This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin

[marlboroza]

LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing, the wrong thing here is done by the DT bullshit propaganda lobby that give people negatives for no reason in the name of the so called "saving the forum" while they are digging the forum grave.

The flags were a great move by theymos which these bullshit propaganda lobby of course do not like.

I understand that you are butthurt because your account is still connected to scammerz accounts, you self vouched for payed gambling tips, lied and, to use timelord's words, "advocated physical violence", but why do you think LFC did the right thing? We posted our reasons why we agree or don't agree but I don't see yours, and at this moment your point looks like this:

LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing

[1715264036]

1715264036

[1715264036]

1715264036

[1715264036]

1715264036

[1715264036]

1715264036

[Joel_Jantsen]

With all respect, I disagree with the Feedback left on the profile. Maybe a suggestion to lock to thread or asking reasons why they should be considered for a no-collateral loan could be done before tagging them. It makes sense to tag newbie throwaway accounts that come up with ridiculous requests but a genuine Hero member should be reviewed unless they have something shady going on with the account.

I'm just curious if I open a no-collateral loan request for 0.05 BTC will I be tagged as well?

[actmyname]

After a lucky page surf, here's what I've found:

First Time applying for loan due to some personal problem

Loan Amount: 0.03 btc
Reason : Personal
Repayment Amount: 0.036 btc
Repayment Time: 15 days
Collateral : None
BTC address: 0x931d262FB923630A65e3DCfFEF03f2B3d6b72271

Please can i know the status of my Loan Application whether i am eligible for this loan, if yes then i will put the sign message from the wallet

Sorry, without collateral I can’t help, also check your btc address- it’s not btc.

Loan Amount: 0.03 btc
Loan Repayment Amount: 0.036 btc
Loan Repayment Date: 15 days
Collateral: none
Bitcoin Address: 1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q

Due to personal problem applying for loan

HI, can i know the status of my loan application,

If you can provide a valid collateral I can fill your loan request, I can't grant you no collateral loan because of your account status, sorry. Let me know if you have collateral to offer.

Two previous loan requests from two months prior.

It is always good to have the real life Job and not to depend fully on Bitcoin or this forum, as both are necessary in life and what if bitcoin got ban totally or the price goes down and it takes longer time to recover. so it is always good to have alternative options always.

I work in real life and also do cryptocurrency investments and work for it and earn. As real life pay runs my family life and what ever i am earning in crypto currency is a investment for my future and may family future also.

And let's not forget the fact that susila_bai is very active in the Gambling discussion board, whether they're there exclusively to do quick/easy posts or not.

Most recent gambling discussion posts within 40 posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150396.msg51370838#msg51370838
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5141475.msg51370780#msg51370780
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084515.msg50965598#msg50965598
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123734.msg50948303#msg50948303
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3178163.msg50718393#msg50718393
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134270.msg50712570#msg50712570
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125693.msg50707623#msg50707623
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114470.msg50689880#msg50689880
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148053.msg50689030#msg50689030
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1135451.msg50688960#msg50688960
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148053.msg50687987#msg50687987
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103778.msg50687740#msg50687740
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114470.msg50686314#msg50686314I'm not sure if LFC considered any of these as red flags when they were writing their feedback... but now here they are.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

He is wearing OneHash signature who are paying 0.0075BTC a week to the Hero member but upon checking their spreadsheet I found he has not accepted but yet he is wearing the sig.

Is this for misdirection? Like anyone can think it will be okay to lend him since he is with a decent paying signature campaign.

Not sure if I personally would consider a red or neutral but I can assure that if I was a lender then I would stay away from this loan request.

0.05BTC is a lot of money ($458.7 @$9,187).

[LFC_Bitcoin]

...snip...0.05BTC is a lot of money ($458.7 @$9,187).

With absolutely no punishment for not repaying. I was thinking about changing my tag to neutral but I’m not going to.

[o_e_l_e_o]

As mentioned, the criteria for leaving a negative rating has been changed to "You think that trading with this person is high-risk." If LFC_Bitcoin believes that asking for a no collateral loan makes someone high risk, then he is justified to leave a negative rating. Less senior accounts are tagged left, right, and center for the exact same behavior every day.

Is it too harsh? Maybe. But is it an inappropriate tag? No.

As an aside, the sticky at the top of lending states:

If you completely ignore this sticky and make a loan request with no collateral, without having massive trust on the forum, the chances of you getting negative trusted feedback and therefore having a Trade with Extreme Caution tag is almost 100%.

Edit: oh shut up bones with your 1 minute 25 seconds faster post.

You're too busy baking cookies.

[unibitcoinist]

Thank you actmyname and Pamoldar, both of you have brought a good point here.
Considering his earlier twice loan application and the post which refers that he is holding his crypto earning from the forum, I think as well that it was probably a scam attempt.

Sorry @LFC_Bitcoin, although you didn't consider the fact referred by actmyname and Pamoldar, I think the tag must not be removed. I will tag the user as well. His recent behavior is fishy enough which I didn't notice.

There was not any kind of personal attack or any kind of propaganda some of you have mentioned. I initially thought it was an abuse of the feedback/trust system since he was a hero member.

@marlboroza
I never said he wasn't a scammer or a hero/legendary can't be a sacmmer. You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case. I just have wanted to point out that this feedback was probably an unfair one which has now turned into wrong though.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Thank you actmyname and Pamoldar, both of you have brought a good point here.
Considering his earlier twice loan application and the post which refers that he is holding his crypto earning from the forum, I think as well that it was probably a scam attempt.

Sorry @LFC_Bitcoin, although you didn't consider the fact referred by actmyname and Pamoldar, I think the tag must not be removed. I will tag the user as well. His recent behavior is fishy enough which I didn't notice.

There was not any kind of personal attack or any kind of propaganda some of you have mentioned. I initially thought it was an abuse of the feedback/trust system since he was a hero member.

@marlboroza
I never said he wasn't a scammer or a hero/legendary can't be a sacmmer. You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case. I just have wanted to point out that this feedback was probably an unfair one which has now turned into wrong though.

Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls.

It seems you now agree with what I did.

Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so.

[unibitcoinist]

Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls.

It seems you now agree with what I did.

Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so.

If I wouldn't create this thread, I wouldn't get the point referred by actmyname and Pamoldar and would still have the same thought that the feedback was unfair 

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Not very impressed that you started a thread questioning my actions, I’ve had to argue & fight my point against a load of spammers, shit posters & trolls.

It seems you now agree with what I did.

Ridiculous if you don’t mind me saying so.

If I wouldn't create this thread, I wouldn't get the point referred by actmyname and Pamoldar and would still have the same thought that the feedback was unfair 

In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case?
It didn’t really have anything to do with you.

[unibitcoinist]

In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case?
It didn’t really have anything to do with you.

Why will anyone carry an inappropriate feedback?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

In fairness though I don’t know why you felt so compelled to fight his case?
It didn’t really have anything to do with you.

Why will anyone carry an inappropriate feedback?

I don’t think anybody leaving negative feedback against a poster who’s after a non collateral loan with 0 positive trust & trade feedback can be seen as inappropriate.

See this -



If you think it’s inappropriate & he’s not seen as high risk maybe you could lend him the money without collateral?

[unibitcoinist]

If you think it’s inappropriate & he’s not seen as high risk maybe you could lend him the money without collateral?

As like other, I wouldn't consider giving him the loan but the tag would be inappropriate in case, the point brought by actmyname and Pamoldar wasn't exist. In that case, I would still fight that the tag was inappropriate.
But now, we have something to count his loan application as scam attempt which we didn't have earlier.

[xolxol]

With all respect, I disagree with the Feedback left on the profile. Maybe a suggestion to lock to thread or asking reasons why they should be considered for a no-collateral loan could be done before tagging them. It makes sense to tag newbie throwaway accounts that come up with ridiculous requests but a genuine Hero member should be reviewed unless they have something shady going on with the account.

I'm just curious if I open a no-collateral loan request for 0.05 BTC will I be tagged as well?

Surely,if there are no double standards.These abusers are the reason why theymos decided to change/customize the system using flags.Negative trust abusers will be outcast if theymos is a man of his word.

[marlboroza]

You have referred some example where the amount is higher than the one in this case.

Yep, well, I have referred example where amount is lower (in loan thread). There are plenty examples, from newbie to legendary members, scamming probably from 20$ above. I would have posted better examples but unfortunately theymos made access to trust pages very painful, these accounts came first to my mind.

Btw, warningsigns started with 0.075BTC loan, if I am not wrong that was around 650$ back then (this loan request is around 450$) and amount eventually become big (IIRC it was loan - return - loan - return - loan - partially return - loan - exit scam).

[ChemicalSpillage]

Btw, warningsigns started with 0.075BTC loan, if I am not wrong that was around 650$ back then (this loan request is around 450$) and amount eventually become big (IIRC it was loan - return - loan - return - loan - partially return - loan - exit scam).

The whole trick was to essentially use the interest as an investment in the exit scam.

Who cares about 10%, 20%, 30% when you simply take back 200% at the end of the act?And if the lender is on DT and gives positive trust... oh lord.

[Harlot]

The tag was appropriate for me, she doesn't have any previous transactions before and she has attempted to ask for a loan without collateral for a lot of times now all of which are denied because it will be risky for them to cover it for an unknown person. The tag doesn't stop people from covering it so its still really the member's choice if any of them wants to cover it. But do you think even without the tag given by LFC_Bitcoin it would increase her chances of matching is collateral-free loan? I don't think so.

[Thule]

who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags

That's not your decission

[actmyname]

who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags

That's not your decission

Well it is, though. It's LFC's decision to leave feedback. To LFC, the user is high-risk.

We have different standards for high-risk/untrustworthy behavior. After all, the changed system is to incentivize users to investigate the feedback on a given user.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags

That's not your decission

Well it is, though. It's LFC's decision to leave feedback. To LFC, the user is high-risk.

We have different standards for high-risk/untrustworthy behavior. After all, the changed system is to incentivize users to investigate the feedback on a given user.

I don’t really see how anybody can question it to be honest.

• He has 0 verified positive trust for previous trades
• He has no collateral

• He is wearing a sig & avatar for a campaign he isn’t even accepted in
• He has previous unfulfilled loan applications

If anybody has an issue with my feedback they’re welcome to prove me wrong & risk lending him thd 0.05BTC but I somehow think that won’t happen.

Is there going to be an interrogation in Reputation every time some random 0 trust account gets red trust?
The OP has no place questioning this, the fucking idiot.