Legendary account seller

[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.