That is what was implied by you both saying that you wanted the OP to establish himself within the community. This is also roughly between 20 and 33 times the size of most gambling loans here BTW.
Yeah, this isn't a "here's some play money" loan, this is "I want to high roll but my tax check is delayed". This is a very significant risk for me.
Lending to a newbie account (even if it registered a year ago) is almost certainly going to be a bad idea. You either have a good enough relationship with the guy so that you are confident that he is not going to throw away your friendship/relationship over a few hundred dollars or making this loan is a horrible decision.
I simply have enough confidence in his past behavior on Lucky Bit. I don't see him as a "newbie account", I see him as an old player that hasn't been active on Bitcoin Talk because he hasn't really needed to.
If no one from Lucky Bit is guaranteeing this loan, then I honestly do not see the point of this thread. If there is a preexisting relationship then he can contact you through the channels that he knows you from to get an address to pay you back.
As I stated, the purpose of this thread is to document the loan, and correctly use the trust system to reflect this loan. Since I have now been informed (rather, beaten with the fact) that this is somehow an inappropriate use of the trust system, I simply wished to use this thread as a failsafe documentation. I still disagree with you about reputation; I am risking my bitcoin, after all.
Making this loan public is not going to give you any kind of leverage or anything else to help you get your money back. His reputation is already worth nothing, with the exception of the very few people who might think it is a good idea to lend to a newbie. If he did default on the loan, there would be nothing to stop him from abandoning his account and creating a new one. Trust me, people make new accounts pretty much every day trying to take out loans, and over 99.99% of them end up abandoning their account when the loan is not filled, the other .01%~ end up abandoning their account when someone lends them money.
Of course it isn't leverage, it's a plan B. If I lose my bitcoin, I can warn others in the Lucky Bit community and I have evidence to back up my claims. His reputation here is actually not the issue, considering I'm the one taking the risk! What about
my reputation here? If I give a loan to someone and they do repay it, doesn't that mean I should receive a positive trust rating? Even if the person issuing the trust is not very active, how does that invalidate their recognition of my acceptance of risk?
If he is active in the Lucky Bit community and gambles there a lot then make an exception. It would be stupid not to make an exception if this is the case. The purpose of the restrictions on giveaways is to prevent people for creating/using a large number of newbie accounts in order to claim giveaways multiple times. There is almost always a correlation between activity on gambling sites and activity/posts on the forum, however there are some exceptions, according to you, this is one of them.
No. I don't make exceptions for promotions, and with good reason! I already run a handful of other promotions, and people are always looking for ways to cheat. It would be stupid
to make an exception, because regular players at Lucky Bit would have precedent to demand special treatment in the signature campaign and other promotions. I deal with enough of that already, thank you!
Yes, flux is a known user at Lucky Bit. He just doesn't have a lot of activity or business here. According to you, this is unusual; however, it is my experience that the big gamblers are
not active on Bitcoin Talk or the on-site chat room. engineer, jadra, flux, rastafarai - many of our best winners were newbie-rank accounts when they hit their big wins.
There is nothing against the rules of the forum, although most people would agree that this would be against the standards that the community has set over time. Since this thread is not breaking any rules then it would not get deleted.
I don't see "most people". I see two other accounts making slightly negative comments without a lot of substance or contribution, and I see the Montgomery Burns of account traders throwing a Category 3 Shitstorm. Not gonna sugar-coat it, but from this side of the aisle it looks like one guy, two sock puppets, and a bucket of butt-hurt.
Come on, man. You know who I am and what I do. You deal in alts, you know the business in and out and you know this isn't a shady deal. I'm putting up a decent sized risk, and all I'm asking for is the opportunity to be appropriately noted as having done so, and to use the same system everyone else does to proceed. If flux wants to begin a bitcoin project, should his trustworthiness be tainted simply because he borrowed a couple hundred bucks from me? Does my trustworthiness somehow become tainted because I chose to take this risk?
Is this really worth your intervention?
