Collateral Scammer!!

[shasan]

What happened:: Sent Wrong transaction ID

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1998790

Reference Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5030169.msg52050434#msg52050434
Archived: https://archive.fo/5szin#selection-6390.1-6533.176
Amount Scammed: 0.018BTC wanted to scam but failed
Payment Method: ETH
Proof of Payment: Not Delivered

Additional Notes: This user asked for loan where s/he wanted to give 1eth as collateral and then the user send me a transaction ID 0xa554b45851337bd4f047f654352400e32a9a4f2833b6077730018bd8c60def49 by saying that s/he has sent me 1.1 eth to recover refund transaction fee via telegram then I asked him/her to post on bitcointalk and s/he did that, you can see that from the above reference link as well as archived link.

Another scam attempt was happened to another lender by the same person. See archive: https://archive.fo/1S1Qs#selection-2150.1-2459.96 though the original post was removed by the scammer yet I was able to mention the quote of the lender.

Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=555

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Amount Scammed: 0.018

Have you sent him the BTC? Or you spotted it before sending the loan? Looking at the post history it seems you were able to spot it before any lose to make.

Scammers always comes up with innovative idea. It is pretty obvious that the user wanted to scam you.

[shasan]

Amount Scammed: 0.018

Have you sent him the BTC? Or you spotted it before sending the loan? Looking at the post history it seems you were able to spot it before any lose to make.

Scammers always comes up with innovative idea. It is pretty obvious that the user wanted to scam you.

Caught before sending. Edited OP.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Caught before sending. Edited OP.

I thought the same. Anyway, flag supported and also left a tag for against the user. Good thing that you saved yourself prior to get scammed.

[LoyceV]

by saying that s/he has sent me 1.1 eth to recover refund transaction fee

I read that in your lending topic just before you opened this accusation, and instantly thought it's suspicious to send more than asked for.

Caught before sending. Edited OP.

That means you used the wrong flag:

shasan alleges: Maxwell20 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages

I'll take this to theymos' Flag topic (see here), it doesn't seem right that a failed scam attempt can't have a scam-flag until the scammer succeeds at scamming someone.

[shasan]

That means you used the wrong flag:

S/he has not sent the payment and told me that s/he sent the payment I wasted time as it wasn't on my balance then I tried to check the transaction and lastly I noticed it was about 8 month's ago's transaction ID. So, for this behaviour I became loser so, if it is right then I think the flag is right. If wrong then what I should select to flag. I think it is a proven scam and as a proven scammer s/he should deserve to wear "trade with extreme caution" tag.

I'll take this to theymos' Flag topic (see here), it doesn't seem right that a failed scam attempt can't have a scam-flag until the scammer succeeds at scamming someone.

Thank you. I think from There I will get a clear message.

[TECSHARE]

...I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified.

As you and I have been over ad nauseam in the Bob123 fiasco, a contract becomes activated upon the first exchange of consideration. In this case an agreement was made but not activated. The person in question probably is some kind of scammer, and he definitely did waste the other user's time, but this is not grounds for a flag, this is just the standard of suspicion with another step. This shouldn't be a flagging matter.

Leave them a negative rating and call it a day.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

To my understanding this only deserve a flag type 1 as dealing with this user is high risk that's if your feel the need to flaged the user. There hasn't been an establishment of any contract between you guys for the user to violate a contract. He/she tried scamming but wasn't successful therefore you weren't affected. I know you had some encounter with scammers (loan defaulters) but don't let your emotions overshadow your reasoning/judgement.

Left negative feedback, I didn't supported flag because the flag is wrong (if you feel I'm wrong hope you won't mind convincing me, anyone). But I can see you have gotten enough support already to make the flag active, well🤔.