marcotheminer - con[fidence] man

[bones261]

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.

Perhaps the formula needs to be changed. Instead of  by x2 exponentially for each additional unique user negative trust, perhaps it should be reduced to 1.25. (After all, we have a lot more people on DT1 and DT2 now.) It would be nice if we could incorporate the "amount risked" into the score. Unfortunately, the staff would have to get more involved to ensure the "amount risked" amounts are not false.

[marcotheminer]

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?

 

What are the "multiple times" I've failed to keep my end of the deal? I failed to repay on time TWICE. I repaid with extra interest in both cases and kept in contact with the ones involved.

The only middle ground I see is as follows: leave me a single negative trust for this debacle.

1 trust from Lauda for example. They can edit the trust to include all what others have written. It would bring the score down (I was +11 last I had seen), and down enough that I wouldn't be able to return to loaning for some time (anyway my plan) and I will be on a "tight leash" as per a handful of peoples' desire.

Thoughts?


====

Ultimately, marcotheminer was irresponsible with someone else's time and money and had an arrogant attitude about it.  I thought I might remove my feedback on him if he repaid the loan, but it was this comment that changed my mind:

At the end of the day, all of this was between Roman and I. Any other comments were just opinions from the sidelines. I'm glad you stuck through with me.

I'll be chilling with the loans, to everyone's delight (I imagine). I've made enough in the past week to self-sustain and hopefully grow a nice fund from here on.

He's so happy for himself that he made some money and is completely dismissive of the comments he received from the community.  This is a person who doesn't give a shit about paying back a loan on time, and I strongly suspect that eventually he'll take out a loan that for whatever reason he won't repay.  Potential lenders need to be warned about that, and I don't think a neutral feedback will do it.

Oh, and then immediately after paying this loan off, he sends me a PM:

Loan repaid.

So?  This is what you should have done when the loan was due.  If you're expecting a round of applause for not scamming the guy, you're on the wrong forum.

You've taken that quote out of context so let me clarify: I made enough money from money I managed to pull together to REPAY the loan. Not FROM the loan. Now that it's cleared up, is your mind still perturbed by what you thought was arrogance? I ask that sincerely, not sarcastically.

Don't assume, please. I'm dismissive of comments? I wouldn't be posting anywhere near here if that were true.

Yes, I sent you a PM, as I did to all the people who involved themselves in some way, to keep them in the loop. Jesus, this forum sure can be cynical..

[mikeywith]

changed mine to neutral, will see what others do, will check your trust score again soon, i personally believe it has to be either negative or 0, anything positive and i will have to neg rate you again , at this point i think the majority would agree to the fact that a positive score is not something you deserve.

[marcotheminer]

changed mine to neutral, will see what others do, will check your trust score again soon, i personally believe it has to be either negative or 0, anything positive and i will have to neg rate you again , at this point i think the majority would agree to the fact that a positive score is not something you deserve.

Appreciate it and although I don't agree with the fact that it "has to be negative or 0", it's a step in the right direction.

You can't really think that 2 late loans and perceived "attitude" negates my years of trust? Even aside from trust, my reputation with those I regularly dealt with.

Right now: people are leaving negative trust nearly-entirely on subjective decision making. Make it objective and you'd see a lot of neutrals (I don't doubt people will want to keep my trust page with a "warning", even though nothing wrong took place - at all. Just "out of the norm" lending activity from a fucking 6-year member who has a lot more to gain than some 0.05-0.33 BTCs.... Plus as someone mentioned, by this point I'd "need to scam" over 0.5 BTC given all the interest I've paid + if I wanted to make "scammer profit"...).

Red-scammer warning? A bit much in my, lenders', and others' minds.

[shasan]

Appreciate it and although I don't agree with the fact that it "has to be negative or 0", it's a step in the right direction.

Whats you did?
1. You asked loan while you give loan both at the same time.
2. You promote Ponzi: Archived
3. You are account trader: Archived
4. You delay 2 loans
5. You asked something as a non-collateral loan which you are not able to pay the amount was 0.33BTC while there was 2 other active loan which both you made delay.
6. You stopped updating on the forum where DT hoped you will repay within the extension time or at least you will update. But you did not and you were enjoyed how others react.

[marcotheminer]

Appreciate it and although I don't agree with the fact that it "has to be negative or 0", it's a step in the right direction.

Whats you did?
1. You asked loan while you give loan both at the same time.
2. You promote Ponzi: Archived
3. You are account trader: Archived
4. You delay 2 loans
5. You asked something as a non-collateral loan which you are not able to pay the amount was 0.33BTC while there was 2 other active loan which both you made delay.
6. You stopped updating on the forum where DT hoped you will repay within the extension time or at least you will update. But you did not and you were enjoyed how others react.

Ponzi: settled, I removed it.
Account trader: long past, ALREADY tagged for that, and a whole other discussion to be had about it.

I made it clear I had a loan out. Lenders ready to loan me saw this.

Finally: I updated those INVOLVED, I don't need to update you, suchmoon, etc, etc about dealings between Romand and I. You knew the loan was late, I didn't need to send any proof as I did to my lender.

I have 0.3BTC incoming tomorrow (you want a signed message?), I would've used that to repay 0.33 + in the meantime I earned enough to cover Roman's loan and have leftovers.

"Enjoyed how others react": oh, quiet up with this. Enjoyment of destroying my forum account is quite the claim. It's ridiculous, in case that's not obvious to you.

[shasan]

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.

I think at least s/he should deserve negative. How many chances you usually give?
Marco got a chance while we found him/her promoting on Ponzi.
Marco got a chance while we found Marco is an account trader.
Marco Got chance while s/he tried to take a loan 0.33BTC while there was 2 other active loan and both delayed.
Marco got a chance while s/he delayed the first loan.
Marco got a chance while s/he delayed the 2nd loan.
Marco finally got tagged while s/he failed to repay and could not update after the extension time.

The number of tags seems to depend on how "high profile" a user is.

I don't think tag depends on how high profile of the scammer or suspected person is. And also I don't think the number of negative scores depends on the amount the scammed. You can see the list of highest negatively trusted profile from: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostposts

[shasan]

Those people who advocate marco check this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123782.0
And give your opinion on how trustworthy s/he is!!!

[marcotheminer]

Those people who advocate marco check this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123782.0
And give your opinion on how trustworthy s/he is!!!

Give your opinion?

Or perhaps the better thing is to wait for serious investors to explain how their trading with me went. THEN, people can formulate a sound opinion.

Also check out my reputation thread of general topics: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122134.0

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

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.

I think at least s/he should deserve negative. How many chances you usually give?
Marco got a chance while we found him/her promoting on Ponzi.
Marco got a chance while we found Marco is an account trader.
Marco Got chance while s/he tried to take a loan 0.33BTC while there was 2 other active loan and both delayed.
Marco got a chance while s/he delayed the first loan.
Marco got a chance while s/he delayed the 2nd loan.
Marco finally got tagged while s/he failed to repay and could not update after the extension time.

The number of tags seems to depend on how "high profile" a user is.

I don't think tag depends on how high profile of the scammer or suspected person is. And also I don't think the number of negative scores depends on the amount the scammed. You can see the list of highest negatively trusted profile from: https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostposts

I've said this once, but I'll reply it here again.

Come to think of it, you're promoting a likely money laundering vessel. You're getting set pay.

Do I attack you personally for that? This is still Bitcoin. That arbitrage bot COULD still be real. Yeah, it's typically like HYIPs, but it shows proof I accept. DYOR.

These are not chances. They are negative trust, then "should I let this member trade normally again decision-making". Either way, I continue to trade, red trust or not, people who trust me - I have nothing to prove to them.

I updated WITHIN the extension time.

No, didn't get a chance for account trading: my account was tagged twice for that. Done, repercussions had, moved on.

All else, I've addressed.

0.33 BTC loan? Active loans, not delayed. AND I had proof of incoming 0.3 BTC. Which I got just the other day.

[bones261]

This recent vouch that marcotheminer made in a lending thread is highly suspect. If you check the transaction, and follow the inputs and the outputs, it appears the payment was probably sent from an exchange address to another exchange address. Does anyone have some additional thoughts on this?

Hello! I am new here, but I can provide multiple social media accounts for verification. I have a decent following so I'm not someone who can just disappear with your coins.  

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Loan Purpose: Our furnace needs to be replaced and being an adult sucks. [/b]
Loan Repay Amount: 0.25
Loan Repay Date: 3/10/19
Type of Collateral: um I have 3 cats, a 6 month old baby and a massive collection of Star Trek memorabilia. (100% true) But also, whatever you need to feel confident I can probably do!
Escrow profile Link:
Bitcoin Address:   3KVqfqHMcUVrTxPkGyJNuQ9NFBVcnsXdUt

For everyone's information: I loaned this user and all was settled - fully repaid. LFC_Bitcoin: please remove your negative trust.

Do you have proofs of this loan? Maybe the transactions that you both made?

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof... Take my word. I lent her the following for 40% repayment.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/63d6937d3cf5f9a453eefaf43f8ce820f3080508f45431613e19aa2482d85d04

She repaid with the agreed interest.

[marcotheminer]

This recent vouch that marcotheminer made in a lending thread is highly suspect. If you check the transaction, and follow the inputs and the outputs, it appears the payment was probably sent from an exchange address to another exchange address. Does anyone have some additional thoughts on this?

Hello! I am new here, but I can provide multiple social media accounts for verification. I have a decent following so I'm not someone who can just disappear with your coins.  

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Loan Purpose: Our furnace needs to be replaced and being an adult sucks. [/b]
Loan Repay Amount: 0.25
Loan Repay Date: 3/10/19
Type of Collateral: um I have 3 cats, a 6 month old baby and a massive collection of Star Trek memorabilia. (100% true) But also, whatever you need to feel confident I can probably do!
Escrow profile Link:
Bitcoin Address:   3KVqfqHMcUVrTxPkGyJNuQ9NFBVcnsXdUt

For everyone's information: I loaned this user and all was settled - fully repaid. LFC_Bitcoin: please remove your negative trust.

Do you have proofs of this loan? Maybe the transactions that you both made?

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof... Take my word. I lent her the following for 40% repayment.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/63d6937d3cf5f9a453eefaf43f8ce820f3080508f45431613e19aa2482d85d04

She repaid with the agreed interest.

I thought people would immediately put this into question.

Yes, likely it was exchange-to-exchange. 90% of BTC transactions at present day, are.

I'm not going to spend more time convincing you, as Satoshi said: something something, "I don't have time to try to convince you". The loan happened, it was not made to myself, and even though photobook repaid late she compensated me well for that and kept in constant contact with me.

If you'd like to SPEAK with BOTH me and the borrower, let's organise that, happy to make that effort to settle the beginnings of dumb conspiracies. You'll quickly find we're on separate parts of the world and she (different gender even for christ sake..) asked for the loan after good-enough evidence and reasons for me (actually, even for most "lenders" here it would/ve been good enough - just no one BOTHERED to reach out BEFORE tagging).

Do your own research, don't depend on mine.

[suchmoon]

This recent vouch that marcotheminer made in a lending thread is highly suspect. If you check the transaction, and follow the inputs and the outputs, it appears the payment was probably sent from an exchange address to another exchange address. Does anyone have some additional thoughts on this?

Good deal for a furnace, went from a 0.2 BTC loan request to 0.15 BTC and then marco allegedly lent 0.1 BTC. I hope the borrower wasn't in a really cold place, 2 days patiently waiting for that loan and creating a Bitcointalk account just for that. What's with all these people who presumably make 1000s of dollars/euros per month and come here to borrow $500 at obscene rates (> 400% APR for this one).

tl;dr: bullshit.

[marcotheminer]

This recent vouch that marcotheminer made in a lending thread is highly suspect. If you check the transaction, and follow the inputs and the outputs, it appears the payment was probably sent from an exchange address to another exchange address. Does anyone have some additional thoughts on this?

Good deal for a furnace, went from a 0.2 BTC loan request to 0.15 BTC and then marco allegedly lent 0.1 BTC. I hope the borrower wasn't in a really cold place, 2 days patiently waiting for that loan and creating a Bitcointalk account just for that. What's with all these people who presumably make 1000s of dollars/euros per month and come here to borrow $500 at obscene rates (> 400% APR for this one).

tl;dr: bullshit.

Lol. She's in a safe/modern/first-world place, put yourselves at ease gentlemen/women.

If the loan request was fake or not, I can't actually judge ONLY that it was made following proof (that's what I base my "she used it on etc" on) and then repaid.

Call bullshit all you want, I'll keep taking the opportunities you quickly dismiss. By the way, you don't die without a furnace if you need one. Just wear more layers. Hope I saved you some electricity/fuel with that top-tip.

On the note of "high income/high interest = this is bullshit". YES, it CAN be true that people just fake this shit. In this case, I understand why she OFFERED a loan-shark kind of deal. If you need money, you're ready to pay higher interest, for it to be done quick, no bullshit, online.

Oh that's ironic: suchmoon has blocked your personal messages Welcome to the forum! Level-headed reputation feedback is expected still, guys?

[Quickseller]

I haven’t looked into if the transaction funding the loan was from one exchange to another, the address to fund the loan was posted prior to the loan being funded. I don’t have any reason to believe the transaction wasn’t actually ultimately sent by the person behind 2double0. I do have other suspicions surrounding the loan and the vouch though.

This recent vouch that marcotheminer made in a lending thread is highly suspect. If you check the transaction, and follow the inputs and the outputs, it appears the payment was probably sent from an exchange address to another exchange address. Does anyone have some additional thoughts on this?

Hello! I am new here, but I can provide multiple social media accounts for verification. I have a decent following so I'm not someone who can just disappear with your coins. 

Loan Amount: 0.2 BTC
Loan Purpose: Our furnace needs to be replaced and being an adult sucks. [/b]
Loan Repay Amount: 0.25
Loan Repay Date: 3/10/19
Type of Collateral: um I have 3 cats, a 6 month old baby and a massive collection of Star Trek memorabilia. (100% true) But also, whatever you need to feel confident I can probably do!
Escrow profile Link:
Bitcoin Address:  3KVqfqHMcUVrTxPkGyJNuQ9NFBVcnsXdUt

For everyone's information: I loaned this user and all was settled - fully repaid. LFC_Bitcoin: please remove your negative trust.

Do you have proofs of this loan? Maybe the transactions that you both made?

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof... Take my word. I lent her the following for 40% repayment.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/63d6937d3cf5f9a453eefaf43f8ce820f3080508f45431613e19aa2482d85d04

She repaid with the agreed interest.

[marcotheminer]

I haven’t looked into if the transaction funding the loan was from one exchange to another, the address to fund the loan was posted prior to the loan being funded. I don’t have any reason to believe the transaction wasn’t actually ultimately sent by the person behind 2double0. I do have other suspicions surrounding the loan and the vouch though.

*Facepalm* but I will go with the start-off narrative. Enjoy the quest to prove my fraudulent 0.1BTC loan guys!... Quickseller, hop on a call. Let's have an honest chat. At the very minimum: don't block my PMs

[suchmoon]

Oh that's ironic: suchmoon has blocked your personal messages

It's expected so it's not ironic. I usually block habitual liars because they tend to say different things in private and in public, and I don't really intend to do any private deals with such people anyway.

For example, how come you sent a different amount to a different address than photobook asked publicly? I bet there is a fascinating explanation.

[marcotheminer]

Oh that's ironic: suchmoon has blocked your personal messages

It's expected so it's not ironic. I usually block habitual liars because they tend to say different things in private and in public, and I don't really intend to do any private deals with such people anyway.

For example, how come you sent a different amount to a different address than photobook asked publicly? I bet there is a fascinating explanation.

Did I harass you via PM? Or you've just decided you won't hear me out for anything and you're not yet mature enough to have a proper chat/discussion face-to-face? Cause I am, I'm not sure if I had sent you my contact details, if not: please, unblock PMs, and PM me for it. Ready to call when you are.

I told her I wouldn't be able to fund 0.2.

It went something like this:

Me: Ok thanks for your proofs, I'm ready to send you 0.1 BTC.
Her: Ok that works too
Me: Address?
Her: xxx

Do you need me to export my chats to the email of your choice?

Edit: Don't worry, wouldn't deal with you either. Business goes anywhere in this place, whoever accepts it.

[suchmoon]

Did I harass you via PM? Or you've just decided you won't hear me out for anything and you're not yet mature enough to have a proper chat/discussion face-to-face? Cause I am, I'm not sure if I had sent you my contact details, if not: please, unblock PMs, and PM me for it. Ready to call when you are.

Even ignoring the creepy angle, there is zero reasons for me to have any kind of chat with you, so you can drop that nonsense.

I told her I wouldn't be able to fund 0.2.

It went something like this:

Me: Ok thanks for your proofs, I'm ready to send you 0.1 BTC.
Her: Ok that works too
Me: Address?
Her: xxx

Do you need me to export my chats to the email of your choice?

Whatever you wanna do you can do publicly. That's not gonna change a thing though, so you might as well not bother doctoring those chats.

[marcotheminer]

Did I harass you via PM? Or you've just decided you won't hear me out for anything and you're not yet mature enough to have a proper chat/discussion face-to-face? Cause I am, I'm not sure if I had sent you my contact details, if not: please, unblock PMs, and PM me for it. Ready to call when you are.

Even ignoring the creepy angle, there is zero reasons for me to have any kind of chat with you, so you can drop that nonsense.

I told her I wouldn't be able to fund 0.2.

It went something like this:

Me: Ok thanks for your proofs, I'm ready to send you 0.1 BTC.
Her: Ok that works too
Me: Address?
Her: xxx

Do you need me to export my chats to the email of your choice?

Whatever you wanna do you can do publicly. That's not gonna change a thing though, so you might as well not bother doctoring those chats.

Creepy angle? You're in here accusing me left/right, and you won't get on a voice call to listen to me speak.. hmm. If I had your mindset I'd be saying "WHAT DOES THIS PERSON HAVE TO HIDE?!".

If you're down to do straight business, I'm more than willing to conduct it as is expected: calls, chats, F2F if things get serious enough.

[suchmoon]

Creepy angle? You're in here accusing me left/right, and you won't get on a voice call to listen to me speak.. hmm. If I had your mindset I'd be saying "WHAT DOES THIS PERSON HAVE TO HIDE?!".

Exactly. What do you have to hide that you can't post publicly and need to tell me personally? Particularly since I'm not interested in any kind of deal or conversation with you at all, you're the one pushing it. What would we talk about? Weather's awesome here if you need to know.

Anyway, as a con artist you're overdoing the confidence part. That shit only goes so far.