Legendary account seller

[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.