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

[1713915017]

1713915017

[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?