Got Negative Tag for Nothing done

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@LFC_Bitcoin

Would you give me a negative trust rating for asking for a loan without collateral for.. lets say.. 0.1 BTC ?

- I do not have much of a trading history
- I would have no collateral
- Well, i would be in a signature campaign
- I wouldn't have any unfulfilled loan applications (but does this really matter ?)


I can't imagine those 4 points are the ONLY one which you took into consideration regarding the red trust?

0.1BTC is today valued at over $1,100 so I’d consider painting you red, yes. I’d have to look into your account history, have a read & make a decision.

Regarding the OP though, this is the criteria for me to leave him red trust & I am fully justified in doing so -

[1714019605]

1714019605

[1714019605]

1714019605

[1714019605]

1714019605

[1714019605]

1714019605

[1714019605]

1714019605

[Quickseller]

I excluded LFC over a week ago, and others should do the same.

In addition to being a spammer, he doesn’t understand, or care about the concept of having standards known in advance as to what is and is not acceptable behavior to avoid getting negative trust.

[bob123]

This is a forum for a method of transaction designed to eliminate outside parties from interfering in p2p transactions, and you and others insist on being that interfering 3rd party. People should be doing their own due diligence, you shouldn't be doing it for them.

Well.. to be fair..

He did not interfere at all. It is not like he tries to prohibit anyone to transact with given person.
That's a big red warning on his profile.

I mean.. this user is somewhat fishy.. One shouldn't fully trust him and his loan application.

Whether he really deserves red trust regarding this is hard to judge for me.

0.1BTC is today valued at over $1,100 so I’d consider painting you red, yes. I’d have to look into your account history, have a read & make a decision.

This is quite harsh..

Why would i be considered a scammer if i ask for a loan which i can repay with 3 weeks of signature campaign ?
This doesn't make too much sense for me..

Regarding the OP though, this is the criteria for me to leave him red trust & I am fully justified in doing so -

Never said it wasn't justified. He definitely is fishy enough to consider it..

I excluded LFC over a week ago

And i couldn't even count how much people have excluded you...

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I excluded LFC over a week ago, and others should do the same.

In addition to being a spammer, he doesn’t understand, or care about the concept of having standards known in advance as to what is and is not acceptable behavior to avoid getting negative trust.

Quickscammer lecturing about trust. You might as well shit in your own hands & clap, it makes about as much sense to people as you, one of the most untrustworthy, discredited posters on the entire forum lecturing people about trust.

[bones261]

     We should also note that the OP has other negative comments. However, they appear in "untrusted feedback." The most notable one is someone complaining about the quality of the OPs translation services. also, with the new trust system, comments do not have the same negative impact as the used to. There is no blaring red negative trust score nor is there a warning about using caution to trade with the person. People are now encouraged to actually read negative trust comments. The reader can now do their own due diligence and take any comments either to heart or with a grain of salt.

[TECSHARE]

This is a forum for a method of transaction designed to eliminate outside parties from interfering in p2p transactions, and you and others insist on being that interfering 3rd party. People should be doing their own due diligence, you shouldn't be doing it for them.

Well.. to be fair..

He did not interfere at all. It is not like he tries to prohibit anyone to transact with given person.
That's a big red warning on his profile.

I mean.. this user is somewhat fishy.. One shouldn't fully trust him and his loan application.

Whether he really deserves red trust regarding this is hard to judge for me.

But he is interfering by imposing penalties on people attempting to conduct trade in ways he deems unacceptable, that is the point. This of course will inhibit his ability to trade in the future. He may be honest, he may not, that is the point, this whole concept of punishing people for "pre-crime" is a flawed concept. It shouldn't be for him, or for you to judge, it should be up to the potential user offering a loan. Even with the reduced effect of negative ratings, this kind of activity I think still belongs in neutral territory.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

TECSHARE, if theymos changes the criteria for negative trust then I wouldn’t be able to leave the OP negative trust.
The facts are the below criteria is met with his shady loan request -



I don’t know why you’re on this one man crusade to try & shape the new system to how YOU want it to be run.
I’ve noticed you in Meta & Reputation for months on end acting like this.
At the moment my negative trust on the OP is valid, it doesn’t matter one bit if YOU think it’s fair or not.
This is the second thread about my neg on this guy now, it’s fucking ridiculous.

You’re a highly trusted member over a very long period here. I don’t know why you keep getting yourself bent out of shape over the trust system.

What’s the deal?

[Quickseller]

Many other people have received and repaid loans of similar or larger size in reasonably similar situations as the OP.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Many other people have received and repaid loans of similar or larger size in reasonably similar situations as the OP.

Many have received & not repaid loans of similar value without collateral Quicksy. Sorry for getting personal but I don’t think I was being out of line by tagging him.

Let’s agree to disagree.

Maybe you could loan him the money & prove me wrong if he repays it. I don’t think he would though.

[Csmiami]

In case anyone is still wondering why LFC_Bitcoin has turned out to be quite accurate with the red tag rather than a neutral one (as I suggested in the thread itself), take a look at the thread he mentioned, more precisely to this quote

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.

And as I also said in the first thread, Quickseller/LFC please, don't derail this into a personal thread

[DireWolfM14]

0.1BTC is today valued at over $1,100 so I’d consider painting you red, yes. I’d have to look into your account history, have a read & make a decision.

This is quite harsh..

Why would i be considered a scammer if i ask for a loan which i can repay with 3 weeks of signature campaign ?
This doesn't make too much sense for me..

I agree, that's quite harsh.  Not to derail this thread, but there's risk and there's risk.  As a lender I would have no doubts about lending 0.1BTC to bob123, but that's me.

As I said in the other thread, I can see both sides of the issue with LFC's review of the OP.  I certainly wouldn't lend to the OP, but at the same time I wouldn't red-tag him.  The wording of a negative review; You think that trading with this person is high-risk applies in this case.  LFC is entitled to his opinion, and entitle to use the trust system to express that opinion.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

By looking at the overall situation I think the LFC guy had a pretty harsh judgement and do not follow the mantra of forgiveness which Theymos stated in some of his comments about usage of trust system.

I think there should be a manual blacklistment from DT here as this type of judgements would just bring more hatred and power abuse here rather than anything good.

[bones261]

By looking at the overall situation I think the LFC guy had a pretty harsh judgement and do not follow the mantra of forgiveness which Theymos stated in some of his comments about usage of trust system.

I think there should be a manual blacklistment from DT here as this type of judgements would just bring more hatred and power abuse here rather than anything good.

From what I recall, "forgiveness" should come with time. The OP made his most recent loan request a little more than a week ago. In other words, this is still a fresh turd.

[susila_bai]

In case anyone is still wondering why LFC_Bitcoin has turned out to be quite accurate with the red tag rather than a neutral one (as I suggested in the thread itself), take a look at the thread he mentioned, more precisely to this quote

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.

And as I also said in the first thread, Quickseller/LFC please, don't derail this into a personal thread

So you mean to say that who ever is posting only or frequently on gambling section are scammers and they should not be given loan and they should be tagged.

Now then i think i should also take responsibility and start tagging users who are asking loan without collateral and who are most frequently posting in gambling are considered as scammers.

[TECSHARE]

TECSHARE, if theymos changes the criteria for negative trust then I wouldn’t be able to leave the OP negative trust.
The facts are the below criteria is met with his shady loan request -
...

I don’t know why you’re on this one man crusade to try & shape the new system to how YOU want it to be run.
I’ve noticed you in Meta & Reputation for months on end acting like this.
At the moment my negative trust on the OP is valid, it doesn’t matter one bit if YOU think it’s fair or not.
This is the second thread about my neg on this guy now, it’s fucking ridiculous.

You’re a highly trusted member over a very long period here. I don’t know why you keep getting yourself bent out of shape over the trust system.

What’s the deal?

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. This is by far not a "one man crusade", I just happen to be one of the most vocal. You are wrong, it hasn't been months, it has been YEARS. So many years in fact it began long before you even arrived during the "free lunch" Dogecoin wave of 2014. I have been around long enough to remember what this community USED TO be like, and how it focused around minding your own fucking business unless you have solid evidence of something as opposed to the current state of 1000 little wanna be Stasi officers running around filing reports to the Politburo every time some one jaywalks or says a bad word about dear leader. This kind of behavior is antithetical to the very reason why Bitcoin was created, to allow people to conduct trade without third parties trying to sneak their thumb up your butt ever time you bend over to pick up a quarter. Hope that explains things for you, and remember, if you see something say something comrade!

[susila_bai]

TECSHARE, if theymos changes the criteria for negative trust then I wouldn’t be able to leave the OP negative trust.
The facts are the below criteria is met with his shady loan request -
...

I don’t know why you’re on this one man crusade to try & shape the new system to how YOU want it to be run.
I’ve noticed you in Meta & Reputation for months on end acting like this.
At the moment my negative trust on the OP is valid, it doesn’t matter one bit if YOU think it’s fair or not.
This is the second thread about my neg on this guy now, it’s fucking ridiculous.

You’re a highly trusted member over a very long period here. I don’t know why you keep getting yourself bent out of shape over the trust system.

What’s the deal?

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. This is by far not a "one man crusade", I just happen to be one of the most vocal. You are wrong, it hasn't been months, it has been YEARS. So many years in fact it began long before you even arrived during the "free lunch" Dogecoin wave of 2014. I have been around long enough to remember what this community USED TO be like, and how it focused around minding your own fucking business unless you have solid evidence of something as opposed to the current state of 1000 little wanna be Stasi officers running around filing reports to the Politburo every time some one jaywalks or says a bad word about dear leader. This kind of behavior is antithetical to the very reason why Bitcoin was created, to allow people to conduct trade without third parties trying to sneak their thumb up your butt ever time you bend over to pick up a quarter. Hope that explains things for you, and remember, if you see something say something comrade!

The main reason behind this happening is after the Merit system was introduced and this type of users are given DT status who thinks that they have all rights to punish anyone who they think are or will or become scammers. They way he talks are clear arrogant and dont bother about the forum reputation, he only just go by his own way whether it hurts the forum respect or not.

I think Theymos should consider about this type of Issues so that the forum should not get the valued users moving away from Bitcointalk forum.

[marlboroza]

The main reason behind this happening is after the Merit system was introduced and this type of users are given DT status who thinks that they have all rights to punish anyone who they think are or will or become scammers. They way he talks are clear arrogant and dont bother about the forum reputation, he only just go by his own way whether it hurts the forum respect or not.

I think Theymos should consider about this type of Issues so that the forum should not get the valued users moving away from Bitcointalk forum.

Seems you are already connected with some other account cheaters https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17084215#msg17084215, and, I checked wallet and signed messages and this looks like a solid proof. Also one of accounts have interesting comment in trust page pointing to this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1270591.0.

I didn't look further than this. Once again LOL @TE and @QS