Legendary account seller

[marlboroza]

Account: grtthegreat (Trust: 30: -0 / +3)
Thread: ★☆★ grtthegreat's COLLATERAL MANDATORY Lending Service ★☆★
archived http://archive.is/2eHqr

First rule of service:

0. Bitcointalk Accounts (or any other accounts) are not valid collateral!

Second post:

|

Borrower

|

Status

|

Amount

|

Collateral

|

Due Date

|

Reference

|

Out TXN

|

In TXN

|

|

Zoel

|

Active Defaulted

|

0.04BTC

|

BTCTalk Account

|

13-01-2019

|

Accepted Post

|

TX

|

TX (Collateral Sold)

|

|

trinaldao

|

Active

|

0.05BTC

|

BTCTalk Account

|

23-01-2019

|

Accepted Post

|

TX

|

----

|

|

rmccatch

|

Active Repaid

|

0.05BTC

|

2600 XLM (In TX) (Out TX)

|

26-01-2019

|

Accepted Post

|

TX

|

TX

|

Account Zoel default and account trinaldao is 2 days late with repayment.

Regarding account Zoel, it clearly says in quoted post "collateral sold" and this is transaction ID https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/09ed82d56050bbff86f19e00d09dc5f27e619a93d16a839afed1feead1a84235

Now this is strange, looking at that transaction, account was sold for 0.05BTC on 2019-01-17 22:30:19 and accounts wakes up (logically) to ask for...well...loan (archived http://archive.is/Sh71Y):




Why I highlighted 0.04BTC? Because, account default 0.04BTC, lender sells account for 0.05BTC, and in first post after month of inactivity (I mean, not posting) account ask 0.04BTC, which is equal amount of money Zoel took from grtthegreat. Well that is strange.
Who buys account for 0.05BTC to borrow 0.04BTC?


Other account I mentioned here, trinaldao(Trust: 12: -0 / +2) , also default https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/15T6z5fPcHEPVzudg7kC8Fcp5r9MqQPHcb and account is for sale (posted 2 days ago):

Hello trinaldao, today is your repayment due date. In case you fail to repay the loan, your collateral will soon be put on sale.

Of course, [LUCK] LuckIncrease - 130% Returns & 75% Payback if no returns http://archive.is/a2Cjd run "fair" ponzi in the past 


Someone has archived thread

[1713271964]

1713271964

[1713271964]

1713271964

[1713271964]

1713271964

[MadZ]

Nice find. I think if you look in the history of most lenders that accept accounts as collateral, you’ll find they sell them pretty often. Some even expunge these accounts from their loan histories so it isn’t as obvious.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.

[yahoo62278]

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.

You have 300+ tags on users for account sales from 2016 on. You can't stop now.  gotta bust your balls

[Lauda]

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.

This is a question of whether all lenders that accept account collateral need to be tagged or not. The question whether this would be net beneficial to the forum is trivially answered however.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This is a question of whether all lenders that accept account collateral need to be tagged or not. The question whether this would be net beneficial to the forum is trivially answered however.

I'm listening with an open mind to everyone here, and this was another call that I was conflicted about.  However, I did tell grtthegreat that i wasn't going to tag him, so I won't.  I did mention that this wouldn't mean that other DT members might not feel the same, and I would encourage any of them who disagree with my decision to go ahead and follow their conscience.

We had this discussion about consistency vs. treating each case individually when the situation happened with iluvbitcoins.  I meant it when I said that the little voice in my head was telling me not to tag him because he wasn't the average scummy account seller.  That same voice was telling me not to tag grtthegreat in this case, based upon his reputation and his promise not to engage in this shit anymore.  I appreciate the community's input here, whether it's critical or supportive, because hopefully it'll lead to a consensus on how these cases should be dealt with.

[yahoo62278]

The forum has never had a policy against account sales. It has always stated sales are discouraged. Account sales were tolerated til 2015/maybe early 2016 from members here.

Then the tags started flying. My question is, these guys most likely know account sales are discouraged against. They also both have seen multiple accounts be tagged for the same activity, yet they kept taking accounts as collateral.

Now they have been caught, but as long as they say they'll stop, it's ok? How is that fair to anyone else who has been tagged for the same practice?

I could be ok with account sales if certain things were done, but I know users who are selling accounts will not comply with what I would want to happen as the value of the account would probably drop.

If users are going to accept accounts as collateral, then make everything public. Take steps to message users and have the positive trust removed from an account they are selling. Tag the account with a neutral tag as well stating in fact the account was bought and sold and the user who now owns the account is not the old owner, and state who owns the account.

Who's gonna do that though? Not a soul because it centralizes the sales and takes away from the anonymity of the situation.

I agree that some users who are selling accounts are probably awesome for the forum but it's a double standard to allow them a pass and not everyone else period. If you started tagging users for account sales once the community decided its not ok, then your opinion should not be any different based on the user really. They know what they are doing is not acceptable to the community and choose to do it anyways

[suchmoon]

We had this discussion about consistency vs. treating each case individually when the situation happened with iluvbitcoins.  I meant it when I said that the little voice in my head was telling me not to tag him because he wasn't the average scummy account seller.  That same voice was telling me not to tag grtthegreat in this case, based upon his reputation and his promise not to engage in this shit anymore.  I appreciate the community's input here, whether it's critical or supportive, because hopefully it'll lead to a consensus on how these cases should be dealt with.

So what is the responsibility of an account seller? In this case grtthegreat sold an account and that account proceeded to ask for a loan. Weirdly for a lower amount than the sale price, so probably not to immediately scam but perhaps to build reputation. At any rate, that's highly suspicious behavior so either grtthegreat sold it to some untrustworthy shithead or didn't sell at all. TBH I can't imagine what a responsible account sale would look like. It's 2019. Don't sell accounts. End of.

Remember the flack I got and trust ratings that were being thrown around when I merely took Gleb's account off the market? I'm still amazed I was able to avoid red trust but Bruno wasn't so lucky despite the preceding reputation. By that measure grtthegreat should be red up the wazoo, as well as any account he touched as a collateral. BTW I would gladly take on red trust even now, if that helps make things equal and fair for everyone. I know what I did and why I did it so that doesn't bother me at all.

Me salty? Can't possibly be...  

Edit: in case the smiley at the end doesn't convey my point sufficiently - it's not an attack on you, The Pharmacist, personally. You've been consistent and deliberate with your ratings as far as I can see and I don't expect one person to tag absolutely every case of certain actions. There's like 200+ DT2 members now though, so come on y'all pussyfooting (no offense to my dear gangmates) cowards...

[Lauda]

-snip-
I agree that some users who are selling accounts are probably awesome for the forum but it's a double standard to allow them a pass and not everyone else period. If you started tagging users for account sales once the community decided its not ok, then your opinion should not be any different based on the user really. They know what they are doing is not acceptable to the community and choose to do it anyways

If you think it is as simple as that, then go tag all lenders and set a precedence yourself.

TBH I can't imagine what a responsible account sale would look like.

There is no such thing.

[grtthegreat]

I'll address the events in a chronological order.


1. Date: 23rd December 2018
-> User with username "Zoel" asks for a loan of 0.04BTC on my thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.msg48830228#msg48830228.

2. Date: 23rd December 2018
-> I take his account into my control for collateral purposes, post this message from his account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.msg48836695#msg48836695; and approve him the loan amount to his address: 1BLESS3J9JwB3RyqmgMq1RACu31BudX2RA via TXN f583f0a7d164016787b5f24fd4d32d63f896d20c8ace5c8cea3c9c0021af0de1.
-> I always ask everyone to repay loans to my address: 15T6z5fPcHEPVzudg7kC8Fcp5r9MqQPHcb.
-> The repayment amount is agreed to 0.046BTC to be repaid on 13th January 2019.

3. Date: 13th January 2019
-> On the day of repayment, I post this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.msg49211147#msg49211147, and also send this to him via PM.


4. Date: 16th-17th January 2019
-> I make the sales thread, as mentioned in the OP (http://archive.is/ANFQ7). I fix the price at 0.05BTC because the user had to pay 0.046BTC as of 13th Jan, and he did not, I somehow rounded up the interest to 0.01BTC over 0.04BTC and the price was set at 0.05BTC.
-> Soon, I receive messages from "ThePharmacist" and "Decrypted" to take down my threads as selling accounts is an activity heavily frowned upon. Being a member for over 5 years here, I too am among those who frowns upon such activity, but I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan.



5. Date: 17-18th January 2019
-> I empty the account sale threads so as to remove the content as mentioned and requested by other members.
-> Pretty soon, the user "rmccatch" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2130246) PMs me the following asking the final price. I tell him its 0.05BTC, and he agrees to pay.


He pays via the TXN: 09ed82d56050bbff86f19e00d09dc5f27e619a93d16a839afed1feead1a84235 and I send him the account credentials and ask him to change the credentials immediately.
-> From here on, the user "rmccatch" is also the owner of the "Zoel" account.
-> The user goes on to PM me this, and I do not respond to his query:


6. Seeing all this drama, I add this "NO BITCOINTALK ACCOUNTS as COLLATERAL" point in red into my rules.
-> I do not have a proof of this, but I'd greatly appreciate if any of the mods with the edit log access can post the proof for the fact that the thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.0 was edited in order to make the relevant changes.

7. Date: 20th, 21st January 2019
-> The same user "rmccatch" posts a loan request on my thread asking for a loan of 0.05BTC for 2600 XLM as collateral (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.msg49323716#msg49323716). Since he offered me altcoin collateral, I agreed to loan him the amount.
-> He returns the loan the very next day (21st Jan 2019): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5087785.msg49351867#msg49351867. I somehow feel that this was an attempt of trust-loaning.

8. Date: 23rd January 2019
-> He (rmccatch) further PMs me this (pic also includes my reply).

-> But, by that time, "Zoel" (owned by rmccatch) already has the post on zazarb's thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg49384324#msg49384324


1. Please note that I am not an account seller, nor do I encourage this act. Also, before the December of 2018, I've not been that active on the forum and I was not aware that accounts as collaterals have taken this serious a turn as my last lending service was back in 2015-16.
2. As soon as I came to know about this, I made relevant changes to my lending & collateral policy.
3. Regarding the ponzi, the thread is almost 5 years old, it was back in my very early days to bitcoin, and I do agree that it was quite a dick move.

[mdayonliner]

The forum has never had a policy against account sales. It has always stated sales are discouraged. Account sales were tolerated til 2015/maybe early 2016 from members here.

Then the tags started flying. My question is, these guys most likely know account sales are discouraged against. They also both have seen multiple accounts be tagged for the same activity, yet they kept taking accounts as collateral.

Now they have been caught, but as long as they say they'll stop, it's ok? How is that fair to anyone else who has been tagged for the same practice?

I could be ok with account sales if certain things were done, but I know users who are selling accounts will not comply with what I would want to happen as the value of the account would probably drop.

If users are going to accept accounts as collateral, then make everything public. Take steps to message users and have the positive trust removed from an account they are selling. Tag the account with a neutral tag as well stating in fact the account was bought and sold and the user who now owns the account is not the old owner, and state who owns the account.

Who's gonna do that though? Not a soul because it centralizes the sales and takes away from the anonymity of the situation.

I agree that some users who are selling accounts are probably awesome for the forum but it's a double standard to allow them a pass and not everyone else period. If you started tagging users for account sales once the community decided its not ok, then your opinion should not be any different based on the user really. They know what they are doing is not acceptable to the community and choose to do it anyways

I fucking need some sMerits to merit you. But I fucking don't have any left. Feel bad.

Check the statements in the bold. When you are tagging an account seller and account buyer then you are creating your own rules. "Discouraged" should not mean that tag the account.

When you tag an account you basically destroy everything.

Consider this case: grtthegreat is not a bad guy to tag him just because he needed to sell the collateral to liquidated  his capital.

Every forum member has their own value for their own account.

My account has 4 DT red trust but that does not mean that my account does not have a value for me. If I need a loan and if anyone accept my account as collateral (for the sake of argue by the way) I will never walk away with the money. I will do whatever it takes to get my account back. Coz this is my identity I can not sell it.

Consider the account of yahoo (for example mate). If he needs a loan and he offers his account as collateral then anyone will accept it coz they knows yahoo values his account. He will do anything to take his account back. Now what if he don't pay back and default the loan. You go and tag the lender if he wants to sell it and also tag yahoo's account because it will be bought account?

When a lender takes an account as collateral - they don't expect the borrower to default the loan. They think plain and simple that the borrower will pay the loan back and take their account back. But when they don't then what do you expect? The lender face the consequence just because he was nice to someone.

Value the good side of people.

3. Regarding the ponzi, the thread is almost 5 years old, it was back in my very early days to bitcoin, and I do agree that it was quite a dick move.

People do things which they don't like and ashamed of. There are no shame in it. No one is clean 100%. Your 5 years old event were bought here so that the claim get some support which I explained here. OP did not allow me to post it here.

[Lauda]

I can also argue this from another perspective: Lenders that accept accounts knowingly, and are aware that this practice is frowned upon, are indirectly scamming the next person  (i.e. whoever buys the account). If the loan/account used is made public along with the default, then you can be pretty sure it is going to get tagged.

[mdayonliner]

I can also argue this from another perspective: Lenders that accept accounts knowingly, and are aware that this practice is frowned upon, are indirectly scamming the next person  (i.e. whoever buys the account). If the loan/account used is made public along with the default, then you can be pretty sure it is going to get tagged.

Well yeah! this is what you (here you means in general by the way) are practicing. Tagging the accounts which are bought. Whey is everyone so happy when they successfully tag someone? Make no sense.

Make this forum a better place by working together not against each others.

[suchmoon]

Check the statements in the bold. When you are tagging an account seller and account buyer then you are creating your own rules. "Discouraged" should not mean that tag the account.

[Lauda]

I can also argue this from another perspective: Lenders that accept accounts knowingly, and are aware that this practice is frowned upon, are indirectly scamming the next person  (i.e. whoever buys the account). If the loan/account used is made public along with the default, then you can be pretty sure it is going to get tagged.

Well yeah! this is what you (here you means in general by the way) are practicing. Tagging the accounts which are bought. Whey is everyone so happy when they successfully tag someone? Make no sense.

Make this forum a better place by working together not against each others.

If the forum lenders weren't greedy children that are only working for their own self-interest which also give zero ducks about the community in general, then they would have stopped this practice long ago.

[yahoo62278]

Consider the account of yahoo (for example mate). If he needs a loan and he offers his account as collateral then anyone will accept it coz they knows yahoo values his account. He will do anything to take his account back. Now what if he don't pay back and default the loan. You go and tag the lender if he wants to sell it and also tag yahoo's account because it will be bought account?

At a minimum I would expect users in the DT network to tag my account if it is in fact a sold account in your hypothetical example here. My account, if bought, could most definitely be used to scam a large amount of bitcoin.

I am not attacking anyone here personally either, just joking with The Pharmacist in my 1st post, but I am very curious to see where this discussion leads so that current and potential DT users have something to reference when these sorts of situations arise.

[suchmoon]

I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan

Oh please. Who forced you to take the account as collateral?

Let me put this another way. You didn't give a shit if someone ended up scammed by a Hero account, or if the buyer ended with a worthless account (as is the case now with the red trust) because of a piddly ~$20 you expected to make from that loan.

[The Cryptovator]

Everyone know that accept collateral as an account is equal to trading account. I can say it's legal way to sell an account. Because I have seen previously if you tag them then you will receive retaliatory tag. And then someone from DT1 will put him on DT2. Then ther will start another story what happened with The Pharmacist previously. And I believe this is not a good practice for DT member.
That's why no one want to tag this kind of case. But I strongly agree with tag sold account even avoid tag to lender.

[mikeywith]

1. Please note that I am not an account seller, nor do I encourage this act. Also, before the December of 2018, I've not been that active on the forum and I was not aware that accounts as collaterals have taken this serious a turn as my last lending service was back in 2015-16.

let's use some simple logic, when you accepted the account as a collateral, you knew there were only 2 options ahead.

1- Loan is repaid, end of story.
2- User Default on Loan.

how were you planing to handle no 2 exactly? i am not aware of any other thing that can be done except for selling the account.

i'l give you the benefit of the doubt and say you gambled, you thought chances were the guy was going to pay back the loan but , things went south , you need your money back, you sold the account, so that you do not lose money.

but what about other people's money that you potentially put at risk? you sold a Hero ranked account to a newbie, what exactly did you think the newbie was planning to do with that account? post in the Ivory Tower board?

[marlboroza]

8. Date: 23rd January 2019
-> He (rmccatch) further PMs me this (pic also includes my reply).

-> But, by that time, "Zoel" (owned by rmccatch) already has the post on shasan's thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg49384324#msg49384324

You mean zazarb's thread.
And you haven't thought it would be OK to warn zazarb or anyone else that account changed hands? At least with neutral?
Question. No one here mentioned shasan (I double checked it) and not a single account posted in shasan's thread.
What he has to do with this thread?

[eddie13]

1- Loan is repaid, end of story.
2- User Default on Loan.

how were you planing to handle no 2 exactly? i am not aware of any other thing that can be done except for selling the account.

Or, you could hold the account for an indefinite period of time hoping they will some day repay the loan.. No?
Why would the lender absolutely have to sell it? He wouldn't..

Everyone know that accept collateral as an account is equal to trading account. I can say it's legal way to sell an account. Because I have seen previously if you tag them then you will receive retaliatory tag. And then someone from DT1 will put him on DT2. Then ther will start another story what happened with The Pharmacist previously. And I believe this is not a good practice for DT member.
That's why no one want to tag this kind of case. But I strongly agree with tag sold account even avoid tag to lender.

No offends guys but I haven't be clarified my questions haven't been answered. If you say an account used for collateral should be tagged for account farming when should the red tag be given? After lone default (to prevent account selling) or immediately it's offered as collateral   and should all accounts involved be tagged for account farming?

Both the lender and the user should be immediately tagged.

Why are you afraid of retaliation? You would win wouldn't you?
Their are a few of you and you are in control. Why don't you just conspire together and all tag all of them at once?
You are not doing "the right thing to do" in your opinion to "keep the forum safe"?
You can just exclude whoever retaliated to keep your greens anyway..

I am not a huge fan of DT babyproofing the forum with padded walls over such menial things to possibly save the lowest common denominators from petty scams but I implore you to do what you think is right..
Have your nannystate if you want a nannystate.. It is afterall, what would give you the most power..

Trusting an account just because things are being posted from an account is stupid anyway because any account can be hacked at any time. Accounts themselves should not be trusted in any way.
Your staked address is your proof of reputation not your account.
Your account may have notes on it about your reputation, or someone's reputation, but posting from an account does not prove that is your reputation.
A bitcoin signed message from your staked address is. Or PGP key.
People should be cryptographically signing their contracts/agreements before deals are initiated.

Education is the key to scam prevention IMO, just like sex education is the key to AIDS prevention.
Expecting all hacked and sold accounts to be tagged is a false sense of security if you are uneducated.

Red tags aren't going to stop the lenders from lending. Red tags aren't going to stop account sellers from selling accounts (infact it's proof of business to them)..
Soon enough red tags aren't even going to stop accounts from joining signature campaigns, it already does't in many..

Should do we tag:
1- sellers of Bitcointalk accounts - Yes
2- sellers of email database - Yes
3- sellers of followers (more followers on social media: fake hype and more stacks on bounties
4- sellers of social media accounts facebook, twitter, telegram or whatever
5- sellers of betting accounts with probably other owners personal data

RE:

We should be tagging for all of those actions.

Talk about job security, you all sure have a lot of tagging work to do..
The more things you can justify tagging for the better, just like the government, the more things you can control and regulate the better..

[bones261]

Talk about job security, you all sure have a lot of tagging work to do..
The more things you can justify tagging for the better, just like the government, the more things you can control and regulate the better..

Yes, now that theymos has diluted the DT system, we the people can tag everyone. It will be somewhat like the reign of terror. However, we promise that no guillotines will be used.

[mikeywith]

dude needs his money, he can't wait for "indefinite period of time", nobody can. he waited for 3 days and then started to sell the account.

your argument is invalid, that lendee could have came straight and informed the lender that he was never going to pay the loan, the lendee could have passed away, there are tons of things that could have happened and the lender would have no way out but to sell the account , that's why it's called a "collateral" - something you pre-plan to sell to repay yourself.

[owlcatz]

So what is the consensus/deal here? I see all the arguments but somebody should come up with something. Theymos, maybe?

[DarkStar_]

I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan

Nothing forces you to sell the account. I believe I still have a few accounts that defaulted loans in my possession, and have just accepted it as a loss.

Everyone know that accept collateral as an account is equal to trading account. I can say it's legal way to sell an account.

No. Taking an account as collateral can prevent others from being scammed by that individual while the loan is still active.

dude needs his money, he can't wait for "indefinite period of time", nobody can. he waited for 3 days and then started to sell the account.

your argument is invalid, that lendee could have came straight and informed the lender that he was never going to pay the loan, the lendee could have passed away, there are tons of things that could have happened and the lender would have no way out but to sell the account , that's why it's called a "collateral" - something you pre-plan to sell to repay yourself.

When you lend, you should be aware of risks from defaults. I know for certain that I have an account from early 2017 that I obtained via default, and I'm still holding onto it in hopes of eventual repayment (and because I don't want to sell it)

[bones261]

I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan

Nothing forces you to sell the account. I believe I still have a few accounts that defaulted loans in my possession, and have just accepted it as a loss.

Yes, I believe that it is acceptable for a lender to take an account as collateral, if they believe that the person behind the account is likely to motivated to repay the loan and get their account back. For example, if I were desperate and needed a quick loan, if I put up my account as collateral, I would move heaven and earth to make sure that loan was paid. The only way that I would default on the loan is if I became incapacitated.

[grtthegreat]

1

I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan

Oh please. Who forced you to take the account as collateral?

Let me put this another way. You didn't give a shit if someone ended up scammed by a Hero account, or if the buyer ended with a worthless account (as is the case now with the red trust) because of a piddly ~$20 you expected to make from that loan.

1. I wasn't forced to take the accounts as collateral, but I returned recently and without checking if accounts are a still possibly valid collateral, I went ahead and accepted them as one. It was my bad, but as soon as someone pointed it out, I immediately made relevant changes.

2. Let's talk of a case where the account (or any other damn thing) is sold, the seller as a matter of fact has no control whatsoever on what the buyer does with it in the future. How about that a newbie would use the already leveled up account constructively instead of for scamming? Had you been equally rebellious if the same user made some really valuable contribution?

3. Please understand that I do not support the act of selling accounts, and also that it was nothing more than a mere act of liquidating the collateral.


2

----- SNIP -----
but what about other people's money that you potentially put at risk? you sold a Hero ranked account to a newbie, what exactly did you think the newbie was planning to do with that account? post in the Ivory Tower board?

I do not quite understand how I would even have a beforehand idea of what the newbie's intention was?! There's a 50:50 chance that the user will scam. Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.


3

Or, you could hold the account for an indefinite period of time hoping they will some day repay the loan.. No?
Why would the lender absolutely have to sell it? He wouldn't..

Ain't collateral meant for liquidation in case the loan is defaulted upon? No one waits hoping for the lendee to pay the loan back!


4

Nothing forces you to sell the account. I believe I still have a few accounts that defaulted loans in my possession, and have just accepted it as a loss.

Isn't it a loss either way?! All lending services in the world have an interest component, and the only purpose is to make a small profit out of the loaned amount. If profit never was a motive, why aren't the loans interest free? Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

[DarkStar_]

Isn't it a loss either way?! All lending services in the world have an interest component, and the only purpose is to make a small profit out of the loaned amount. If profit never was a motive, why aren't the loans interest free? Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

You can cover losses through interest payments from other borrowers. That is why interest exists; if lending was risk free, then people would be able to offer zero interest/extremely low interest.

Obviously you are free to do whatever, but other lenders in the past were left negative trust for selling accounts. See iluvbitcoins

[MadZ]

This situation is pretty much why I only tag accounts that have been sold, not account sellers. I don’t think it is fair to just allow some people to sell accounts because they happen to be a good guy otherwise. The distinction is purely subjective.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

See iluvbitcoins

That's the exact situation I didn't want to happen again when I was made aware of grtthegreat selling this account.  When I started tagging account sellers in 2016, I always checked their feedback first and if they were extremely trusted, I didn't neg them.  OmegaStarScream was one of those if I recall correctly.  In addition, I've removed negs from account sellers/buyers after some time has passed IF they've shown proof that they've done trustworthy things and haven't been just a scummy account dealer. 

In the case of iluvbitcoins and grtthegreat, all the evidence of trustworthiness was already there.  In the former case, I chose consistency in tagging sellers over weighing in other factors, like his trust page.  I regretted that and didn't want to repeat the same mistake with grtthegreat--plus he gave me his word via PM that he'd stop accepting BCT accounts as collateral and wouldn't sell any more accounts.  Take that for what it's worth.

If any other member thinks I made the wrong decision here, I completely understand--and you're obviously free to leave grtthegreat a neg if you see fit to do so.  I'm reading all the replies here and am trying to gauge how the community feels about how the tagging should be done.  My feeling is that each case ought to be looked at individually, because there are sometimes mitigating factors that would suggest that some account sellers shouldn't get negged, and perhaps a neutral would be more appropriate if any feedback had to be given at all. 

Not all account sellers are the same.  There are ones who should clearly get tagged, e.g., in threads where the OP says he has multiple Sr. Member accounts in stock and is obviously an account farmer.  I really don't like the fact that grtthegreat sold a green-trusted account, and I'm glad it was identified.  I figured it would be with the info he gave about it in the sales thread.  I almost changed my mind when I found that out, but I didn't.

If you think I screwed up, please tell me.  As I said, I was conflicted about this just as I was with the iluvbitcoins case, and I'm open to suggestions. 

[mikeywith]

I do not quite understand how I would even have a beforehand idea of what the newbie's intention was?! There's a 50:50 chance that the user will scam. Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.

well even known scammers have a 50:50 chance of scamming the next person, so why do we bother point out scammers?  why do you think people here discourage account sales? it's by default that when someone wants to buy an established account then their intention is to scam, there are minor exceptions but this does not justify selling accounts and therefore risking other members money.

you sold an account and that's about it, i do not  "yet" tag people for selling accounts, but those who do , should not give you any exception, the reason why they tag account sellers still exist in your case regardless of the cause, and if they won't tag you, then perhaps they should give everybody else a "second chance".

the funny part is this, if the buyer is a scammer, then it's your fault for risking other member's money and  if he is a saint then you risked his money knowing that his account will be painted in red by DT members and become useless and not worth the money he paid for it . apparently only that 0.05 btc of yours matters.

When you lend, you should be aware of risks from defaults. I know for certain that I have an account from early 2017 that I obtained via default, and I'm still holding onto it in hopes of eventual repayment (and because I don't want to sell it)

exactly, if you are not willing to take a loss once in a while, then do not get involved in such business, and once you decide to take an account as a collateral , don't sell it and risk everybody else's money just to save yourself.

[suchmoon]

1

I was forced to sell the account as the user had defaulted on his loan

Oh please. Who forced you to take the account as collateral?

Let me put this another way. You didn't give a shit if someone ended up scammed by a Hero account, or if the buyer ended with a worthless account (as is the case now with the red trust) because of a piddly ~$20 you expected to make from that loan.

1. I wasn't forced to take the accounts as collateral, but I returned recently and without checking if accounts are a still possibly valid collateral, I went ahead and accepted them as one. It was my bad, but as soon as someone pointed it out, I immediately made relevant changes.

2. Let's talk of a case where the account (or any other damn thing) is sold, the seller as a matter of fact has no control whatsoever on what the buyer does with it in the future. How about that a newbie would use the already leveled up account constructively instead of for scamming? Had you been equally rebellious if the same user made some really valuable contribution?

Users who make valuable contributions don't need to buy accounts like that. They can happily contribute with a Copper account for a fraction of the cost or even for free if they don't mind a 6-minute wait between posts.

3. Please understand that I do not support the act of selling accounts, and also that it was nothing more than a mere act of liquidating the collateral.

Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.

Ain't collateral meant for liquidation in case the loan is defaulted upon? No one waits hoping for the lendee to pay the loan back!

Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand even the basic premise of the issue.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Why are you afraid of retaliation? You would win wouldn't you?
Their are a few of you and you are in control. Why don't you just conspire together and all tag all of them at once?
You are not doing "the right thing to do" in your opinion to "keep the forum safe"?
You can just exclude whoever retaliated to keep your greens anyway..

What is this false bullshit that you are posting? If I were in any control, all of them would be long red and banished and the trolls like Quicksie, TECSHARE etc. banned.

Education is the key to scam prevention IMO, just like sex education is the key to AIDS prevention.

Sounds good, doesn't work. Much of the rest of your post contains incorrect information; I ask myself why you have high merit and then I notice who merits such garbage.

3. Please understand that I do not support the act of selling accounts, and also that it was nothing more than a mere act of liquidating the collateral.

Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.

Ain't collateral meant for liquidation in case the loan is defaulted upon? No one waits hoping for the lendee to pay the loan back!

Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand even the basic premise of the issue.

"'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me.

[Timelord2067]

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.

Hmm... delete the evidence... I see...

Archived for future reference. http://archive.fo/d8Yzj#selection-2865.47-2865.105

[marlboroza]

We had this discussion about consistency vs. treating each case individually when the situation happened with iluvbitcoins.  I meant it when I said that the little voice in my head was telling me not to tag him because he wasn't the average scummy account seller.

Correct timestamp: you tagged iluvbitcoins, then you removed tag, then you tagged him again, then he retaliated "trust abuse", then Ognasty included him to his trust network, then your trust become little orange -1 and then you removed tag.

Besides, iluvbitcoins mentioned in thread that he wouldn't sell account to some random newbie, which isn't the case here.

Btw, @grtthegreat, you didn't address this:

8. Date: 23rd January 2019
-> He (rmccatch) further PMs me this (pic also includes my reply).

-> But, by that time, "Zoel" (owned by rmccatch) already has the post on shasan's thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg49384324#msg49384324

You mean zazarb's thread.
And you haven't thought it would be OK to warn zazarb or anyone else that account changed hands? At least with neutral?
Question. No one here mentioned shasan (I double checked it) and not a single account posted in shasan's thread.
What he has to do with this thread?

For example, shasan also takes forum accounts as collateral but he runs scam accusation against them when they default, as far as I can see. You did literally nothing.

3. Regarding the ponzi, the thread is almost 5 years old, it was back in my very early days to bitcoin, and I do agree that it was quite a dick move.

With who you exactly agree? You knowingly run investment fraud in 2014. You even said it is "fair" ponzi.

During 2015-2016 you sold lots accounts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1337283.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333733.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1331574.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1327672.0 3 accounts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1309723.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1291844.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1059168.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1548494.0 --> this was in July 2016. as far as I remember accounts were getting -ve for this at that time.

Now, 2019. - selling accounts again, I mean, not selling, "liquidating"  
I left neutral on profile for now.

[grtthegreat]

"'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me.

Ironically, I've never seen cops arresting the arms dealer whenever a murder occurred! Either of our logic is flawed.

----- SNIP -----

Btw, @grtthegreat, you didn't address this:

----- SNIP -----

For example, shasan also takes forum accounts as collateral but he runs scam accusation against them when they default, as far as I can see. You did literally nothing.

I confused Zoel's post to be at shasan's thread instead of at zazarb's, and when you pointed out, I immediately corrected it in the OP.

With who you exactly agree? You knowingly run investment fraud in 2014. You even said it is "fair" ponzi.

I agree and confess that it was quite a dick move. It was my mistake and I shouldn't have done that. But, if you still believe that five year old thing is something worth discussing over now, I don't think it'd be sensible to do so now.

During 2015-2016 you sold lots accounts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1337283.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333733.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1331574.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1327672.0 3 accounts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1309723.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1291844.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1059168.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1548494.0 --> this was in July 2016. as far as I remember accounts were getting -ve for this at that time.

Now, 2019. - selling accounts again, I mean, not selling, "liquidating"  

Trust me when I say this, or find out for yourself that the accounts were not red labelled then. Seems the forum lacked such great trust guardians back then!  

I left neutral on profile for now.

Sure you did!

[Thule]

Pathetic DT members.

Bombarding users with scam accusations when they tried to buy an account so someone would be able to post images on his service thread but don't give a single negative feedback to a lender who knows the rules very well.
Its so pathetic.You demand from a newbie to uphold the rules claiming he need to know the rules and that its his fault when not checking before and at the same time you don't demand it from a fucking legendary.

@OP Am not giving you negative feedback as per forum rules its allowed to sell accounts.POINT


YOU GUYS JUST PROOFED THAT DT MEMBERS ARE THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER HAVING DOUBLE STANDARDS

[Lauda]

This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust.  I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently.  In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.

I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins.  The account that got bought is another story, however.  I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.

Hmm... delete the evidence... I see...

Archived for future reference. http://archive.fo/d8Yzj#selection-2865.47-2865.105

This wouldn't be the first time that I've seen/heard of this. However, in this case the user that did it knew that it was wrong.

Pathetic DT members.

Bombarding users with scam accusations when they tried to buy an account so someone would be able to post images on his service thread but don't give a single negative feedback to a lender who knows the rules very well.
Its so pathetic.You demand from a newby to uphold the rules claiming he needs to know the rules and from a legendary you don't demand it.


YOU GUYS JUST PROOFED THAT DT MEMBERS ARE THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER HAVING DOUBLE STANDARDS

You're a cute little monkey. Now dance while the adults discuss.

[shasan]

There are too many posts here for account trading and taking account as collateral. Many days ago I contacted two DT regarding taking account as collateral. Their opinion was not to trade the account. Before posting more I want to say I am also a lender and took account as collateral. But today I saw it was against DT's opinion I already changed my lending terms.

As account trader cant be a trusted person we (lenders if trade any account then we should not be a trusted person too.)
If so why lenders will take into account as collateral:
My opinion regarding this is to prevent more scam. Let me tell you, how?
When someone takes a loan latter can take another loan by few minutes where all discussion will be in pm then will make public posts and then took a loan. In this case, 2 people will be looser.
For example: pinkman12345 took a loan 0.2BTC from mdayonliner and then took 0.25BTC from TucoRamirez source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=288496 so for taking multiple loans borrower became greedy and left his/her account for negative. But if it was used as collateral then the 2nd person could stay safe also there was a chance to stay safe.

And incident happens with me and zazarb: meatmeat took two loans from us and flew. We could prevent this scam if we took the account as collateral.

Let me give you another example but different situation: Real14Hero took a loan from tracyspacy and then sold amazon gift card and didn't give that. Source: Real14Hero is scammer.

In this situation, I want to make 2 appeals where anyone should be accepted. But it will depend on other reputed members, forum moderators, DT etc.

1. Account can't be used as collateral
= If so, then any lender cant take multiple loans at the same time and also would not be able to sell anything which can be reversed.
Lenders will give neutral trust once give a loan. And will not give any loan if there is an active loan which can be seen on neutral trust. If lenders or Borrowers break the rules then they/s/he will get negative trust by DT.

2. The account can be used as collateral:
= If so, lenders will be responsible for trading that account. If seen any account trading then all accounts buyer/seller/sold account will be tagged.

Mine prefer method 1. Let's see what is saying by reputed forum members/DT/Moderators.


If any method cant set then what can happen:
= In this case, many people will not be able to take loan while urgency but has no altcoin as collateral. And/or lenders and traders (not account trader) will be scammed more.

[Lauda]

2. The account can be used as collateral:
= If so, lenders will be responsible for trading that account. If seen any account trading then all accounts buyer/seller/sold account will be tagged.
-snip-

As I have explained earlier in this thread, a lender that does this and ends up selling the account is knowingly scamming the next person (as it will get tagged on sight). Take a moment to think about that. Is there really a need for someone to accept loan requests that involve accounts? If you claim so, then explain why it is absolutely necessary.

[suchmoon]

When someone takes a loan latter can take another loan by few minutes where all discussion will be in pm then will make public posts and then took a loan. In this case, 2 people will be looser.

I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that unsecured loans are risky? That's shocking but still not a good excuse for account trading, not to mention all the other potential shenanigans. For example when you take an account as collateral you could be getting a hacked one, which the perp is basically selling to you with no intent to pay back the loan. Essentially you're creating a market for such accounts.

If you want to give out unsecured or poorly secured loans - take the risk yourself, don't push it on the community.

[shasan]

a lender that does this and ends up selling the account is knowingly scamming the next person (as it will get tagged on sight).

I am exactly at the same point as you.

Is there really a need for someone to accept loan requests that involve accounts? If you claim so, then explain why it is absolutely necessary.

As of my 3 examples above scammed could be stopped if the account was on collateral. Or at least 2nd person could stay away scamming. My opinion is that account can be taken as collateral only to stop more scamming, nothing else. Should not trade the account as grtthegreat did. Though grtthegreat not tagged I am not forcing anyone to tag or stay away from tagging. But base on other cases he should be done so.

Are you saying that unsecured loans are risky?

Yes, that is risky for both the current lenders as well as other lenders also buy of reversed payment eg: skril/neteller/paypal etc.

That's shocking but still not a good excuse for account trading, not to mention all the other potential shenanigans.

I am also on the same point as you. I am also against account trading.

If you want to give out unsecured or poorly secured loans - take the risk yourself, don't push it on the community.

It is right that we should give the loan for unsecured collateral or poorly secured collateral on our own risk. But as you know all people are not on the same vessel. Few people give a loan while there is another active loan or take reversible payment. Which make looser for both person.

[marlboroza]

And incident happens with me and zazarb: meatmeat took two loans from us and flew. We could prevent this scam if we took the account as collateral.

I see +2 on that account. Got to do some research, I guess.

~

All these examples(scams) you posted could be avoided by simply taking valid collateral, when you take account as collateral from someone whose only intention is to scam, you create more mess then it should be by selling these account and/or complaining that someone scammed you - but you allowed them to scam you. And then we have drama in scam accusation, meta, reputation, PM..
And we wouldn't have this discussion if some of you guys haven't took forum account as collateral and "liquidated" them.

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

[shasan]

I see +2 on that account. Got to do some research, I guess.

I saw +3 as we still not created scam accusation waiting for his response.

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

It is the easiest way to avoid a scam. But few people who really need a loan and doesn't have valid collateral (the only altcoin is valid collateral according to me), lenders usually consider that (I think). I have seen several Reputed members even DT1 took a loan without collateral. And maximum reputed members are very honest. For example: actmyname asked for a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral where 2 people send so total received 0.5BTC. actmyname refunded 2nd sender. And repaid early to the first person. I also gave actmyname a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral and repaid on time as usual.

[Timelord2067]

It is the easiest way to avoid a scam. But few people who really need a loan and doesn't have valid collateral (the only altcoin is valid collateral according to me), lenders usually consider that (I think). I have seen several Reputed members even DT1 took a loan without collateral. And maximum reputed members are very honest. For example: actmyname asked for a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral where 2 people send so total received 0.5BTC. actmyname refunded 2nd sender. And repaid early to the first person. I also gave actmyname a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral and repaid on time as usual.

Didn't master-p ^(*) get an unsecured loan then walked away with the funds?

* (I know one of those "trusted types" did - just trying to recall who it was)

[eddie13]

If I were in any control, all of them would be long red and banished and the trolls like Quicksie, TECSHARE etc. banned.

I do not doubt that you would ban/banish anyone who disagrees with you about wanting to ban/banish anyone that disagrees with you, but that is not what this forum is about.  I think many would have a bone to pick with that as a good many of us believe in freedom of expression..
Thanks for that written admission of how authoritarian you are.. Banish all the lenders, lol..
I thought you were the supreme leader of the cult of lauda?

I ask myself why you have high merit and then I notice who merits such garbage.

High merit? My merit hasn't even kept up with my activity..
My received merit is quite diverse.. I have more merit from the crazy leftist FH mod that I completely disagree with on most matters than from QS, and Theymos himself which I am quite proud of..
Your top 10, on the other hand, looks like shit..

"'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me.

Are you a gun banner also?
BTW that is how gun sales work where I come from, unless you knowingly sell a gun to someone that is not allowed to have them or knowing they are going to do something bad with it before you sell it to them, you aren't responsible..

But today I saw it was against DT's opinion I already changed my lending terms.

You fold too easily..

But today I saw it was against DT's opinion I already changed my lending terms.
1. Account can't be used as collateral
= If so, then any lender cant take multiple loans at the same time and also would not be able to sell anything which can be reversed.
Lenders will give neutral trust once give a loan. And will not give any loan if there is an active loan which can be seen on neutral trust. If lenders or Borrowers break the rules then they/s/he will get negative trust by DT.

Mine prefer method 1. Let's see what is saying by reputed forum members/DT/Moderators.

So you want a strict criteria of how lenders can operate or be red tagged?
If I give a loan to someone that has another outstanding loan I will get tagged for it?
I will get tagged if I don't place a neutral on the account that has an outstanding loan?
I can't give an anonymous, non-public, loan without getting tagged?

Is there really a need for someone to accept loan requests that involve accounts? If you claim so, then explain why it is absolutely necessary.

Why not?
Because that is what they want to do and they should be free to do so..
Taking someones account is incentive for them to repay their loan to get it back. It reduces the risk of the loan..

I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that unsecured loans are risky? That's shocking but still not a good excuse for account trading, not to mention all the other potential shenanigans. For example when you take an account as collateral you could be getting a hacked one, which the perp is basically selling to you with no intent to pay back the loan. Essentially you're creating a market for such accounts.

If you want to give out unsecured or poorly secured loans - take the risk yourself, don't push it on the community.

A lender would demand a signature from a staked address of the account up for collateral to ensure it is not hacked to guard against that.
Are you, suchmoon, against lenders holding accounts as collateral as long as they don't then sell them? Like Darkstar does..

All loans carry some risk, even altcoin secured loans carry risk because markets move all the time..
See Darkstar's trust rating left on coolcryptovator https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1980983

All these examples(scams) you posted could be avoided by simply taking valid collateral, when you take account as collateral from someone whose only intention is to scam, you create more mess then it should be by selling these account and/or complaining that someone scammed you - but you allowed them to scam you. And then we have drama in scam accusation, meta, reputation, PM..
And we wouldn't have this discussion if some of you guys haven't took forum account as collateral and "liquidated" them.

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

Lenders should not be allowed to make no-collateral loans at all?
They should not be free to take whatever risk they think is worth the reward?

For example: actmyname asked for a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral where 2 people send so total received 0.5BTC. actmyname refunded 2nd sender.

I saw that and and left him a positive feedback for his action there I believe if we are talking about the same situation..

Didn't master-p ^(*) get an unsecured loan then walked away with the funds?

* (I know one of those "trusted types" did - just trying to recall who it was)

As Darkstar said, lending is taking a risk to earn profit..
You don't win em all..


I am obviously against stopping lenders from taking accounts as collateral as long as they don't sell them because selling accounts is now a well established NONO..
I believe they should be free to do so and generally people should be as free as possible in all circumstances.

If you want to set up strict control of lenders as shasan suggested with extreme regulation narrowly guiding lenders to exactly the way they must operate their business go ahead and do that but I think such control exerted over people is ludicrous..

[suchmoon]

A lender would demand a signature from a staked address of the account up for collateral to ensure it is not hacked to guard against that.
Are you, suchmoon, against lenders holding accounts as collateral as long as they don't then sell them? Like Darkstar does..

I would prefer they wouldn't do that. I could never understand why accounts should have any monetary value at all. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it, right? No sales (as in "extremely frowned upon nowadays") should mean no value.

Having said that, I'm not that naive and I realize that unless drastic measures are implemented (e.g. changing password/e-mail/staked address resets all trust, merits, etc) we will have people trying to cash in on that perceived value, so its the lesser of the two evils to have reputable lenders (like DarkStar_) who at least prevent those accounts from falling into the hands of scammers.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Why not?
Because that is what they want to do and they should be free to do so..
Taking someones account is incentive for them to repay their loan to get it back. It reduces the risk of the loan..

The main reason against accepting accounts as collateral is because we end up with situations like this one, where the lender needs to sell the collateral given to him when a loan is defaulted on.  I'm obviously against account sales, regardless of whether it's an account farmer selling a whole bunch or a lender who got stuck with one on a bad loan.  I'd absolutely love it if Theymos banned certain things on bitcointalk, and account sales is near the top of my list (scamming would take the #1 spot).  If account sales were banned, chances are that lenders might become reluctant to accept them as loan collateral.  Hell, I wouldn't mind having a rule against putting them up as collateral in the first place, but I highly doubt Theymos is going to make such a rule.

I'm not against freedom, but there have to be rules unless you want anarchy.  Also, I would point out that sometimes members put their account up as collateral for a loan that they never intend to pay back.  It's a sneaky way of selling their account, basically.  You'd assume that a borrower would want his account back and thus giving it to the lender would motivate the borrower to pay the loan back, but there are many reasons why that doesn't always happens.  I've seen numerous examples of lenders ending up with bitcointalk accounts that they have no real use for (DarkStar_ even mentioned he has one), and then what happens?  They have to sell them.  Technically they don't have to, but it's the only way to recoup their money.

I don't see a clear consensus forming here, nor do I see anyone tagging grtthegreat.  Some folks argue that account sellers shouldn't be tagged at all, some don't like exceptions being made, and some just hate DT.  I know I can't please everyone with anything I do, but if and when a situation like this comes up again, it would be nice to know what the community generally expects.  Even better would be some input by Theymos, but I won't hold my breath.

[shasan]

So you want a strict criteria of how lenders can operate or be red tagged?
If I give a loan to someone that has another outstanding loan I will get tagged for it?
I will get tagged if I don't place a neutral on the account that has an outstanding loan?
I can't give an anonymous, non-public, loan without getting tagged?

Okay first let me show you a post from a DT (xtraelv):

Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral

Which means if a lender takes account as collateral then lenders will be tagged. In this situation, there should have a solution either lender will take account as collateral or not. As it is already solved that account trader will be tagged. So now account trading is rare and if happen that is secretly(except only a few).
So, if taking account as collateral is untrustworthy for what lender will get negative trust. So, there should have few rules to avoid taking account as collateral as well as minimize loan default and scammed for trading reversible payment.

I'd absolutely love it if Theymos banned certain things on bitcointalk, and account sales are near the top of my list (scamming would take the #1 spot).  If account sales were banned, chances are that lenders might become reluctant to accept them as loan collateral.

If it happened then we would be able to reduce scam both on loan as well as currency exchange. And account trading will reduce at least 96%.

[DarkStar_]

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

Because it is unrealistic to only fund loans with valid collateral. From my altcoin collateral required service, I've only had 16 loans given out since April 2018. I've lent much more in both count and value in private to members who I trust without collateral. Crypto Capital attempted to undercut my lending service; unfortunately, they did not get a single loan application with valid collateral. I don't know what zarzab's numbers are, but I'd estimate that they very rarely get loan applications with valid collateral. Crypto Capital is lending at 3.5% monthly, which is not easy to undercut.

No collateral loan defaults create a mess, but so do normal trades where escrow isn't used - should those be banned too?

I've seen numerous examples of lenders ending up with bitcointalk accounts that they have no real use for (DarkStar_ even mentioned he has one), and then what happens?  They have to sell them.  Technically they don't have to, but it's the only way to recoup their money.

Gunthar puts a signature advertising his lending service on the accounts he obtained. I haven't even logged in to the account I got from collateral (yet).

Didn't master-p ^(*) get an unsecured loan then walked away with the funds?

* (I know one of those "trusted types" did - just trying to recall who it was)

xetsr perhaps?

Just to clarify on my stance:
- I haven't accepted an account as collateral since early 2017
- I disagree with leaving lenders negative trust for taking accounts as collateral (unless they sell the account)
- Lenders should not be attaching a high value to accounts. shasan gave a Legendary account with zero earned merits a loan of 0.08BTC. I have no clue what the market rate is, but that seems way too high. IIRC I didn't value Legendary accounts that high back in 2016 in BTC terms.

[VINSIN]

Ofc you need the opinion of an account trader lol.

Indeed there are strange facts and some I don't find them right. How is possible that the lenders can take accounts as collateral and their trust feedback is still the same?!? And yes indeed, a lot of my accounts are taken from some of the bitcointalk lenders.

And I am making a lot of money reselling them. To whom? Eh. Scammers? At least there enough services nowadays and people are not scamming anymore paypal or skrill. That's a good thing.

How can you scam now on bitcointalk? Making a fake or stupid coin and run a sale, default a loan and that's kind of all, maybe small services here and there but mostly this is it.

Regarding loans, there was a few days ago a thread with someone asking for a loan by paypal for 5 days or something that was mostly 100% safe from the part of the lender. He got red trusted, do you want collateral? Neah, some people come to me and buy accounts just to take a loan.

Buy a sr. member for 90$ and take a loan of 140$.

Why is so?

1. Trust system is rigged. You can't have a trust system based just on opinions and not on facts.
2. You can evolve as trust only by trading with other trust members, which is ridiculous.
3. The value of bigger accounts just went to the moon. A newbie/jr. member has no voice heard.
4. Long established rules of the forum that don't want to be changed by the current members.

Stop taking accounts as collateral and stop just tagging everyone for whatever reason you don't like his opinions or ideas (harassment is different, i get that).

In any case the accounts market is though right now, not so many buyers, all the bounties for alts end up with useless coins. Not enough places in the real signatures campaigns.

Merit more the other users that are small and contribuite to the forum.

Making 250 merit to become sr. member it is a hell. A few years ago I didn't cared about the rank as it was growing but itself. From 0 to Sr. just by posting my nickname in an giveaway thread. Now it takes 1-2 years for new members, that's why merit is sold for 5$ each. I am loving this actually xD.

So yeah as conclusion what I want to say is accounts shouldn't be taken by lenders but they have to rethink the notion of the collateral. BTCjam was great We all miss it

[shasan]

Because it is unrealistic to only fund loans with valid collateral. From my altcoin collateral required service, I've only had 16 loans given out since April 2018. I've lent much more in both count and value in private to members who I trust without collateral. Crypto Capital attempted to undercut my lending service; unfortunately, they did not get a single loan application with valid collateral. I don't know what zarzab's numbers are, but I'd estimate that they very rarely get loan applications with valid collateral.

You have received the highest number of valid collateral according to your lending time. It is because you are a DT as well as a high ranked person, no negative trust etc.
On the other hand Crypto Capital is a member and also no positive trust, no DT power as a result though s/he has escrowed fund yet almost no loan with valid collateral.

For zazarb who is a reputed member as well as high ranked got a good number of valid collateral but not better than yours comparing time.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

- I disagree with leaving lenders negative trust for taking accounts as collateral (unless they sell the account)

I agree with this as well, and I think it was discussed a while back if my memory serves me correctly.  The community also discussed whether it was appropriate to tag members who escrow account sales, and I didn't support that.  There are only two things that I think are tag-worthy:  account sales and account buying.  While those other things might contribute to both, it seems like we'd be stretching the limits trying to find more members to tag, and I just don't think that's worth it.

[eddie13]

I could never understand why accounts should have any monetary value at all. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it, right?

I think an account of a legit person has a lot more value to that person than is it worth for sale, and that is their incentive to repay the loan and get their account back.
It is up to the lender to decide if the person is legit or not, or they lose just like a no-collateral loan..

I'd say that my account is worth a lot more to me than its market value. Isn't yours to you?

I'm not against freedom, but there have to be rules unless you want anarchy.  

I lean more towards anarchy than most, but so does Theymos.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe that there was nothing unethical about the Silk Road.

Where they sell a lot worse stuff than Bitcointalk accounts..
Not that I am for complete anarchy on Bitcointalk, SR wasn't even complete anarchy, but I am for freedom, against authoritarianism, and want as much freedom to stay as possible.
I don't intend to push back against what has already been done, but tend to want to guard against further encroachment of freedom.
I am definitely not calling for all tags on sold accounts and sellers to be removed.

Some folks argue that account sellers shouldn't be tagged at all, some don't like exceptions being made, and some just hate DT.  

I would like to be clear on my stance of this..
I don't think account sellers and sold accounts should have been tagged red in the first place. I think that sold accounts should have been tagged neutral only, but I was not, nor am I now, staunchly against it. I understand/understood it and accepted it though I do think it did hurt the economy of this forum.
But, that is over and done with. Those times are long gone, and now I do believe that account sellers and sold accounts should be tagged red because it is too late to ever go back and their is merit for doing so.

I don't really like exceptions being made in 2019, or even 2018..

Back when account sales started getting red trust, before you The Pharmacist were ever put on DT, I did my lending and sold some collateral accounts, and you tagged me for it. Remember, we then discussed it and you removed it..
I STOPPED doing it immediately and conformed to the standard. For all I know we have been on good terms ever since..
Exceptions like that at the beginning I obviously think are right.

But now in 2019?
One would have to be pretty ignorant, especially for an established member, to do it now not expecting and ready for that red trust to come..
If this ignorance of a few established members is acceptable/understandable enough for you to not tag grtthegreat, who should know lending and accounts well, I think maybe it should be discussed to remove the negatives from Bruno's accounts too, who never concerned himself with DT or lending, very likely was just ignorant, and fell on hard times..
I feel pretty bad for Bruno..

I do not hate DT. Even though I do not agree with some DT members on some situations that does not mean that I hate them because I think most DT are doing what they think is ethically the best and are doing their best for unselfish reasons.  

Like I don't think you guys hate me because I disagree on some situations, and that makes me respect you a lot.
I do agree with most DT on most things most of the time, but they aren't much fun to write about

it seems like we'd be stretching the limits trying to find more members to tag, and I just don't think that's worth it.

Yeah, it seems like just an attempt to have and exert more power, encroach on more freedom, create more regulations, I don't like those sorts of things too much.. < Tagging all lenders that take accounts collateral..

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Back when account sales started getting red trust, before you The Pharmacist were ever put on DT, I did my lending and sold some collateral accounts, and you tagged me for it. Remember, we then discussed it and you removed it..
I STOPPED doing it immediately and conformed to the standard. For all I know we have been on good terms ever since..
<snip>
I think maybe it should be discussed to remove the negatives from Bruno's accounts too, who never concerned himself with DT or lending, very likely was just ignorant, and fell on hard times..
I feel pretty bad for Bruno..

I don't recall our interaction, which must have been a few years ago--but no, I haven't had any issues with you before or since then.

Please note that I didn't tag Bruno and therefore am not in a position to help him out.  That's another situation where I've seen all the good he's done for the forum, especially in my early days here, and I was not inclined to leave him a negative during that whole drama.  Obviously others disagreed with me and did neg him, and I have to respect that.  Not all DT members have the same opinion on everything, not even the ones suspected of being in Lauda's kitty-cabal. 

But regardless of what other DT members do, I understand what having a negative feedback on your trust page means when it's from a DT member and I don't want to tag members unnecessarily.  I certainly have made some mistakes, and there's been feedback I've had to retract, and it's not a good feeling knowing that my judgement was off (and I'm sure it wasn't a good feeling for the member(s) who had the neg in place before removal, either).

[suchmoon]

I could never understand why accounts should have any monetary value at all. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it, right?

I think an account of a legit person has a lot more value to that person than is it worth for sale, and that is their incentive to repay the loan and get their account back.
It is up to the lender to decide if the person is legit or not, or they lose just like a no-collateral loan..

I'd say that my account is worth a lot more to me than its market value. Isn't yours to you?

Not really, no. There is a certain risk if it falls into the wrong hands - someone could probably do some damage with it, so I'd like to avoid that. But as far as monetary value it's $0 to me. I can start tomorrow as a noob and be just as happy trash-talking in Meta and mining Grin and doing whatever else I've been doing here. Probably even happier without the drama that comes with the "positions of power" LOL.

[The Cryptovator]

Isn't it a loss either way?! All lending services in the world have an interest component, and the only purpose is to make a small profit out of the loaned amount. If profit never was a motive, why aren't the loans interest free? Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

It's from your side and you recover your lent amount. But what about account buyer? Who have bought account he already got tag so account is worthless. Will you return him his fund and will you get back account? If not then it's not equal a scam ? Because you know very well sold account will tag if DT aware about that. If you are honest then you should get back account and refund buyer fund since account got tagged. Who forced you to keep account as a collateral and who forced you to sell it. You put on sale for stop your loss, now buyer what will do ? If buyer claim now he got scam then it will not wrong my opinion. Because you got solid money but you sold worst things.

Why only account buyer will be tagged? If tag requires then it should be both for seller and buyer. Isn't it?

Buyer should get immediate tag, because who know the account holder. May be he will use it for scam or he will get another loan. Regarding seller discussion is on going. Seems lot of drama here since seller have multiple positive feedback's. Let's see......

I will not surprised if someone put him on DT2

[shasan]

It's from your side and you recover your lent amount. But what about account buyer? Who have bought account he already got tag so account is worthless. Will you return him his fund and will you get back account? If not then it's not equal a scam ? Because you know very well sold account will tag if DT aware about that. If you are honest then you should get back account and refund buyer fund since account got tagged.

Why only account buyer will be tagged? If tag requires then it should be both for seller and buyer. Isn't it?

[TalkStar]

I read the thread very carefully and every members discussion too. I know my words can be sour to listen for our DT members who already disscussed here on this issue. Afterthat i beleive its my responsibility to say honestly whats going on here.

Its already proven here that grtthegreat is a legendary green trusted account seller. My question is to all DT members,

Is it legal for a green trusted legendary member to buy-sell account?

If i get the answer from the current situation here i think its probably "yes". Because still no one taking any action against this account seller. I think its because he is a green trusted legendary member. So we could learn from here that rules and regulations of bitcointalk isn't same for everyone. If i am a green trusted member than i can do anything here which is legal & if i am a hero member or sr member or full member without green trust than anyone can give me red trust easily.

Rules should be equal and same for everyone It doesn't matter that the convicted user have green trust or not . I don't know why this green trusted  member still got the green colour. I beleive it will be red very soon.

As a member of bitcointalk i had opened a thread last couple of month ago with a poll system. The result of the poll was 69% member think account buy sell should be ban officially.
Here is the thread  link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4911443.msg44235140#msg44235140

I have seen many account seller & buyer tagged for selling accounts here. IMO if account buyer & seller tagged then all account seller & buyer should be tagged. Otherwise  tagging should be stop from now.

[Lauda]

Based on the user's actions, their responses and the discussion here, I have tagged and excluded the user.
Anyone who is anti account-sale tagging has flawed judgement. This will be my final input on this matter.

[Timelord2067]

Not really, no. There is a certain risk if it falls into the wrong hands - someone could probably do some damage with it, so I'd like to avoid that. But as far as monetary value it's $0 to me. I can start tomorrow as a noob and be just as happy trash-talking in Meta and mining Grin and doing whatever else I've been doing here. Probably even happier without the drama that comes with the "positions of power" LOL.

Saving Bruno's account kind of blew up in your face though.

[TalkStar]

Based on the user's actions, their responses and the discussion here, I have tagged and excluded the user.
Anyone who is anti account-sale tagging has flawed judgement. This will be my final input on this matter.

Thanks for showing your instant action to keep the forum Clean. From now its fully clear to everyone that it doesn't matter if anyone have green trust or not but it matters by committing any kind of illegal activities no one will get discount here in the future.

Account buy - sell  activity always controlled strictly by our forum DT members. Its another example of that. I wish every user will be much careful about it from now.

Rules are always same for everyone.

[marlboroza]

@Eddie13 I would appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth thank you.
@DarkStar_ thank you for your input on this matter.
@Thule you are not allowed to post here any more.

[eddie13]

@Eddie13 I would appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth thank you.
@DarkStar_ thank you for your input on this matter.

I'm sorry..
It was not my intention to put words into your mouth but rather to understand your stance on the subject as we were all responding to shasan's suggestion of strict lending regulations..

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

Lenders should not be allowed to make no-collateral loans at all?
They should not be free to take whatever risk they think is worth the reward?

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

Because it is unrealistic to only fund loans with valid collateral. 
...
No collateral loan defaults create a mess, but so do normal trades where escrow isn't used - should those be banned too?

DarkStar_ said basically the same thing I did in his reply to the same quote of yours but I get a "don't put words in my mouth" while DarkStar_ gets a "thank you for your input"
Infact, DarkStar_'s posts here have only supported the points I made about taking accounts collateral...

1- Loan is repaid, end of story.
2- User Default on Loan.

how were you planing to handle no 2 exactly? i am not aware of any other thing that can be done except for selling the account.

Or, you could hold the account for an indefinite period of time hoping they will some day repay the loan.. No?
Why would the lender absolutely have to sell it? He wouldn't..

dude needs his money, he can't wait for "indefinite period of time", nobody can. he waited for 3 days and then started to sell the account.

your argument is invalid, that lendee could have came straight and informed the lender that he was never going to pay the loan, the lendee could have passed away, there are tons of things that could have happened and the lender would have no way out but to sell the account , that's why it's called a "collateral" - something you pre-plan to sell to repay yourself.

When you lend, you should be aware of risks from defaults. I know for certain that I have an account from early 2017 that I obtained via default, and I'm still holding onto it in hopes of eventual repayment (and because I don't want to sell it)

- I disagree with leaving lenders negative trust for taking accounts as collateral (unless they sell the account)

Of what subject matter he has touched on, our views have been parallel..

[marlboroza]

DarkStar_ said basically the same thing I did in his reply to the same quote of yours but I get a "don't put words in my mouth" while DarkStar_ gets a "thank you for your input"

Observation, small rant^[1], thoughts. Thank you for your input and don't put words in my mouth.
[1]I had some PM drama from Real14Hero because of this and some PM from shasan because of this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1000796, something about this IIRC.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OK, the feedback left by Lauda and actmyname speaks louder than the discussion we've had here--henceforth, no exceptions to account sellers being negged will be made.  I'm not in total agreement with that, but I do understand the need for consistency and avoiding even the appearance of not playing favorites--even though I have no relationship with grtthegreat and didn't stand to gain or lose anything if I negged him.  My problem is that I can see both sides of the argument, and each side has valid points.  That's why I'm conflicted.

However, if this is the community standard that we're going to adopt I can live with that.  No one should be selling accounts in 2019 and should know that buyers & sellers of them have been getting tagged since 2016 and should be familiar with all the reasons that have been given as to why account sales hurt the forum.

My apologies for waffling on this, and I'm glad marlboroza made this thread so that we can all give our opinions.  I, for one, am thankful for everyone who chimed in.

[Timelord2067]

OK, the feedback left by Lauda and actmyname speaks louder than the discussion we've had here--henceforth, no exceptions to account sellers being negged will be made.  I'm not in total agreement with that, but I do understand the need for consistency and avoiding even the appearance of not playing favorites--even though I have no relationship with grtthegreat and didn't stand to gain or lose anything if I negged him.  My problem is that I can see both sides of the argument, and each side has valid points.  That's why I'm conflicted.

However, if this is the community standard that we're going to adopt I can live with that.  No one should be selling accounts in 2019 and should know that buyers & sellers of them have been getting tagged since 2016 and should be familiar with all the reasons that have been given as to why account sales hurt the forum.

My apologies for waffling on this, and I'm glad marlboroza made this thread so that we can all give our opinions.  I, for one, am thankful for everyone who chimed in.

Are you going to revisit old account sellers, or, draw a line in the sand and adopt a "from this point on-wards" attitude?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Are you going to revisit old account sellers, or, draw a line in the sand and adopt a "from this point on-wards" attitude?

From this point onwards, which is the reason I used the word "henceforth".  Again, I'm speaking only for myself.  If anyone feels differently about this and wants to aggressively pursue older examples of account sellers that didn't get tagged, they're free to do so.  I think it'd be a waste of time and energy, though.

[Lauda]

Are you going to revisit old account sellers, or, draw a line in the sand and adopt a "from this point on-wards" attitude?

From this point onwards, which is the reason I used the word "henceforth".  Again, I'm speaking only for myself.  If anyone feels differently about this and wants to aggressively pursue older examples of account sellers that didn't get tagged, they're free to do so.  I think it'd be a waste of time and energy, though.

Explicitly revisiting wouldn't make a lot of sense/be worth it; although you may encounter a thread or two every once in a while.

No one should be selling accounts in 2019 and should know that buyers & sellers of them have been getting tagged since 2016 and should be familiar with all the reasons that have been given as to why account sales hurt the forum.

This. There is no excuse for doing this anymore.

[TalkStar]

OK, the feedback left by Lauda and actmyname speaks louder than the discussion we've had here--henceforth, no exceptions to account sellers being negged will be made.  I'm not in total agreement with that, but I do understand the need for consistency and avoiding even the appearance of not playing favorites--even though I have no relationship with grtthegreat and didn't stand to gain or lose anything if I negged him.  My problem is that I can see both sides of the argument, and each side has valid points.  That's why I'm conflicted.

However, if this is the community standard that we're going to adopt I can live with that.  No one should be selling accounts in 2019 and should know that buyers & sellers of them have been getting tagged since 2016 and should be familiar with all the reasons that have been given as to why account sales hurt the forum.

My apologies for waffling on this, and I'm glad marlboroza made this thread so that we can all give our opinions.  I, for one, am thankful for everyone who chimed in.

Yeah just tagging can't be a solution to stop account buy sell on the forum. I am completely agree with you that  before tagging its always fair to think about the valid points of both sides. Maybe sometimes its not the original scenario what we see through open eyes. Every valid arguments have a proper reason behind it. I support the way you take decision to tag someone or not.

After all the valuable conversation here its pretty much clear that account buy sell ruins the fame of bitcointalk. Thats why everyone should work together to stop this. I beleive in the near future theymos will reconsider it   

[Zoel]

Hello  I just want to ask did i do anything wrong for giving me a red trust? This is just my opinion. I think its unfair for me after buying the account for the amount of 0.05 withouth any intention to harm or scam people here. With just one post asking for a loan that rejected you will give me a negative trust? Maybe it is acceptable if the lender who i ask for loan will give me a negative trust. But for others who gave me a red trust on my profile. Did i do something wrong to you? If asking a loan will just give you a negative trust then you should give also other user or newbie who are asking a loan a negative trust. Thank you.

[shasan]

Hello  I just want to ask did i do anything wrong for giving me a red trust? This is just my opinion. I think its unfair for me after buying the account for the amount of 0.05 withouth any intention to harm or scam people here. With just one post asking for a loan that rejected you will give me a negative trust? Maybe it is acceptable if the lender who i ask for loan will give me a negative trust. But for others who gave me a red trust on my profile. Did i do something wrong to you? If asking a loan will just give you a negative trust then you should give also other user or newbie who are asking a loan a negative trust. Thank you.

On all of your negative trust stands for defaulting loan and account trading. The account was used to take a loan and then default. After that, you bought the account and also you applied for a loan? Your negative trust stands for the previous scam which already proved. No one will justify either you bought the account or not and if you can prove that you bought the account then that will not be on your favor. Because account trading encourages scamming.

[Avirunes]

Hello  I just want to ask did i do anything wrong for giving me a red trust? This is just my opinion. I think its unfair for me after buying the account for the amount of 0.05 withouth any intention to harm or scam people here. With just one post asking for a loan that rejected you will give me a negative trust? Maybe it is acceptable if the lender who i ask for loan will give me a negative trust. But for others who gave me a red trust on my profile. Did i do something wrong to you? If asking a loan will just give you a negative trust then you should give also other user or newbie who are asking a loan a negative trust. Thank you.

Rating is correct at every point they made in their feedbacks. You should have known before buying that account trading is something that is frowned upon in this forum. By buying account you are encouraging such activities and thereby every feedback left on you by DT's are accurate.

[Zoel]

Then if you think account trading encourages scamming then in the first place you shouldn't allow that.

[Avirunes]

Then if you think account trading encourages scamming then in the first place you shouldn't allow that.

How would you implement that? I don't think there is a way.

Moreover people still continues to trade accounts over chat messaging apps and groups or within friends which is beyond investigators radar.

Also such questions doesn't gives you any relief in your case. The loss you incurred from the DT's action is all because of your mistake.