marcotheminer

[Thule]

What I can see you have a tag that says "Trade with extreme caution" and negative trust for being late on loans, I'm not seeing anything about you being a scammer? Unless you are saying that negatives are only for scammers? Sorry have not been involved in this so just trying to understand.

EDIT; I think most people that gave you negative are reasonable users that may remove or revise the rating at a later time. Although it's not been too long yet.

When going to the trust page you can read at bottom

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Also majority of forum users consider negative feedback with being a scammer which makes that all campaign managers disqualifies members with negative trust as its assicioted with scammers.

[1714134482]

1714134482

[1714134482]

1714134482

[1714134482]

1714134482

[marcotheminer]

What I can see you have a tag that says "Trade with extreme caution" and negative trust for being late on loans, I'm not seeing anything about you being a scammer? Unless you are saying that negatives are only for scammers? Sorry have not been involved in this so just trying to understand.

EDIT; I think most people that gave you negative are reasonable users that may remove or revise the rating at a later time. Although it's not been too long yet.

Right, the tags I received recently came from:

1. Being late on the 2nd loan I've ever been late on. Repaid fully, while maintaining contact with lender, as much assurance as I could provide - I gave.
2. "arrogance and deceit" - quite the scammer tag worthy statement

Note, I was late on 2 loans.. People make it seem like this has been going on for the past 4 months. No, they were 2 isolated and resolved events. So, the trust should be resolved too by now.

Overall, it's the fact that I didn't stick to the deadline. So people saw it as a perfect opportunity (following Roman's thread) to destroy my account. I have no scammed, nor will scam. I was late on 2 very short term loans in the past month. Perhaps next time, minimum duration will be a month to account for these things. I rather keep it short as the "best case", since best cases are the usual outcome.

[asche]

What I can see you have a tag that says "Trade with extreme caution" and negative trust for being late on loans, I'm not seeing anything about you being a scammer? Unless you are saying that negatives are only for scammers? Sorry have not been involved in this so just trying to understand.

EDIT; I think most people that gave you negative are reasonable users that may remove or revise the rating at a later time. Although it's not been too long yet.

What was mentioned is the "instruction" regarding when to leave a neg

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

So basically the argument of marco is that a red tag should be used only to expose scammers.

[marcotheminer]

Right. Let me add too: if my account stays as it is or if it reverts to how it was nothing really changes. People who trust me will continue to do so. People who only trust me because of a reputation number, will not deal with me (that was already the case from BadBear/Mitchell trusts). (hopefully these members begin to realise, this number is easily manipulated for BOTH good and for bad, and look through it onto more meaningful reputation metrics).

I will continue to use the forum for business/services/trades/lending/discussion/you name it; as I have done these past 6 years, a scammer tag won't change that and won't change my ability to successfully cooperate with other members.

That being said: it is still a pain and I would rather it not remain as it is, for the numerous reasons I've outlined.

[marlboroza]

Have you repaid old loans?

This is your address https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113021.msg49863740#msg49863740

Part of wallet https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/013184bb1458a768/addresses

http://archive.is/Xj5R0 2double0 ^[1]
http://archive.is/dgJ6L MegaHuslr
http://archive.is/uf3md bitkilo
http://archive.is/mEHc0 deborameeks
http://archive.is/Pp0Er howzar
http://archive.is/TAEHd Mondy
http://archive.is/YveGk Mobo
ETC.

Lutpin connected several accounts with howzar few years ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13605820#msg13605820
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13605983#msg13605983
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13613499#msg13613499

Seems like loan scammer. You don't know anything about this, don't you?  

---------------------------------

If anyone has time to go through this wallet there are possible more accounts (probably sold/default/whatever).

[1] Well, this is funny:



That account used address which is part of marcotheminer's wallet  

[DarkStar_]

http://archive.is/uf3md bitkilo

Where did the bitkilo connection come from?

[suchmoon]

http://archive.is/uf3md bitkilo

Where did the bitkilo connection come from?

https://archive.fo/uf3md#selection-6531.0-6531.29 (look in the list, can't link directly)

[marlboroza]

http://archive.is/uf3md bitkilo

Where did the bitkilo connection come from?

Well...

Hi lightlord, could you please change my payment address, i have also sent you a PM about this.
Thank you.

And this is marcotheminer's addy

http://archive.is/uf3md#selection-6663.0-6663.161 (scroll up and check table)

Unless they used marcotheminer's address in signature campaign to repay loan, but that doesn't make sense because marcotheminer posted this:

Repaid late, but repaid! Thanks.

https://blockchain.info/tx/145e60f1c3d801b8f82656d72dd114a160f7652f332640e4a5963edeb415d9f8

https://blockchain.info/tx/72f670a9c71c39d03d13c9ce62d8d22e7176f3e07e1cde5a79537e80be8ed0aa

Repayment came from 17eDS4zwUvd3whq6ep46NRN4gVegQ8JuFM which is bitkilo's address https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161170.msg18700229#msg18700229

I am really confused. That loan should have been repaid a month before this transaction.

[shasan]

I suspected 2double0 was linked with marco (archived)
Marco gave a loan to 2double0 but they didn't keep that record. I have also created a post where I thought 2double0 might be a scammer.
Quickseller also thought they are using by the same owner, see his/her topic on reputation board.

[Quickseller]

I think this is a good example as to why those who don’t participate in the marketplace have no business in the DT system.

Who are you referring to, exactly?  And why is it you think someone who hasn't been involved in this particular marketplace on this particular forum is so inexperienced in life and/or trading that they're unable to notice someone stringing a lender along and acting in a reprehensible manner?  That is a ridiculously illogical conclusion, and it's nothing more than a veiled attempt to throw a pebble at the DT system.

I am referring to anyone who doesn't regularly trade, or who has not previously traded extensively.

My concern is not about being qualified to hand out ratings, my concern is about the lack of self governance. The most active DT members have never traded (or have seldom traded) in the marketplace, and have not been selected to be on DT by anyone with any kind of substantial trading history in the forum marketplace, and as such, their judgment as to when (or when not) to leave a particular rating does not represent the consensus (nor the will) of those who will use the DT system in any substantial way.  Instead, ratings, or lack thereof has more to do with the person is a member of a clique of a small group of people.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the original term of the loan was supposed to be for one week, with ~13% interest, instead, the loan was repaid 17 days, and approximately 66% interest was paid. 5x the agreed amount of interest was paid in exchange for the loan lasting approximately 2.43x it should have.

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

[marcotheminer]

I suspected 2double0 was linked with marco (archived)
Marco gave a loan to 2double0 but they didn't keep that record. I have also created a post where I thought 2double0 might be a scammer.
Quickseller also thought they are using by the same owner, see his/her topic on reputation board.

2double0 is not my account, it is not used by me, I do not own/use it. How many times do I need to say this?

Have you repaid old loans?

This is your address https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113021.msg49863740#msg49863740

Part of wallet https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/013184bb1458a768/addresses

http://archive.is/Xj5R0 2double0 ^[1]
http://archive.is/dgJ6L MegaHuslr
http://archive.is/uf3md bitkilo
http://archive.is/mEHc0 deborameeks
http://archive.is/Pp0Er howzar
http://archive.is/TAEHd Mondy
http://archive.is/YveGk Mobo
ETC.

Lutpin connected several accounts with howzar few years ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13605820#msg13605820
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13605983#msg13605983
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg13613499#msg13613499

Seems like loan scammer. You don't know anything about this, don't you? 

---------------------------------

If anyone has time to go through this wallet there are possible more accounts (probably sold/default/whatever).

[1] Well, this is funny:



That account used address which is part of marcotheminer's wallet 

Ah this again. I have NO outstanding debts ANYWHERE. Connect all the accounts/addresses you want: I use marcotheminer, it is my forum account. Whatever links I've had to other accounts are long irrelevant.

And please: What "old loans"

I think this is a good example as to why those who don’t participate in the marketplace have no business in the DT system.

Who are you referring to, exactly?  And why is it you think someone who hasn't been involved in this particular marketplace on this particular forum is so inexperienced in life and/or trading that they're unable to notice someone stringing a lender along and acting in a reprehensible manner?  That is a ridiculously illogical conclusion, and it's nothing more than a veiled attempt to throw a pebble at the DT system.

I am referring to anyone who doesn't regularly trade, or who has not previously traded extensively.

My concern is not about being qualified to hand out ratings, my concern is about the lack of self governance. The most active DT members have never traded (or have seldom traded) in the marketplace, and have not been selected to be on DT by anyone with any kind of substantial trading history in the forum marketplace, and as such, their judgment as to when (or when not) to leave a particular rating does not represent the consensus (nor the will) of those who will use the DT system in any substantial way.  Instead, ratings, or lack thereof has more to do with the person is a member of a clique of a small group of people.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the original term of the loan was supposed to be for one week, with ~13% interest, instead, the loan was repaid 17 days, and approximately 66% interest was paid. 5x the agreed amount of interest was paid in exchange for the loan lasting approximately 2.43x it should have.

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

In general agreement with what you've said.

May I add too: piggy-backing on others' trusts is a sure way of showing a member doesn't think for themselves. If they jump on the negative-trust bandwagon, they're just wanting to flex some power or something probably. Because by that point adding an extra negative trust adds nothing of value to making others aware of the negative-trusted user's actions (obviously, unless they were +100 in the green).

[mdayonliner]

You guys are very good at painting users. Always keen to find an issue in others. You are helping the community?

This guy may be late to pay but he repaid the lender with extra amount as late fees. One of the lender panicked so he created a topic. And you lot just ruined everything for this user?

After your red tag this guy could deny repayment. Who would suffer then? The OP of course, coz he would lost his money. Good thing that this guys did not do that.

Where were you guys when hilariousandco did not remove cloudbet's name from his CL prize pool topic while there were a big scam accusations of 330 BTC was open. It was resolved later but wasn't it obvious if I or any other user would do the same then your lot would red paint them?

You would not mass with hilariousandco because he has the same power or to some extend more influence then you all lot have.

[nutildah]

If I were to have tagged him for anything, it would be promoting a Ponzi in his sig space.



It was definitely a Ponzi or else straight up scam. There's no room for debate with silly promises like these:



However, I am of the opinion that once somebody has been tagged for something, there is no reason to add another tag for the same thing. I've been trying to give them out sparingly.

[shasan]

If I were to have tagged him for anything, it would be promoting a Ponzi in his sig space.

For promoting Ponzi on signature space Marco tagged by Suchmoon and other DT. But later they gave him a chance and all DT removed negative trust which has been given for promoting Ponzi.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I am not sure if you are aware, but the original term of the loan was supposed to be for one week, with ~13% interest, instead, the loan was repaid 17 days, and approximately 66% interest was paid.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but marcotheminer had the lender anxious enough that he started a scam accusation thread, and the extra interest was only added once marcotheminer had been negged and pressured to pay the guy back. 

You still haven't said who you're talking about, because I'm 100% sure you have specific members in mind that for some reason you won't share.  If you're talking about me, please tell me how I'm unable to empathize with the lender in this case because of the hard time marcotheminer was giving him.  How much experience is enough?  Please tell me, I'm dying to know what your standards are.

You guys are very good at painting users. Always keen to find an issue in others. You are helping the community?

There was a very clear issue here, and it wasn't something someone had to go digging for.  It's also disheartening how your attitude has changed since you received that neg for trying to escrow $100k.  Hopefully you can see that this isn't malicious, just as hilariousandco's neg on you wasn't malicious.  We're dealing with the internet, anonymous people, and an irreversible form of currency.  This is the only way to keep the community clean, especially when no one goes to the authorities when they get scammed.

[bones261]

You guys are very good at painting users. Always keen to find an issue in others. You are helping the community?

This guy may be late to pay but he repaid the lender with extra amount as late fees. One of the lender panicked so he created a topic. And you lot just ruined everything for this user?

After your red tag this guy could deny repayment. Who would suffer then? The OP of course, coz he would lost his money. Good thing that this guys did not do that.

     How long do you recommend we wait to tag someone for being late on a short term loan? Especially when the lender starts a thread bringing up their concerns? It appears 10 days late on a loan that's only supposed to be a week is not sufficient grace for some people around here. Should DT sit on their hands for 30 days? 60 Days? 90 days? Indefinitely? Also, if DT spots the same account trying to get another loan while another is late, should DT sit on their hands?
    The only reason that I am not adding another negative trust comment to marcotheminer's trust page is because I do agree with LoyceV that this probably has more than enough redundancy at this point.
    Also, if someone is denying payment because DT started red tagging them for being late, that is untrustworthy behavior. In the end, I'm glad marcotheminer made everyone whole plus penalty and interest. However, in the future, it appears when marcotheminer is negotiating terms, he needs to learn to under-promise and over-deliver. As a bill collector, there is nothing more irritating than constantly getting "call me tomorrow, and I will pay," or "the check is in the mail." If they must be late, I would prefer that they just tell me a week or even a month (and make good) so I don't have to keep following up.

[LoyceV]

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

I see no need to be protecting only a certain category of people. When I tag an account, it's meant to protect anyone.

[Quickseller]

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

I see no need to be protecting only a certain category of people. When I tag an account, it's meant to protect anyone.

If I am not going to trade with person x regardless of their trust rating, you tagging person x is not going to protect me because it will not change anything. On the other hand, if I am considering buying widgets and you tag person x who sells widgets, then I would be protected (to the extent I am willing to listen to your warning) if you tag him for being a scammer. If you also sell and/or trade widgets, then you would want person x to be tagged if he is a scammer because if he scams a bunch of widget buyers, the marketplace could get a reputation that it isn’t safe to buy widgets, scarring potential buyers away.

You may not limit your tags to widget scammers in the above example because a scammer who sells hammers might scare away potential widget buyers and otherwise give the marketplace a reputation where people mostly get scammed, or the victim of a scam attempt.

In the same example, if you tag people unfairly who trade hammers, the marketplace might get a reputation for not being fair and potential widget buyers might not want to use the marketplace to buy widgets, hurting your business. Also some people might be afraid to do business with you if you tag people unfairly.

[marcotheminer]

If I were to have tagged him for anything, it would be promoting a Ponzi in his sig space.

For promoting Ponzi on signature space Marco tagged by Suchmoon and other DT. But later they gave him a chance and all DT removed negative trust which has been given for promoting Ponzi.

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.

===


NO LONGER SEEKING LOANS (1Month)
I received the expected 0.3BTC, so that's a month of income right there.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I fucked up 2 small loans - no a big deal in my books.

This is part of the problem, the fact that you can't see this from anybody else's viewpoint other than your own.  It may not seem like a big deal to you, but you weren't the one wondering if you were going to ever see your money again or whether the borrower was just stringing you along with false promises.

Also, I think bones was asking a rhetorical question when he asked how long DT members should wait before tagging someone for repaying a loan late, and it certainly isn't a question that you ought to be answering.  In fact, seeing as how the only thing your input has gotten you is more red trust, you might want to just remain quiet.  You are definitely not helping yourself with your words.