marcotheminer - con[fidence] man

[shasan]

Make the threads about "my bullshit" civilised dude. Don't be a dick.

Fair warning is a NEUTRAL trust. SCAMMER warning is a NEGATIVE trust. There's a reason neutrals were introduced.

Negative trust stands for the person whom you think that person is a proved scammer or can highly believe that the person scam. Base on your activity from the coming back on the forum all are scammy so, I and many people highly believe you can scam.

[1713533524]

1713533524

[1713533524]

1713533524

[asche]

Dear all

I just read this thread with increasing interest.
While marco made a mistake, repaying late, and not handling the business professionally maybe the reaction is a bit harsh. Let's have a look at the facts:

• He repaid late
• He was difficult to contact for the lender
• The lender hasn't left him a negative
• The lender left him a positive rating

If we now compare the situation to a "traditional" market place like ebay or alike, it wouldn't be possible to leave a negative for the business handled by others.

The negatives he received are not wrong per so but some are a bit harsh and not as factual as they should in my opinion

This member is proving himself to be untrustworthy as far as taking loans go, and I'll review this feedback if and when he pays back the loan from the reference thread.

I would invite The Pharmacist to review his feedback and state that the repayment, while late was paid. Choosing Neutral or Red is of little importance.

Failing to repay a loan, again.

Why not be more specific and say it was a late repayment. With this feedback you will let people think he actually completely defaulted on the loan which he didn't (unless I missed something).

A fair warning is let potential lenders know he is often repaying late, but he actually is repaying (until now). Why overreach?
Going any further is doing harm he doesn't deserve in my opinion.

[Lauda]

• The lender left him a positive rating

Maybe the lender likes trust farming. Oh wait, I'm talking about almost the whole lending section here. Nevermind.

[shasan]

he lender left him a positive rating

I will be glad if the lender give 0.33BTC loan to marco.

I would invite The Pharmacist to review his feedback and state that the repayment, while late was paid. Choosing Neutral or Red is of little importance.

Probably you have missed this post

Why not be more specific and say it was a late repayment.

it could be a late repayment if the borrower (marco) could maintain contact but marco openly took the extension and that time passed but marco has not updated anything that was going on. And a few days later s/he paid and told he made a profit by that money.
Is there anyone right to make money by someone's money without permission?
Is the lender gave him/her extension?
If yes, then why the lender created the post?
Why the lender was so upset by saying "still not responded"?

I have no problem if every DT revises their feedback I have no problem. But I think DT has other business to do; not only to check a person. Who got negative trust a few days ago and DT revised their feedback to give another chance.
But what happened?
Same!!!

[asche]

Probably you have missed this post

Probably you have missed that since that post OP stated he was repaid.

Again while the feedback might stay red, it is technically unaccurate right now. And I guess TP The Pharmacist will update it when he passes by.

Is there anyone right to make money by someone's money without permission?

He doesn't nee his permission to "make money with it".

He only needs his permission for the extension. Which he didn't get either. I'm just saying that in the end, the lender seems happy with the transaction. To me he is the best judge.
Objectively calling it a late repayment is fine, calling it a default is not.

[The Cryptovator]

Fair warning is a NEUTRAL trust. SCAMMER warning is a NEGATIVE trust. There's a reason neutrals were introduced.

Neutral warn will not help if someone not want to visit your trust wall. Every negative feedback's doesn't  scammer. There is comment why someone left negative feedback's.

Probably you have missed that since that post OP stated he was repaid.

Probably you missed he was paid after got red tag.

seems happy with the transaction. To me he is the best judge.

Obviously lender will happy if he get back his money. But... if lender was satisfied with borrower behaviour then why lender had opened accusation against borrower?


My personal opinion is, red tag should remain for few days. If he change his behaviour then might be DT could consider turn it on neutral. But its depend on DT's who have left him feedback's.

[LoyceV]

Neutral warn will not help if someone not want to visit your trust wall.

You're right, but if someone lends out money without doing the slightest background check, that's on them. I stand by my neutral feedback from 5 days ago:

I'll join the long line of neutral warnings: be very careful when lending coins to this user without collateral. I wouldn't do it.

He repaid, that's something. He has plenty of warnings, that should be enough to warn others in the future.

[asche]

Probably you have missed that since that post OP stated he was repaid.

Probably you missed he was paid after got red tag.

You should read The Pharmacist's feedback again. Either you missed something or your judgment is way off.

[The Cryptovator]

You should read The Pharmacist's feedback again. Either you missed something or your judgment is way off.

I read it, but it doesn't mean that he have to turn feedback in neutral instantly.

He repaid, that's something. He has plenty of warnings, that should be enough to warn others in the future.

I am not supporting to damage anyone reputation, but if someone paid after got tag then he doesn't deserve instant neutral. You have to understand situation. It's fine he have repaid the lent amount. And DT's might reconsider his feedback's. I am repeat again, although he shouldn't tag permanently but his feedback's should remain for few day's  in order to warn others lender and community.

[asche]

You should read The Pharmacist's feedback again. Either you missed something or your judgment is way off.

I read it, but it doesn't mean that he have to turn feedback in neutral instantly.

I never said he should.

[DireWolfM14]

I was clear to him I would be late, he didn't like it (of course not) but was AT EASE when I provided all the proof he would ever need to believe I would repay.

At ease?  Do these posts sound like the lender was at ease?

One more day and not pay, we will see tomorrow

This man not pay me, saying tomorrow , tomorrow..... last was friday for sure, but again didnt pay me

Community how i have to do to say to mods that ban the account of this man?
need open a threat?
Which section?
Thx for help

I don't know how you define the term "at ease," but I would agree with VOD that these sound like the posts of someone who is under duress.  This deceitful, arrogant, cavalier attitude about the lender's money and time is why I feel justified leaving negative trust.

Yes, you eventually paid back the loan, with extra interest.  But doing the right thing eventually, after running out of options doesn't absolve you of being held accountable for your actions. 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I would invite The Pharmacist to review his feedback and state that the repayment, while late was paid. Choosing Neutral or Red is of little importance.

I've already explained my reasoning for keeping his feedback negative in another thread, and I did think twice before making that decision.

You have to understand how anxiety inducing it is when someone has your money and is acting with a very cavalier attitude toward paying it back.  It obviously was very much so in this case, because a scam accusation thread was started.  Marcotheminer was extremely glib in his responses to the community and very dismissive of everyone's concerns. 

Future lenders need to be aware of this behavior, and they might not pay attention to his trust page if there isn't a clear warning--and a neutral feedback won't do that, unfortunately. 

             

[suchmoon]

Make the threads about "my bullshit" civilised dude. Don't be a dick.

Fair warning is a NEUTRAL trust. SCAMMER warning is a NEGATIVE trust. There's a reason neutrals were introduced.

I did give you a neutral. Next week you were at it again. You could have refrained from borrowing if you're consistently unable to repay, it's not like somebody forced you to take the money and sit on it.

Failing to repay a loan, again.

Why not be more specific and say it was a late repayment. With this feedback you will let people think he actually completely defaulted on the loan which he didn't (unless I missed something).

This was posted before he repaid the loan.


The trouble with marco is that he'd do it again if he could get back to + rating. All this faux outrage etc already played out a couple of weeks ago as the earlier set of neutral ratings indicates. So the question is how many times is enough. To me it seems that paying the loan back on time is literally the only obligation these short-term no-collateral one-payment trust-farming loans put on the borrower so if one fails to do that repeatedly and belligerently - that's untrustworthy. Use "extreme caution" (e.g. collateral) if you lend him money.

[shasan]

Probably you have missed that since that post OP stated he was repaid.

Yes, I gave you the wrong link. The link is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122070.msg50221889#msg50221889 You can see it if you wish.

Its not your decission if a delay is an issue but the lenders.The lender decides if he is going to take that risk or not.
If you demand bank quality collateral and safty maybe also start demanding bank interrest like 5% per anno and not 10% per week

Have you seen any DT gave any trust before the post which has been created by the lender? DT engaged only after the accusation which has been made by the lender. Please have a look at the trust ratings and also the post by the lender. Then you would be able to know the actual reason.

[suchmoon]

For the record, I wiped out the trolls (please refrain from feeding them, they have lots of other threads to snack on) and marco's double-post, which I quoted earlier.

[shasan]

For the record, I wiped out the trolls (please refrain from feeding them, they have lots of other threads to snack on) and marco's double-post, which I quoted earlier.

Yes, marco created a multi-post which I told on their post. Now probably there is one active post and deleted other post or removed by moderator as many people may report as both topics are for the same reason.

[marcotheminer]

Make the threads about "my bullshit" civilised dude. Don't be a dick.

Fair warning is a NEUTRAL trust. SCAMMER warning is a NEGATIVE trust. There's a reason neutrals were introduced.

I did give you a neutral. Next week you were at it again. You could have refrained from borrowing if you're consistently unable to repay, it's not like somebody forced you to take the money and sit on it.

Failing to repay a loan, again.

Why not be more specific and say it was a late repayment. With this feedback you will let people think he actually completely defaulted on the loan which he didn't (unless I missed something).

This was posted before he repaid the loan.

I'm not consistently unable to repay, I've had 2 late loans. ONE & TWO. Now, as I said, I have some income flowing. Enough to prevent be from asking for $200..

And I didn't sit on anyone's money. I used it.

The trouble with marco is that he'd do it again if he could get back to + rating. All this faux outrage etc already played out a couple of weeks ago as the earlier set of neutral ratings indicates. So the question is how many times is enough. To me it seems that paying the loan back on time is literally the only obligation these short-term no-collateral one-payment trust-farming loans put on the borrower so if one fails to do that repeatedly and belligerently - that's untrustworthy. Use "extreme caution" (e.g. collateral) if you lend him money.

Big assumption there mate. Neutral ratings I got from the past weeks were from a late loan - 2 late loans makes those negatives? I don't think that's a valid point.

I'm not trust farming, I needed the money so I came to the one place people actually help others out (that they decide to trust). Who are you to say why or why not I should be taking a loan?

Belligerently? Please do tell: how was I hostile or aggressive..

[suchmoon]

Who are you to say why or why not I should be taking a loan?

It's a forum, saying things is what we do here. If anyone wants to lend you money - that's their issue, I can't stop that.

Here is what you should stop doing though: making multiple posts in a row. It's getting really annoying.


Thule, you're not allowed to post here. Go away.

[mikeywith]

i am going to through my 2 cents here ,, the main problem i have with marcotheminer is; that he got 10 positive ratings , should all negative ratings be deleted now, he would end up with a very good trust score which he certainly does not deserve.

he is not a proven scammer but he indeed is irresponsible and untrustworthy to say the least, the current trust score he has might be unfair, but I rather be unfair to 1 person than to the whole community.

based on the multiple times this user failed to keep his end of the deal, does anybody who disagree with the current negatives think this guy deserves a trust page with 10 positives and an outstanding trust score ?  

we all know that neutral feedback are as good as worthless, you need to be reasonable and look at things from a new comer perspective, do you think it's fair to give marcotheminer the privilege of being "blindly" trusted by other members ? will you be held responsible for the next accusation against him?

 

[LoyceV]

based on the multiple times this user failed to keep his end of the deal, does anybody who disagree with the current negatives think this guy deserves a trust page with 10 positives and an outstanding trust score ?

He has had 2 red tags from Mitchell and BadBear (both former staff) since 2015. I don't think he deserves +100, but I also don't think he deserves -246.
Somewhere in between fits the case better.

This user got -256 after scamming more than 16 Bitcoin. There it's appropriate.
This user got just -4 after scamming 7.37 Bitcoin.
The number of tags seems to depend on how "high profile" a user is.