond rationally.

I continued to leave feedback for that?
You left the feedback 3 months ago.

What did you expect?
I didn't catch the time to read through your profile then, I was in a hard break-up.
I recollected recently and got back to the forum.
Why would one move someone elses money to an exchange?
Money he is escrowing?
That's shady, you certainly weren't doing something the investors knew and wanted to do with their assets!
I was never engaged in that sort of behaviour.

If you want to, I can make another poll to see who would bitcointalk users rather trust with their BTC, Lauda or iluvbitcoins

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

I'd be willing to bet that more than 50% of the users of this forum would probably kill someone for a million $.  

Not sure where OP lives exactly, but a million is/would probably be considered a fortune in most non-western countries.

@iluvbitcoins just buy some email adresses from TBZ and you'll be back in positive trust in no-time. Ask Lauda, his former business-partner Atriz knows all about it. ./s  

Croatia
Eastern Croatia at that
Dad has average salary (900€), mom has minimum wage (400€), so I'd say a million $ is only something I could dream about.
Well, to be fair, I've made some BTC myself, so if BTC hits 20k$, I'll have some million kuna (~150k$), not USD, but I'd be fucking happy

[Tszunami98]

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

Or Nigeria...

On Topic: I think you should not accept accounts as collateral anymore, there is clearly an issue with account selling.

[iluvbitcoins]

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

Or Nigeria...

On Topic: I think you should not accept accounts as collateral anymore, there is clearly an issue with account selling.

I know..

Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed

I was assuming if I sell it to someone with credibility, it would be okay..
I could find out its value from other bids, the thread still says I will not sell to people with a red tag.

I made a mistake.
Shit happens.
I repent.

I still think it's not fair that I get a 'not to be trusted' when this poll legitimately shows, users of bitcointalk.org indeed DO trust me!
Should I not get another chance?

[Lauda]

If you want to, I can make another poll to see who would bitcointalk users rather trust with their BTC, Lauda or iluvbitcoins

I don't really care whether you're willing to put up the effort to gather support from kool-aid drinking XMR bagholders. You're clearly responding emotionally to this as you got caught, and thus can't be trusted.

Should I not get another chance?

You blew your second chance when you falsely tagged The Pharmacist and me in a malicious attempt to tarnish our reputations.

[iluvbitcoins]

If you want to, I can make another poll to see who would bitcointalk users rather trust with their BTC, Lauda or iluvbitcoins

I don't really care whether you're willing to put up the effort to gather support from kool-aid drinking XMR bagholders. You're clearly responding emotionally to thus, as you got caught and thus can't be trusted.

How the hell did I "get caught"?

By stumbling upon a public thread I opened in front of everyone?

I posted it publicly in the auction section.

Written clearly, I got this account from a defaulted loan and will not sell to people with a red tag.

You blew your second chance when you falsely tagged The Pharmacist and me in a malicious attempt to tarnish our reputations.

I am willing to remove the tag I left on The Pharmacist.
Not you.
You have mismanaged 3000BTC worth of assets.
And should be removed immediately from DT.

[Lauda]

If you want to, I can make another poll to see who would bitcointalk users rather trust with their BTC, Lauda or iluvbitcoins

I don't really care whether you're willing to put up the effort to gather support from kool-aid drinking XMR bagholders. You're clearly responding emotionally to thus, as you got caught and thus can't be trusted.

How the hell did I "get caught"?

By stumbling upon a public thread I opened in front of everyone?

I posted it publicly in the auction section.

Written clearly, I got this account from a defaulted loan and will not sell to people with a red tag.

Correct, you got caught. Not everything posted publicly gets noticed. 

[Jet Cash]

I guess the moral here is - Don't borrow or lend money or Bitcoin.

[iluvbitcoins]

If you want to, I can make another poll to see who would bitcointalk users rather trust with their BTC, Lauda or iluvbitcoins

I don't really care whether you're willing to put up the effort to gather support from kool-aid drinking XMR bagholders. You're clearly responding emotionally to thus, as you got caught and thus can't be trusted.

How the hell did I "get caught"?

By stumbling upon a public thread I opened in front of everyone?

I posted it publicly in the auction section.

Written clearly, I got this account from a defaulted loan and will not sell to people with a red tag.

Correct, you got caught. Not everything posted publicly gets noticed.  

So, your definition of getting caught is opening a thread I opened, and bumped each day lol
As, I said, I believe I deserve another chance, I see you think otherwise, I really don't care what you think as long as I see the public is with me.
I will continue to do my business around the forums with a 'not to be trusted' tag, and will continue to be trusted
Meanwhile, you are DT and people still won't trust you

You being DT means shit when you're a piece of shit scammer
That red tag won't make me a scammer though
Cheers Lauda, keep your stolen forked coins and lecture others about trust.

Ohh yeah, also, I'll ask you again, how come you forgot to speak Croatian after resetting your e-mail address :O

[Quickseller]

Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.

The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.

In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.

[Lauda]

Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.

The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.

In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.

The truth meter for that post:


It still hurts that we killed your account farming and selling business, doesn't it?

[iluvbitcoins]

Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.

The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.

In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.

The truth meter for that post:

It still hurts that we killed your account farming and selling business, doesn't it?

How exactly did you kill something?
If I wanted to trade acounts, I could just do it.
How would a tag stop me?

However, I locked the thread and didn't sell 1 account.
1 account, my account, the account I got as collateral 2 years ago.

Btw, your weakass scammer memes are no match for not-scamming dank memes.

[Quickseller]

Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.

The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.

In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.

The truth meter for that post:

[img width= 350]https://www.iagreetosee.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ted-cruz-nose-meme-ted-cruz-lie-lying-ted-cruz-new-day-for-america-ted-cruz-nose-john-kasich.png[/img]
It still hurts that we killed your account farming and selling business, doesn't it?

I think this post is a pretty good example of

Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings

[Lauda]

I think this post is a pretty good example of

Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings

Whining when your lies get exposed will not help you. Nobody in their right mind is going to support your bullshit nowadays. It's kinda pathetic how butthurt you still are after all this time.

[iluvbitcoins]

I think this post is a pretty good example of

Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings

Whining when your lies get exposed will not help you. Nobody in their right mind is going to support your bullshit nowadays.

Write something in Croatian.

$1,000,000 isn't even a lot of money.  Maybe you can buy a small house in Los Angeles.

Or Nigeria...

On Topic: I think you should not accept accounts as collateral anymore, there is clearly an issue with account selling.

I clearly won't. It was a mistake.
Mistakes happen

[iluvbitcoins]

Can Lauda meme?

[iluvbitcoins]

My closing statement of the thread is sort of important

Not for sale anymore.
No legit offers.
Only newbies.

Combined with the OP, bolded

I will not sell to people with a red tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4441505.msg41625983#msg41625983

[Flying Hellfish]

Whoa hey man why are you trying to stifle free speech of peoples opinions??

Their opinion is you're not trustworthy dude let the users figure out if you are trustworthy or not man.

You don't agree with their opinion so you want to pressure them with a completely irrelevant poll and retaliatory feedback to remove it.  Your suggestion is totally against the libertarian principles on which the forum was founded (Satohsi is rolling in his grave)...        

[iluvbitcoins]

Whoa hey man why are you trying to stifle free speech of peoples opinions??

Their opinion is you're not trustworthy dude let the users figure out if you are trustworthy or not man.

You don't agree with their opinion so you want to pressure them with a completely irrelevant poll and retaliatory feedback to remove it.  Your suggestion is totally against the libertarian principles on which the forum was founded (Satohsi is rolling in his grave)...        

For people reading this right now, this is about:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036845.msg46153606#msg46153606

---------------

Are you really missing the point I am trying to make in both threads?
DT feedback is a tool that can be missused, feedback that is not DT is not, since it does not have nearly the same impact and is completely decentralized.
If it wasn't DT trust, it would be as you said 'people deciding on their own', but we all know what DT feedback carries a lot more weight, and that power is being missused

As I have said previously, I do not care what Lauda thinks or what his feedback is, nor am I trying to pressure him to change it (what?), I am merely stating the flaws of the trust system, since DT members have labeled me as 'not to be trusted' but obviously according to this poll, users of bitcointalk.org do trust me?

Thanks for your vote too! Although it's against me

Doesn't that mean that the trust system is being missused?
If a 'not to be trusted' person is trusted? And a DT member steals 3000 BCH and extorts people?

You insults to joe, which include stupid, retarded etc. are really on a kindergarden level, and you seem to be continuing the same actions in this thread too.

If you incapable of leading a civilized discussion please feel free to ignore my posts.

[LTU_btc]

OP,  you've been long enough here to know that account sales aren't tolerated by DT members. No matter you're newbie or legendary member. It's not worth to risk your reputation while trying to sell accounts.
Maybe you still can be considered as as trusted lender or escrow agent, but I think that negative trust rating that you got is fair. Usually people buying accounts with bad intentions - they want to scam someone, abuse bounties and etc. And by selling account you're just helping to these abusers.
I don't know, maybe trust system is missued sometimes, but it's not your case. People offen complaining that trust system is unfair, but they can't offer better alternatives to current system.
P.S. I think this topic belongs to reputation board.

[Flying Hellfish]

You insults to joe, which include stupid, retarded etc. are really on a kindergarden level, and you seem to be continuing the same actions in this thread too.

If you incapable of leading a civilized discussion please feel free to ignore my posts.

First off I did not insult you so I am not continuing any such thing in this thread. I insulted joe calling him a retard because he is.  Even a kindergarten student can look at a picture and identify a round object.

I am very capable of having a civilized discussion, generally though when a person is not smart enough to identify a round object from a picture it is impossible for them to have a rational discussion and so all political correctness for me goes out the window.

Not everyone deserves to be treated with respect point blank, when you simply refuse to accept basic facts because of self incredulity I am going to call you a retard. sue me, red tag me, ban me I don't give a fuck tbh.

I appreciate the advice to ignore your posts but I will keep responding as I like!  BTW you are also quite free to ignore my uncivilized posts as well.

[iluvbitcoins]

OP,  you've been long enough here to know that account sales aren't tolerated by DT members. No matter you're newbie or legendary member. It's not worth to risk your reputation while trying to sell accounts.
Maybe you still can be considered as as trusted lender or escrow agent, but I think that negative trust rating that you got is fair. Usually people buying accounts with bad intentions - they want to scam someone, abuse bounties and etc. And by selling account you're just helping to these abusers.
I don't know, maybe trust system is missued sometimes, but it's not your case. People offen complaining that trust system is unfair, but they can't offer better alternatives to current system.
P.S. I think this topic belongs to reputation board.

*an account
not accounts

It is clearly stated I would not sell to people with a red tag, and I ended up locking the thread because only newbies were contacting me!
I would not have given it to someone who would of missused it!

You insults to joe, which include stupid, retarded etc. are really on a kindergarden level, and you seem to be continuing the same actions in this thread too.

If you incapable of leading a civilized discussion please feel free to ignore my posts.

First off I did not insult you so I am not continuing any such thing in this thread. I insulted joe calling him a retard because he is.  Even a kindergarten student can look at a picture and identify a round object.

I am very capable of having a civilized discussion, generally though when a person is not smart enough to identify a round object from a picture it is impossible for them to have a rational discussion and so all political correctness for me goes out the window.

Not everyone deserves to be treated with respect point blank, when you simply refuse to accept basic facts because of self incredulity I am going to call you a retard. sue me, red tag me, ban me I don't give a fuck tbh.

I appreciate the advice to ignore your posts but I will keep responding as I like!  BTW you are also quite free to ignore my uncivilized posts as well.

You haven't but your way of replying is sort of mock-yell which resembles children arguing.
Only using emotions instead of actually discussing something.
Just look at your posts and tell me you don't see it..
Don't think I have something against you personally, I just think you should change the way you approach discussion.

[StatesManG]

OP,  you've been long enough here to know that account sales aren't tolerated by DT members. No matter you're newbie or legendary member. It's not worth to risk your reputation while trying to sell accounts.
Maybe you still can be considered as as trusted lender or escrow agent, but I think that negative trust rating that you got is fair. Usually people buying accounts with bad intentions - they want to scam someone, abuse bounties and etc. And by selling account you're just helping to these abusers.
I don't know, maybe trust system is missued sometimes, but it's not your case. People offen complaining that trust system is unfair, but they can't offer better alternatives to current system.
P.S. I think this topic belongs to reputation board.

*an account
not accounts

It is clearly stated I would not sell to people with a red tag, and I ended up locking the thread because only newbies were contacting me!
I would not have given it to someone who would of missused it!

You insults to joe, which include stupid, retarded etc. are really on a kindergarden level, and you seem to be continuing the same actions in this thread too.

If you incapable of leading a civilized discussion please feel free to ignore my posts.

First off I did not insult you so I am not continuing any such thing in this thread. I insulted joe calling him a retard because he is.  Even a kindergarten student can look at a picture and identify a round object.

I am very capable of having a civilized discussion, generally though when a person is not smart enough to identify a round object from a picture it is impossible for them to have a rational discussion and so all political correctness for me goes out the window.

Not everyone deserves to be treated with respect point blank, when you simply refuse to accept basic facts because of self incredulity I am going to call you a retard. sue me, red tag me, ban me I don't give a fuck tbh.

I appreciate the advice to ignore your posts but I will keep responding as I like!  BTW you are also quite free to ignore my uncivilized posts as well.

You haven't but your way of replying is sort of mock-yell which resembles children arguing.
Only using emotions instead of actually discussing something.
Just look at your posts and tell me you don't see it..
Don't think I have something against you personally, I just think you should change the way you approach discussion.

There isn't a red tag on your name anymore.

Reading through the meta forum, I have noticed how some high ranked members become strict on negatively tagging members even when the member has every proof of the situations.

Maybe you should just try to ignore all these fuse. As you have stated, "whether a red tag or not, you can still be trusted " red tags doesn't stop me from trusting people if I find reasons to trust the person.

You have been in the forum way too long and understandshort the rules, I know you are hurting being ignored by those who tagged you negatively but I can see the good in you and some other high ranked member. So keep it up that's all I can say to you.

[Flying Hellfish]

You haven't but your way of replying is sort of mock-yell which resembles children arguing.

Ok cool if you say so, but you said I was insulting and continued it in this thread...

Only using emotions instead of actually discussing something.

Wait are you talking about joe or you, because there's no point discussing anything further with joe.  In terms of you all I did was use your own logic to present a different opinion, if that's your definition of emotion, cool.

Just look at your posts and tell me you don't see it..

Ok, I don't see it, does that work for you?

Don't think I have something against you personally, I just think you should change the way you approach discussion.

Thanks, I don't have anything against you either, we had a successful non escrow transaction a few months back.  I would conduct another transaction again without hesitation.  That doesn't change the fact I think your wrong and joe is a retard.

Again thanks for the advice on changing my approach but to be honest I'm Ok with calling a person unable to identify a circle from a picture a retard.  No need to be nice to them as it just encourages them and then they think the are special and beat science.

I think its worth noting I don't think joe should be banned or silenced, I just think hes mentally fucking retarded and really it shouldn't be a surprise a person might not find him trustworthy...

[LTU_btc]

*an account
not accounts

It is clearly stated I would not sell to people with a red tag, and I ended up locking the thread because only newbies were contacting me!
I would not have given it to someone who would of missused it!

Ok, account, not accounts. You wouldn't sell account to random newbie or user with red tag. Let's say that you you would sell it to user with neutral trust. But how you can be sure that he wont missue that account? There was many cases when green trusted people with solid reputation or Donators turned into scammers.

[iluvbitcoins]

Wait are you talking about joe or you, because there's no point discussing anything further with joe.  In terms of you all I did was use your own logic to present a different opinion, if that's your definition of emotion, cool.

How is it the same logic?
The logic was DT abuse.
Both threads have a red tag from DT members.

Thanks, I don't have anything against you either, we had a successful non escrow transaction a few months back.  I would conduct another transaction again without hesitation.  That doesn't change the fact I think your wrong and joe is a retard.

Again thanks for the advice on changing my approach but to be honest I'm Ok with calling a person unable to identify a circle from a picture a retard.  No need to be nice to them as it just encourages them and then they think the are special and beat science.

I think its worth noting I don't think joe should be banned or silenced, I just think hes mentally fucking retarded and really it shouldn't be a surprise a person might not find him trustworthy...

I assume we'll just agree to disagree since the argument is clearly heading nowhere  
No problem

*an account
not accounts

It is clearly stated I would not sell to people with a red tag, and I ended up locking the thread because only newbies were contacting me!
I would not have given it to someone who would of missused it!

Ok, account, not accounts. You wouldn't sell account to random newbie or user with red tag. Let's say that you you would sell it to user with neutral trust. But how you can be sure that he wont missue that account? There was many cases when green trusted people with solid reputation or Donators turned into scammers.

Well, he could already do it with his own account.
If he would decide to scam, I would be able to neg the account that bought it too.

[iluvbitcoins]

Wow, 3 votes against in like 10 minutes.
Seems like Lauda used some multies 

[Flying Hellfish]

Wow, 3 votes against in like 10 minutes.
Seems like Lauda used some multies 

Gee its almost like the polls on BTCT are completely and utterly useless at actually determining anything as anyone could accuse you of having 9 alts, you have at least 2 accounts we know of that could have voted yes...

[pugman]

While you could have handled this situation in a much better manner, which you didn't, a red tag wasn't initially really required,for your case. The person who controls Avirunes account had bought it and made his name, point being not all account buyers are trying to game the system or whatever, but since you tried to sell an account to a random person, its hard to conclude if you really wanted to sell it to a non "red-tagged member". Bitcointalk community works in a odd manner, just like everything else. While the tag doesn't make you a scammer, it doesn't make you look like a trust worthy person either. A new person would obviously judge you for the red tags you received, and not for the green tags.

All I can suggest you to do is, instead of being an utter asshole, try sorting it out with Lauda and The Pharmacist privately.

[Jet Cash]

Saying that you will only sell an account to a member without any red trust is meaningless. There are so many alts here, that a scammer is bound to have a few without red tags.

I can't think of a reason for anyone other than a bounty spammer or a scammer to buy an account anyway.

[iluvbitcoins]

While you could have handled this situation in a much better manner, which you didn't, a red tag wasn't initially really required,for your case. The person who controls Avirunes account had bought it and made his name, point being not all account buyers are trying to game the system or whatever, but since you tried to sell an account to a random person, its hard to conclude if you really wanted to sell it to a non "red-tagged member". Bitcointalk community works in a odd manner, just like everything else. While the tag doesn't make you a scammer, it doesn't make you look like a trust worthy person either. A new person would obviously judge you for the red tags you received, and not for the green tags.

All I can suggest you to do is, instead of being an utter asshole, try sorting it out with Lauda and The Pharmacist privately.

I've only started being an asshole after I found out Lauda scammed his escrowers out of 3000 BCH and is lecturing me for trying to sell one account (I know my word that I wanted to sell it to a legit person means nothing, but still comparing a consensual transaction with a 3000 BCH scam..)

Wow, 3 votes against in like 10 minutes.
Seems like Lauda used some multies  

Gee its almost like the polls on BTCT are completely and utterly useless at actually determining anything as anyone could accuse you of having 9 alts, you have at least 2 accounts we know of that could have voted yes...

Touche.
Although, I guarantee you I am not engaged in unethical behaviour.
I had one account because the person used it as collateral and never paid me back.
If there were an agreement between me and The Pharmacist, I could provide links to replies and screenshots of PMs, blockchain transaction etc. which would confirm this to be true, and the described in the thread would match.
However, although Lauda wouldn't want to remove his feedback if I asked for an agreement, I wouldn't remove mine even if he wanted to remove his.
I can't condone that even though my feedback means nothing, he scammed for 3000 BCH.
There are some morals.

Saying that you will only sell an account to a member without any red trust is meaningless. There are so many alts here, that a scammer is bound to have a few without red tags.

I can't think of a reason for anyone other than a bounty spammer or a scammer to buy an account anyway.

Dunno, once upon a time I wanted to buy an account for my girlfriend.
This one I gave to good friends to use before trying to sell it, they made genuinely good posts.
They were using it for 2 years or so, but recently it's just sitting idle, so I had a dumb idea to sell it..
Although sig.campaigns are a bit spammy, they do get new people involved.

[pugman]

I've only started being an asshole after I found out Lauda scammed his escrowers out of 3000 BCH and is lecturing me for trying to sell one account (I know my word that I wanted to sell it to a legit person means nothing, but still comparing a consensual transaction with a 3000 BCH scam..)

Are you talking about the NVO escrow scenario? What do you have to tell about sorting out your case with The Pharmacist?

If you want to get your trust score back, contact the DT1 members who added Lauda and The Pharmacist, or convince Lauda and TP to remove their negative rating.

[The Cryptovator]

Just now noticed The Pharmacist tagged by OP iluvbitcoins as well he/she is also in DT list. Personally I don't think this is enough reason to tag. There is no reference to identify why he got tag. Is this counter tag ? We know the previous history about account sales of iluvbitcoins which is discouraged by forum. We know this is allowed, but it's discourage by forum and reputed member's. I believe none reputed member's don't like account trade. Although all DT member's are not tagging account sellers but I believe they don't like any kind account sale or trade.

I am little bit surprised that how a DT member could involved with account sale ? As you title what is important to consider trusted. The Pharmacist didn't mention scammer on his feedback. He left feedback like all others same. There is reference why OP got tagged. I don't know too much about OP since I am newbie, most likely he is trusted person but is it fair a trusted person will involved with account trade ? I don't think so. Personally I don't like account tread since I have realized how hard to build an account.

I believe OP should reconsider about tag of The Pharmacist, it's not looking good a DT tagged without reference. Although I am not agree with him sometimes but he is doing good job to keep clean this forum. And I believe he will continue his work.

Apologise for broken English.

I am little bit surprised that how a DT member could involved with account sale ?

OP was only recently added to DT.

That's why tag are reflecting, OP left feedback exactly a month ago. I believe OP will reconsider about that matter.

[LoyceV]

I am little bit surprised that how a DT member could involved with account sale ?

OP was only recently added to DT.

[Lauda]

Just now noticed The Pharmacist tagged by OP iluvbitcoins as well he/she is also in DT list. Personally I don't think this is enough reason to tag. There is no reference to identify why he got tag. Is this counter tag ?

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

[Quickseller]

Just now noticed The Pharmacist tagged by OP iluvbitcoins as well he/she is also in DT list. Personally I don't think this is enough reason to tag. There is no reference to identify why he got tag. Is this counter tag ?

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

Do you have no self awareness? Or do you just not care about your transparent hypocrisy?

[S_Therapist]

OP was only recently added to DT.

Quite off-topic
OgNasty added OP on his/her trust list. As a result, OP was automatically trusted by the people who had added OgNasty on their trust list. Am I correct?
 I'm just little curious about the trust system.

Correct, or more specifically, OPs trust ratings are automatically included in trust rating calculations to those that have OgNasty in their trust list.

I think now I got how trust system works. Thank you.

[Lauda]

Just now noticed The Pharmacist tagged by OP iluvbitcoins as well he/she is also in DT list. Personally I don't think this is enough reason to tag. There is no reference to identify why he got tag. Is this counter tag ?

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

Do you have no self awareness? Or do you just not care about your transparent hypocrisy?

You're delusional; there's no hypocrisy. This case is clear, the mind is guilty.

[Quickseller]

OP was only recently added to DT.

Quite off-topic
OgNasty added OP on his/her trust list. As a result, OP was automatically trusted by the people who had added OgNasty on their trust list. Am I correct?
 I'm just little curious about the trust system.

Correct, or more specifically, OPs trust ratings are automatically included in trust rating calculations to those that have OgNasty in their trust list.

[OgNasty]

OP was only recently added to DT.

Quite off-topic
OgNasty added OP on his/her trust list. As a result, OP was automatically trusted by the people who had added OgNasty on their trust list. Am I correct?
 I'm just little curious about the trust system.

Correct, or more specifically, OPs trust ratings are automatically included in trust rating calculations to those that have OgNasty in their trust list.

Yes, I added him to my trust list back in February. Yesterday I added him to my trust network, so his ratings are visible by default for me. Strangely, I am suddenly being attacked by another member out of the blue today now that this has been discovered. A bit of a coincidence for those who believe in such things. These sorts of “coincidences” are how I know I’ve made the correct judgement in my actions.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

I still have the PMs from iluvbitcoins he sent me after I tagged him, and I can't speak for Lauda but iluvbitcoins didn't try to blackmail me into removing my feedback.  He explained his situation and requested that I change my neg to a neutral, but he wasn't threatening and was polite throughout the entire exchange.

That one was a very tough call, because I did look at his trust page and I didn't then and don't now think iluvbitcoins is a scammer, just that selling accounts is untrustworthy behavior.  I made the call to be consistent in giving feedback, but I waffled on it for a bit.  I'm fine with the feedback he left me--believe me, I'm the last person who's going to complain about getting negged, even if it's by a DT member, but this case was one where I second-guessed myself a couple of times and I regret that it's come to this.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't at this point.  If I were to remove my feedback now, everyone would accuse me of doing it for my own interests, and if I let it stay in place I honestly feel like I'm not being fair to a member who probably deserves to have the neg removed by now.  I've removed feedback on members I've tagged for account selling after a period of time (which isn't set in stone) if they've shown evidence that they've done something that gives evidence of their trustworthiness--usually getting positive trust with valid references.  iluvbitcoins doesn't actually meet those criteria from the time I left my neg, but it's hard to ignore all his other positives.

I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts from people about this, whether I get lambasted or not. 

[LoyceV]

He explained his situation and requested that I change my neg to a neutral, but he wasn't threatening and was polite throughout the entire exchange.

Since you asked for opinions, I'll give you mine: From the moment I saw the red tag on OP, I thought it was a bit harsh. I don't think he deserves it. I don't think OP should be labeled the same as Newbies who sell hacked, farmed or even non-existing accounts. OP didn't try to hide who he is, like most spammers/scammers do.

This is a good and well known example of a bought account that turned into a valuable member:

The person who controls Avirunes account had bought it and made his name, point being not all account buyers are trying to game the system or whatever, but since you tried to sell an account to a random person, its hard to conclude if you really wanted to sell it to a non "red-tagged member".

Of course you can never know for sure someone isn't going to abuse an account though, even with the best intentions.

That one was a very tough call, because I did look at his trust page and I didn't then and don't now think iluvbitcoins is a scammer, just that selling accounts is untrustworthy behavior.  I made the call to be consistent in giving feedback, but I waffled on it for a bit.  I'm fine with the feedback he left me--believe me, I'm the last person who's going to complain about getting negged, even if it's by a DT member, but this case was one where I second-guessed myself a couple of times and I regret that it's come to this.

You were put on DT for good reasons: most of your feedback does this forum a favour. I think that should be the main criterion for leaving a red tag. In this case, when you're second-guessing yourself, I'd say give a user the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, you tried to be consequent and not make exceptions for high ranking accounts. That's worth something too.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't at this point.  If I were to remove my feedback now, everyone would accuse me of doing it for my own interests, and if I let it stay in place I honestly feel like I'm not being fair to a member who probably deserves to have the neg removed by now.

I can think of only one solution that solves your dilemma: you remove your red trust on OP, and OP doesn't remove the red trust he left you. It's not a solution I prefer, but it would prevent any self-interest accusations while you get to be fair to OP.

Thinking outside the box: you could counter your negative with a positive

[ibminer]

I'm not familiar with offering loans and accepting accounts as collateral, but would it be normal practice to take control of the staked address of the account they are getting as collateral for a loan?  I thought it was normally just the account login information provided?

[Lauda]

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

I still have the PMs from iluvbitcoins he sent me after I tagged him, and I can't speak for Lauda but iluvbitcoins didn't try to blackmail me into removing my feedback.  

You don't seem to have experienced with 'act-nice-blackmail', which this was.

Since you asked for opinions, I'll give you mine: From the moment I saw the red tag on OP, I thought it was a bit harsh.

OP is dishonest; there's nothing harsh here. Their behavior post-rejecting to obeying their requests proves that.

I'm not familiar with offering loans and accepting accounts as collateral, but would it be normal practice to take control of the staked address of the account they are getting as collateral for a loan?  I thought it was normally just the account login information provided?

I don't think so.

[Thekool1s]

@The Pharmacist, Humans are prone to make errors in judgement and this case is the perfect example of it. Tagging OP was a bit harsh TBH and could be considered Abuse of Trust system but we can't ignore all the good work you have done for the community. Loyce has suggested the best solution IMO. I mean removing the Negative would be a good start to correct your "error" and I hope the OP can let you off too. Being a DT member comes with responsibility and there are cases like OP's where leaving a neutral trust is a better solution than giving a negative one right away. Just my 2 satoshis.

[Lauda]

@The Pharmacist, Humans are prone to make errors in judgement and this case is the perfect example of it. Tagging OP was a bit harsh TBH and could be considered Abuse of Trust system but we can't ignore all the good work you have done for the community. Loyce has suggested the best solution IMO. I mean removing the Negative would be a good start to correct your "error" and I hope the OP can let you off too. Being a DT member comes with responsibility and there are cases like OP's where leaving a neutral trust is a better solution than giving a negative one right away. Just my 2 satoshis.

Posting without reading anything is back again. Me being a dog is more likely than this being a "perfect example" of an error in judgement. Tough call, sure. "Perfect example", no.

[ibminer]

I don't think so.

Just seemed odd to me that iluvbitcoins would control the staked address of an account he is selling which was apparently acquired through a defaulted loan. I don't see any evidence that private keys or staked addresses were typically used as collateral in the past with accounts - as that would be stupid for the account owner. And I guess I don't understand why anyone would accept a loan from an account owner who is handing over their private keys?? (assuming they expect to be paid back)

[Lauda]

I don't think so.

Just seemed odd to me that iluvbitcoins would control the staked address of an account he is selling which was apparently acquired through a defaulted loan. I don't see any evidence that private keys or staked addresses were typically used as collateral in the past with accounts - as that would be stupid for the account owner.

Cases probably exist, but I haven't seen them often (if at all).

And I guess I don't understand why anyone would accept a loan from an account owner who is handing over their private keys?? (assuming they expect to be paid back)

That doesn't make sense indeed. Even if you repay your loan, your key (thus also your account, at least temporarily) remains compromised.

[Thekool1s]

Posting without reading anything is back again.

Lol, I was going through my PMs when I saw your Profile with the Negative trust... Your last post led me to this thread. Went through 3 pages of it and surprisingly found you trolling. Something which I didn't associate you with in the past. But looks like getting Removed from Default trust has started to mess with your ego. 

Me being a dog is more likely than this being a "perfect example" of an error in judgement. Roll Eyes Tough call, sure. "Perfect example", no

Okay...

[LoyceV]

Just seemed odd to me that iluvbitcoins would control the staked address of an account he is selling which was apparently acquired through a defaulted loan.

The sales thread doesn't say how old the staked address is. It does say this:

it's been a couple of years since the loan was defaulted, I gave the acc to a couple of friends to use but after a while they stopped using it and gave it back to me.

My assumption from this is that an address was staked after defaulting on the loan, which seems more likely than receiving the private keys together with the collateral.

[Quickseller]

Posting without reading anything is back again.

Lol, I was going through my PMs when I saw your Profile with the Negative trust... Your last post led me to this thread. Went through 3 pages of it and surprisingly found you trolling. Something which I didn't associate you with in the past. But looks like getting Removed from Default trust has started to mess with your ego. 

Lauda has a long history of trolling those who he is in a dispute with. He rarely will engage in meaningful dialogue with his critics.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The whole situation is a bit of a mess, with several missteps as I see it:

1) I don't agree with taking an account as collateral, but it was done several years ago when the practice was more commonplace and selling accounts did not generally result in negative trust.

2) "Account sellers are not to be trusted" is too generic a statement. Trust isn't an all or nothing thing - I trust my wife completely, my friends a lot, my colleagues a bit, and strangers hardly at all. I would certainly trust someone with a large positive trading history (such as iluvbitcoins) a lot more than your average shitposting account farmer and seller.

3) "Abusing the trust system" is also not accurate, given The Pharmacist was simply applying well recognised and known about standards, albeit to a more senior and trusted member than the usual aforementioned account sellers.

There is no perfect, or even good, solution here. Leaving things as they are is one. LoyceV's suggestion is another, as is The Pharmacist's own suggestion regarding when he removes negative trust. Mutual or one-sided neutral trust is also a possibility.

[Thekool1s]

There is no perfect, or even good, solution here. Leaving things as they are is one. LoyceV's suggestion is another, as is The Pharmacist's own suggestion regarding when he removes negative trust. Mutual or one-sided neutral trust is also a possibility.

Just turn both of feedbacks to neutral... End of story.

[LoyceV]

Just turn both of feedbacks to neutral... End of story.

Since we're in crypto, another outside the box idea:
1. Both parties write a message in which they explain what they're going to do with the trust they left the other person. Keep the message, don't post it.
2. Both parties sign that message with a Bitcoin address they choose.
3. Both parties post the signature and Bitcoin address.
4. Once both parties have posted the signatures, they both post the message and do as it says.

This gives both parties the possibility to make a decision completely independent of what the other party does. Needless to say: step 4 should be followed through entirely.

[Thekool1s]

Just turn both of feedbacks to neutral... End of story.

Since we're in crypto, another outside the box idea:
1. Both parties write a message in which they explain what they're going to do with the trust they left the other person. Keep the message, don't post it.
2. Both parties sign that message with a Bitcoin address they choose.
3. Both parties post the signature and Bitcoin address.
4. Once both parties have posted the signatures, they both post the message and do as it says.

This gives both parties the possibility to make a decision completely independent of what the other party does. Needless to say: step 4 should be followed through entirely.

Whatever ends this simple issue, I am down for it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Since we're in crypto, another outside the box idea:
<snip>

I like that idea in spirit, but in practice it's way too complicated.

The better solution is for me to right the wrong and with no bargaining or expectation from iluvbitcoins or anyone else.  My feedback will be removed, and not only should I not have left it in the first place (my instinct told me not to), but I should have removed it before the situation came to this. 

My apologies to iluvbitcoins for any problems my neg caused him, and I'll leave it at that.  This was one of the tougher calls I've had to make, and I made the wrong one.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

An interesting idea, but can we not have some Golden Balls style mind games and deception first? The forum has been lacking in exciting drama for a while.

Edit: The Pharmacist robbed me of my entertainment by being selfless. How selfish of him!

[cryptotsunami]

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

I still have the PMs from iluvbitcoins he sent me after I tagged him, and I can't speak for Lauda but iluvbitcoins didn't try to blackmail me into removing my feedback.  He explained his situation and requested that I change my neg to a neutral, but he wasn't threatening and was polite throughout the entire exchange.

That one was a very tough call, because I did look at his trust page and I didn't then and don't now think iluvbitcoins is a scammer, just that selling accounts is untrustworthy behavior.  I made the call to be consistent in giving feedback, but I waffled on it for a bit.  I'm fine with the feedback he left me--believe me, I'm the last person who's going to complain about getting negged, even if it's by a DT member, but this case was one where I second-guessed myself a couple of times and I regret that it's come to this.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't at this point.  If I were to remove my feedback now, everyone would accuse me of doing it for my own interests, and if I let it stay in place I honestly feel like I'm not being fair to a member who probably deserves to have the neg removed by now.  I've removed feedback on members I've tagged for account selling after a period of time (which isn't set in stone) if they've shown evidence that they've done something that gives evidence of their trustworthiness--usually getting positive trust with valid references.  iluvbitcoins doesn't actually meet those criteria from the time I left my neg, but it's hard to ignore all his other positives.

I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts from people about this, whether I get lambasted or not. 

KARMA is a bitch! You can't even prove that my account is connected to all "crypto" name in this forum. You are also stupid that you think all crypto name is the same person. You are in a Crypto world you idiot, and you expect that it should have no "crypto" in a user name?

[Lauda]

Posting without reading anything is back again.

Lol, I was going through my PMs when I saw your Profile with the Negative trust... Your last post led me to this thread. Went through 3 pages of it and surprisingly found you trolling. Something which I didn't associate you with in the past. But looks like getting Removed from Default trust has started to mess with your ego.  

Are you intentionally lying or just playing this one? You've clearly read nothing or are delusional if you believe this is a "perfect example" of an error in judgement. Funny how your responses shift depending on my DT status. My opinions are consistent with our without DT, unlike you hypocrite.  

Lauda has a long history of trolling those who he is in a dispute with. He rarely will engage in meaningful dialogue with his critics.

Whining again mr. Scammer?

-snip-

You've got plenty of account-sale related revoking to do in that case, if you want to remain consistent.

[Thekool1s]

Edit: The Pharmacist robbed me of my entertainment by being selfless. How selfish of him! Tongue

We need more DT members likes him. Those who don't have ego issues.   We are all humans, we can sometimes make decisions which aren't the best but accepting they were wrong and fixing them by doing the right thing takes a lot of courage and selflessness.

P.S I am looking forward to a Happy ending iluvbitcoins, Please don't disappoint me

Are you intentionally lying or just playing this one?

Even tho I don't have to prove anything to you but still, here you go. I was going through my PMs for this screenshot https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5057107.msg47256218#msg47256218

Funny how your responses shift depending on my DT status.

Lol, this has nothing to do your DT status. I still respect you for the work you have done with SMAS and for the forum.

Hypocrite.

Okay...

[The Cryptovator]

Apologize, I have open this case about The Pharmacist tag. I really didn't open this case for more argument. My intention was for stop the argument. I really don't like to see red caution on DT profile, especially if there is like The Pharmacist who have spend lots of time to prevent corruption. I have not found the point how he abuse trust system. No, I am not defending TP, also few point I am not agree with him. But I an also not fan of account seller. On the other hand iluvbitcoins also have not broke forum rules or he didn't attempt to scam. Even I don't know much about him but most likely he is a trusted person according to others DT feedback.

Regarding account sale, main problem is forum rules. Question is, if account sales allowed by forum then why need to tag? Is it really necessary? I have a simple answer although everyone will not agree with it. Answer is, most of account seller are scammer, they really don't have account for sale. Mostly they scam greedy peoples who is encourage to buy account. So its really need to tag them for warn buyers. Especially newbie account seller.

However noticed The Pharmacist have removed his feedback during writing time. So I think problem is almost solved. The Pharmacist did right thing I think by tag and by remove. I believe iluvbitcoins has learned from tag and he should also removed his feedback.

Why I agree both of TP decision? Because his tag will help iluvbitcoins to avoid this kind of actions. And there is multiple reason that I believe pharmacist should remove tag,
iluvbitcoins trusted by more than 7 DT and he win by voting on this thread. Most of people think iluvbitcoins still enough trusted. Add on DT2 network means more trusted. So considering all this issue TP took this decision. However I will not call him selfish. 

[utlptc]

The Pharmacist has removed the negative trust from iluvbitcoins. I appreciate that The Pharmacist has realized. But, why am I still neg tagged for the same accusation?
I was quite new in bitcointalk back in the day. I was not too much active then. I didn't know that for attempting to buy an account, I could get a red tagged. I really had no concerned about that because I knew that buying/selling accounts are allowed.
I had created a thread when I saw the neg tagged in my profile. Then Lauda had also tagged. Anyway, some days ago, when I saw Lauda was not in DT anymore, and somewhere I read that The Pharmacist had removed someone else neg tagged, I wrote him requesting to remove my neg tag. While he said I had not done anything trustworthy after the tag.
I just want to know, had I done anything which is not trustworthy before and after the neg tag? I request to reconsider my neg tag because I am not a scammer.
Thank you.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>

The only time I'll remove feedback I left for account sellers/buyers is after a significant amount of time has passed and the member has done something (usually gained trust feedbacks with valid references) that proves they're trustworthy.

In your case, you claim you were new but 6 months after registering on bitcointalk you were trying to buy accounts at a time when members were consistently being tagged for such--and you should have known better.  You haven't done anything in the 5 months since I left my feedback on you that would convince me to remove it.

This isn't the thread to appeal negs I've left, by the way.  PM me if you've met the above criteria.

[utlptc]

PM me if you've met the above criteria.

I had PMed you last week and you have blocked me.

Anyway, I would not PM you if I didn't face this statement. I never engaged in such activities after the red tag. Believe me or not. It's up to you. You said that having positive trust is an extra benefits for removing the tag. That's it.

Also keep in mind that if someone PMs me asking me to remove old feedback from account sales AND if they haven't engaged in it since the feedback, I'll usually remove the negative.

It's true that you gave me red tag after 5 months of my joining here. But I was not concerned that anyone can get negative trust for buying/selling accounts.

By the way, I apologize that I have posted it here.

Thank you.

[iluvbitcoins]

OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).

I still have the PMs from iluvbitcoins he sent me after I tagged him, and I can't speak for Lauda but iluvbitcoins didn't try to blackmail me into removing my feedback.  

You don't seem to have experienced with 'act-nice-blackmail', which this was.

Since you asked for opinions, I'll give you mine: From the moment I saw the red tag on OP, I thought it was a bit harsh.

OP is dishonest; there's nothing harsh here. Their behavior post-rejecting to obeying their requests proves that.

I'm not familiar with offering loans and accepting accounts as collateral, but would it be normal practice to take control of the staked address of the account they are getting as collateral for a loan?  I thought it was normally just the account login information provided?

I don't think so.

I have sent you 3 PMs.

1.http://prntscr.com/laujf6

Someone who speaks Croatian should say if there's any blackmail in it.

This is the simmilar english equivalent I've sent to The Pharmacist. Judge yourself is there's blackmail in it.

http://prntscr.com/laukmw

2.http://prntscr.com/laul0v
3.http://prntscr.com/laulcc

Translates to "You don't speak Croatian?" since he responded to my PM on english, although he spoke Croatian a year back.

I can stream my outbox if someone is willing to watch it in order to confirm this to be legitimate.

I don't think so.

Just seemed odd to me that iluvbitcoins would control the staked address of an account he is selling which was apparently acquired through a defaulted loan. I don't see any evidence that private keys or staked addresses were typically used as collateral in the past with accounts - as that would be stupid for the account owner. And I guess I don't understand why anyone would accept a loan from an account owner who is handing over their private keys?? (assuming they expect to be paid back)

The account didn't have a staked address when I got it as collateral, I staked one a year back or so when it was in my ownership.

@The Pharmacist

If I was a DT when I left it, I wouldn't have left it at all.
I appreciate you came through and removed yours.

[suchmoon]

If I was a DT when I left it, I wouldn't have left it at all.
I appreciate you came through and removed yours.

Your new rating for TP is almost as shit as the old one:

He's not an asshole : D

You should also prune your other ratings that have no references and/or were posted for ridiculous reasons, particularly positive ones for trades that had no risk on your part, e.g. "Sent me X BTC, I sent him Y PP" - your counterparty doesn't deserve green trust for that. If you do that again it will be equivalent to trust sale now that you're in DT.

[iluvbitcoins]

If I was a DT when I left it, I wouldn't have left it at all.
I appreciate you came through and removed yours.

Your new rating for TP is almost as shit as the old one:

He's not an asshole

You should also prune your other ratings that have no references and/or were posted for ridiculous reasons, particularly positive ones for trades that had no risk on your part, e.g. "Sent me X BTC, I sent him Y PP" - your counterparty doesn't deserve green trust for that. If you do that again it will be equivalent to trust sale now that you're in DT.

Uses retaliatory trust ratings and extensively posts trust ratings without references

I believe 'should not be trusted' for a person who has handled a million $ worth of assets without a single complaint about his services is an abuse of the trust system.

But since The Pharmacist hasn't been as rude and crazy as Lauda and has acknowleged his mistake, I have removed my feedback from his profile.

Also

"Sent me X BTC, I sent him Y PP"

PayPal is a reversible payment processor and such a trade includes risk of being scammed.
That's what the Trust system is FOR!
Not for opinions etc.

The "Not an asshole" tag was left before I realized I became a DT (I found out with my first post today)
It will be removed now.

[iluvbitcoins]

Oh the irony.

[suchmoon]

I believe 'should not be trusted' for a person who has handled a million $ worth of assets without a single complaint about his services is an abuse of the trust system.

What are you on about?

"Sent me X BTC, I sent him Y PP"

Is a trade.
PayPal is a reversible payment processor and such a trade includes risk of being scammed.
That's what the Trust system is FOR!
Not for opinions etc.

There was zero risk for you. The person who received your (now green by default) trust rating did not need to be trusted by you in that transaction. You're the one sending PayPal. The other person takes the risk and may decide to leave a positive rating for you.

Oh the irony.

Yes, a neutral. A post-it note on your account so that I would know who you are next time I meet you. Doesn't affect you in any way but if you want a reference - this thread.

Stop multiposting and clean yourself up.

[Lauda]

Someone who speaks Croatian should say if there's any blackmail in it.

The second you left an unjust negative rating after we did not accept your demand it turned into blackmail. Just because you wrapped it nicely into a sob-story doesn't mean that it actually wasn't. Actually, it makes it worse since it's deceptive. But what do I know.





The second one just happens to be a 3-post newbie, who also just happens to be an account seller. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[iluvbitcoins]

I believe 'should not be trusted' for a person who has handled a million $ worth of assets without a single complaint about his services is an abuse of the trust system.

What are you on about?

You just made a claim I left retaliatory feedback.
I explained why that's a lie.

"Sent me X BTC, I sent him Y PP"

Is a trade.
PayPal is a reversible payment processor and such a trade includes risk of being scammed.
That's what the Trust system is FOR!
Not for opinions etc.

There was zero risk for you. The person who received your (now green by default) trust rating did not need to be trusted by you in that transaction. You're the one sending PayPal. The other person takes the risk and may decide to leave a positive rating for you.

If it is an F&F transaction, there's still risk since in order to charge it back I'd need to claim my PayPal account was hacked, or there was an unauthorized access which if found to be false, could result in my account being limited.

I will revise all my feedback later today or tommorow, since as I said, I just found out about being DT.

[iluvbitcoins]

Someone who speaks Croatian should say if there's any blackmail in it.

The second you left an unjust negative rating after we did not accept your demand it turned into blackmail. Just because you wrapped it nicely into a sob-story doesn't mean that it actually wasn't. Actually, it makes it worse since it's deceptive. But what do I know.

The second one just happens to be a 3-post newbie, who also just happens to be an account seller. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You've found out about the 1st feedback I ever left!
It was yesterday? Nah, it was in 2014 when I was a Jr.Member!
It's not like I became DT today, so I had a chance to revise my Jr.Member feedbacks
I knew I was a DT for how long now? 10 minutes?
-----------

Ahh, yes.
A regular member blackmailes 2 DTs with untrusted feedback.
It is 'trust' and I found your feedback to be unjust and UNTRUE.

You have claimed I am not to be trusted, I found this to be COMPLETELY UNTRUE and therefore, I have left feedback on your account.
You have not only abused the trust system but also mismanaged 3000 BTC.

On yours, Lauda, I will never remove.

[suchmoon]

If it is an F&F transaction, there's still risk since in order to charge it back I'd need to claim my PayPal account was hacked, or there was an unauthorized access which if found to be false, could result in my account being limited.

I will revise all my feedback later today or tommorow, since as I said, I just found out about being DT.

You received BTC. You sent PayPal. What are you going to charge back?

Are you saying that you would falsely claim that your PayPal account was hacked in order to reverse the transaction?

Aren't we all glad that OgNasty dredged the swamp to find this particular creature  

[iluvbitcoins]

If it is an F&F transaction, there's still risk since in order to charge it back I'd need to claim my PayPal account was hacked, or there was an unauthorized access which if found to be false, could result in my account being limited.

I will revise all my feedback later today or tommorow, since as I said, I just found out about being DT.

You received BTC. You sent PayPal. What are you going to charge back?

Are you saying that you would claim that your PayPal account was hacked in order to reverse the transaction?

Aren't we all glad that OgNasty dredged the swamp to find this particular creature  

If I sent F&F first there is still risk in the transaction!
Since I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie.

Read first, be rude later.

[Lauda]

You've found out about the 1st feedback I ever left!

Why so defensive? I'm just pointing out a coincidence, i.e. that the first person you left feedback to is also an account seller.

It is 'trust' and I found your feedback to be unjust and UNTRUE.

You have claimed I am not to be trusted, I found this to be COMPLETELY UNTRUE and therefore, I have left feedback on your account.

No. My feedback is factually correct: You abused your ability to leave trust ratings. You tried to blackmail/coerce (whichever word is more suited; some people like arguing semantics) me with direct consequences when I didn't give in to the demand. Leaving retaliatory ratings because of false, subjective opinions is also a no-go.

You have not only abused the trust system but also mismanaged 3000 BTC.

Which is an objective lie, as it isn't mathematically possible[1].

On yours, Lauda, I will never remove.

No need; your behavior has turned criminal (slander, coercion, you pick it). I ain't no QS, thus I am not going to threaten you with a lawsuit nor am I going receive funds from TF for it.
[1] What would you know about mathematics, especially cryptography anyways.
[2] Suck up to a person or two, position an alt or three, do a deal or two for a trivial amount and you're almost there. Response to the wrong quote, still true though.

[suchmoon]

If I sent F&F first there is still risk in the transaction!
Since I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie.

Read first, be rude later.

You received the BTC. Where is the risk?

So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.

[OgNasty]

So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.

Statements like this don't support your case that your judgement should be relied upon by others.

[iluvbitcoins]

I've been slandering?

And you've just claimed I blackmailed you HAHAH

I've just posted all the 3 PMs I've sent you.

Let's let the users decide for themselves whether or not that's blackmail.

1.http://prntscr.com/laujf6
This is the simmilar english equivalent I've sent to The Pharmacist.
http://prntscr.com/laukmw
2.http://prntscr.com/laul0v
3.http://prntscr.com/laulccf

If I sent F&F first there is still risk in the transaction!
Since I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie.

Read first, be rude later.

You received the BTC. Where is the risk?

So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.

You just said I was sending bitcoins, how am I receiving them?
Can you first have a talk with yourself in order to decide what you want to say?

Now you're starting to annoy me.
It is an explanation on why there's 'risk' in that transaction and you know it yourself!
If I wrote there isnt' any risk for the sender in an  I&S transaction because you can charge it back, would that mean I would falsely claim I haven't received an item?

You're hilarious.
Why are you trying so hard to paint me as an immoral man?

[suchmoon]

So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.

Statements like this don't support your case that your judgement should be relied upon by others.

What's your interpretation then:

I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie

What plausible reason is there to claim unauthorized access if there wasn't any unauthorized access?

You just said I was sending bitcoins, how am I receiving them?
What the hell are you on about?

Now you're starting to annoy me.
It is an explanation on why there's 'risk' in that transaction and you know it yourself!
If I wrote there isnt' any risk for the sender in an  I&S transaction because you can charge it back, would that mean I would falsely claim I haven't received an item?

You're hilarious.
Why are you trying so hard to paint me as an immoral man?

I never said anything about you sending bitcoins. I'm talking about your trust ratings that you left for others where they sent bitcoins to you and you sent PayPal payments. You're receiving bitcoins therefore you don't have any risk in the transaction and you shouldn't hand out positive trust for that.

A chargeback of an I&S transaction would not be false if you indeed didn't received the item. It could still be a problem if you were engaged in a trade that is against PayPal policy or not covered by buyer protection, which most likely applies to bitcoins.

A false claim of unauthorized access in an F&F transaction is not a "risk", it's fraud.

[Lauda]

I've been slandering?

And you've just claimed I blackmailed you HAHAH
-snip-

Correct. First (failed) blackmail/coercion, then slander and now you've started turning the debacle into harassment given your recent lie on my trust page.

You have not only abused the trust system but also mismanaged 3000 BTC.

Which is an objective lie, as it isn't mathematically possible[1].

Quite simple. QED.

A false claim of unauthorized access in an F&F transaction is not a "risk", it's fraud.

Quite the risk.  

[OgNasty]

So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.

Statements like this don't support your case that your judgement should be relied upon by others.

What's your interpretation then:

I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie

What plausible reason there is to claim unauthorized access if there wasn't any unauthorized access?

I believe any sane person without an axe to grind against this user would interpret that statement as...

If the user were to not send the BTC as promised after I sent the PayPal funds, I would have to lie and claim my account was hacked by someone and the PayPal transfer sent maliciously in order to have my funds returned.  This could open me up to potentially having my PayPal account suspended and damaging my ability to conduct business.  Therefore I did trust the user to a certain extent and gave them the ability to potentially harm my business.

[iluvbitcoins]

You guys just made my point by grasping straws in order to paint me in a negative light!!

In order to reverse an F&F transaction I'd need to claim unauthorized access!

If I've sent an F&F transaction and I don't receive BTC, I've been scammed!

You've just proven there's risk in that transaction and completely annihilated your own point!!

Hahah

The other person takes the risk and may decide to leave a positive rating for you.

A false claim of unauthorized access in an F&F transaction is not a "risk", it's fraud.

[suchmoon]

I believe any sane person without an axe to grind against this user would interpret that statement as...

If the user were to not send the BTC as promised after I sent the PayPal funds, I would have to lie and claim my account was hacked by someone and the PayPal transfer sent maliciously in order to have my funds returned.  This could open me up to potentially having my PayPal account suspended and damaging my ability to conduct business.  Therefore I did trust the user to a certain extent and gave them the ability to potentially harm my business.

That sounds like a stretch.

If PayPal is legitimately reversible, then there was no risk for iluvbitcoins in the transaction and the positive ratings should not have been posted. That was my original suggestion to iluvbitcoins - to remove those ratings.

If PayPal is not legitimately reversible (F&F) then iluvbitcoins appears to be saying that they would defraud PayPal in order to get their money back. Describing it as a risk is like saying that I risk robbing a bank if someone scams me on Bitcointalk.

In order to reverse an F&F transaction I'd need to claim unauthorized access!

Have you ever done this?

If I've sent an F&F transaction and I don't receive BTC, I've been scammed!

If you sent first - yes, but that has nothing to do with PayPal. Why would you defraud PayPal to get your money back?

[iluvbitcoins]

Then there was no risk for iluvbitcoins in the transaction and the positive ratings should not have been posted.

Unless I don't want to claim unauthorized acces when it didn't happen?

Have you ever done this?

No

If you sent first - yes, but that has nothing to do with PayPal. Why would you defraud PayPal to get your money back?

I wouldn't. That's why there's risk involved.

[OgNasty]

Describing it as a risk is like saying that I risk robbing a bank if someone scams me on Bitcointalk.

PayPal doesn't allow cryptocurrency trades, so in order to have the funds returned, he would have had to lie even though his claim is legitimate, exposing him to potential action from PayPal.  How would you describe taking money from a bank against their policies?

[suchmoon]

I wouldn't. That's why there's risk involved.

Ok. Why would you even bring it up then? The risk is you sending first, which isn't entirely clear from your trust ratings because you didn't post references. So is this correct then?

• All your PayPal trades where you sent PP and left positive trust were F&F.
• You went first in all your PayPal trades where you sent PP and left positive trust.

PayPal doesn't allow cryptocurrency trades, so in order to have the funds returned, he would have had to lie even though his claim is legitimate, exposing him to potential action from PayPal.  How would you describe taking money from a bank against their policies?

There is no legitimate claim against F&F if the transaction was knowingly initiated by the sender. There is also no legitimate claim if the transaction was against the policy to begin with. Fraud is fraud, whether it's PayPal or a bank.

Now that iluvbitcoins finally explicitly stated they would not engage in fraud I'm gonna have to take their word for it.

[iluvbitcoins]

I wouldn't. That's why there's risk involved.

Ok. Why would you even bring it up then?

Because you said there's no risk in it.

The risk is you sending first, which isn't entirely clear from your trust ratings because you didn't post references. So is this correct then?

• All your PayPal trades where you sent PP and left positive trust were F&F.
• You went first in all your PayPal trades where you sent PP and left positive trust.

I would say most of them were F&F, I can't be 100% sure for deals that happened a couple years back, so I'm going to revise the deals tommorow morning (already did some today).
Not in all of them but in the older ones certainly (since I was a trustless newbie).

Now that iluvbitcoins finally explicitly stated they would not engage in fraud I'm gonna have to take their word for it.

So, I've escrowed a million $ in an anonymous cryptocurrency but you had to have me say I wouldn't engage in PayPal fraud before you could trust me?  

[suchmoon]

So, I've escrowed a million $ in an anonymous cryptocurrency but you had to have me say I wouldn't engage in PayPal fraud before you could trust me?  

No, that's not what I said at all. I don't trust your ratings and I have no particular opinion on your trustworthiness in a trade. The PayPal thing is just a distraction arising from your peculiar way of defining "risk" and using "chargeback" in the context of F&F.

[marlboroza]

https://prnt.sc/laul0v

What is keeping you from tagging it? We don't want to see another scammer running around the forum with old bought account trying to scam someone.
Other than this I really don't want to comment anything.

[iluvbitcoins]

https://prnt.sc/laul0v

What is keeping you from tagging it? We don't want to see another scammer running around the forum with old bought account trying to scam someone.
Other than this I really don't want to comment anything.

How can we see another scammer around the forum with an old bought account if the account was never sold?

[marlboroza]

How can we see another scammer around the forum with an old bought account if the account was never sold?

How can we see that you didn't sell it?
Do you think TP is not abusing trust system?

[iluvbitcoins]

How can we see another scammer around the forum with an old bought account if the account was never sold?

How can we see that you didn't sell it?
Do you think TP is not abusing trust system?

A friend of mine is using it currently.
I can show it to a trusted individual in private.

I thought he is, but I have removed my feedback since he apologized and his other feedback doesn't have anything that could show he would do something malicious.

[LoyceV]

A friend of mine is using it currently.
I can show it to a trusted individual in private.

How many Merits did he earn per post? That's a reasonable indicator to judge if he's spamming or contributing. For comparison: you've received 0.0722 Merit per new post.

Shouldn't this thread be moved to Reputation by now?

[cschy01]

@The Pharmacist, I appreciate for your step to remove red tag from account seller. Do you like to consider remove tag for account buyer ? I accept my mistake that I had attempt to buy account. Since this is allowed by rules that is why I had tried to buy. I am telling truth, I didn't want to by for scam or any other abuse. Honestly I want only participant bounty campaign. Some manager do not accept Jr. Member. That is why I attempt to buy. I have small job and I am too much busy, so I do not have too much time to build account by earning merit. Trust me, I didn't buy  account and I will not try anymore. Just give me one chance. Thank you advanced.

[marlboroza]

I thought he is, but I have removed my feedback since he apologized and his other feedback doesn't have anything that could show he would do something malicious.

Ok, he made apology and *puf* - he is not abusing trust system any more.  

Wow, 3 votes against in like 10 minutes.
Seems like Lauda used some multies  

Right...I can literally say this for you - iluvbitcoins, shibawow, account from 2012...sorry, not correct order of accounts  
Welcome to DT, btw. I am out of this thread.

[iluvbitcoins]

I thought he is, but I have removed my feedback since he apologized and his other feedback doesn't have anything that could show he would do something malicious.

Ok, he made apology and *puf* - he is not abusing trust system any more.  

Wow, 3 votes against in like 10 minutes.
Seems like Lauda used some multies  

Right...I can literally say this for you - iluvbitcoins, shibewow, account from 2012...sorry, not correct order of accounts  
Welcome to DT, btw. I am out of this thread.

If you haven't realized yet, people remove feedbacks for non-scam "crimes"quite often after a certain period of time has passed.
He has removed the 'abused' feedback. What if a scammer returned the stolen bitcoins? Would we still neg him or reward him for returning the BTC?
What's your point?

[marlboroza]

What if a scammer returned the stolen bitcoins?

I am out of this thread.