This matter has now been resolved.
Thanks everyone (seems LutPin is one of the few good people on this forum)!
Topic: It has come to my attention that LutPin+their apprentice may be a trust Spammer (Read 846 times)
February 22, 2016, 04:22:09 PM
February 22, 2016, 04:18:42 PM
You see Lutpin. If you'd've given me a reason why the account needed a signed message instead of just recommending it. (I mean if you gave me an example), then I would have hapily acepted the idea.
In the end, you only recommended it instead of suggesting why it would be useful.
Actually, if I read back, I did.In the end, you only recommended it instead of suggesting why it would be useful.
That's negligent and could lead to a lot of problems, in case the account has actually been hacked.
I just want to recall the issue Altcoins4life/Murderouskirk had a few weeks ago.
Always ask for a signed message from an old staked address.
You might not have had any problems regarding that, but believe me, the moment you do, you wish your standards would have been higher.
Besides that, answer to my PM, and I think we're good here.I just want to recall the issue Altcoins4life/Murderouskirk had a few weeks ago.
Always ask for a signed message from an old staked address.
You might not have had any problems regarding that, but believe me, the moment you do, you wish your standards would have been higher.
Since OP seems to understand his mistake and promised to ask for signed messages when lending/taking accounts as collateral in the future, I don't see the need to have the comment on his profile anymore, hence I've deleted it.
February 22, 2016, 04:18:36 PM
You see Lutpin. If you'd've given me a reason why the account needed a signed message instead of just recommending it. (I mean if you gave me an example), then I would have hapily acepted the idea.
In the end, you only recommended it instead of suggesting why it would be useful.
In the end, you only recommended it instead of suggesting why it would be useful.
Not really much of an argument; recommending is a synonym to suggesting.
February 22, 2016, 04:15:23 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
whywefight is doing good work on cleaning up the digital goods section. More than I can lay out in the open, but that's the reason I trust him and his feedback.He's been doing that longer than I do, hence calling him my "apprentice" is kinda funny.
Also, whywefight has not been mooved "out of the DT network", but stands on DT3, shortly outside the default settings, backed by several users, including mexxer-2 and me.
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
The topic at hand was the possibility of a hacked account. Altcoins4life accepted a hacked account as collateral some time back.What you have at the end of the day is the account of someone who didn't take your loan in hand, not the account of the scammer/defaulter, who vanished with your $5 satoshis.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I didn't even give you a negative. I gave you a neutral, because I think people should know about this. Your lending practices are below standard, and this might result in some problems down the road.It's not that we didn't have similar situations in the past and could not speak of experience.
You see Lutpin. If you'd've given me a reason why the account needed a signed message instead of just recommending it. (I mean if you gave me an example), then I would have hapily acepted the idea.
In the end, you only recommended it instead of suggesting why it would be useful.
February 22, 2016, 03:36:58 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
whywefight is doing good work on cleaning up the digital goods section. More than I can lay out in the open, but that's the reason I trust him and his feedback.He's been doing that longer than I do, hence calling him my "apprentice" is kinda funny.
Also, whywefight has not been mooved "out of the DT network", but stands on DT3, shortly outside the default settings, backed by several users, including mexxer-2 and me.
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
The topic at hand was the possibility of a hacked account. Altcoins4life accepted a hacked account as collateral some time back.What you have at the end of the day is the account of someone who didn't take your loan in hand, not the account of the scammer/defaulter, who vanished with your $5 satoshis.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I didn't even give you a negative. I gave you a neutral, because I think people should know about this. Your lending practices are below standard, and this might result in some problems down the road.It's not that we didn't have similar situations in the past and could not speak of experience.
February 22, 2016, 03:01:51 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
It has come to my attention that you think you are smarter than anybody else and that is why you reject advice from people who know better than you. It is an unwritten rule that a signed message is mandatory when taking accounts as collateral. they way you act is full of ignorance. because of people like you, scamers will always have a chance to get at least a freaking satoshi out of someone.
February 22, 2016, 02:44:23 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
Same old discussion, you want to make your own decisions, but lutpin may not make their own decisions when leaving the rating? Is it factually wrong? Does it hinder you in any way besides your ego?
It does actually. It does have no impact on my ego but it could have an impact on acceptance onto some signature campaigns and trades that I want to do in the future.
Pm blazed to remove this user from his trustlist.
February 22, 2016, 02:34:46 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
Same old discussion, you want to make your own decisions, but lutpin may not make their own decisions when leaving the rating? Is it factually wrong? Does it hinder you in any way besides your ego?
It does actually. It does have no impact on my ego but it could have an impact on acceptance onto some signature campaigns and trades that I want to do in the future.
February 22, 2016, 12:47:43 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
Same old discussion, you want to make your own decisions, but lutpin may not make their own decisions when leaving the rating? Is it factually wrong? Does it hinder you in any way besides your ego?
February 22, 2016, 12:42:17 PM
I have recently been given neutral trust rom Lutpin and negative trust from another user (who appears to be some sort of apprentice as he has positive trust from LutPin but has been moved out of Default Trust).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
I had no idea that I couldn't make my own judgement to decide what to request when offering a loan. That (by the way) was only worth $5, so if I feed the scammer I haven't really lost anything and I already have his account held in collaterall.
Does anyone else think these people have given me negative trust for an insufficiant reason. (the lender is left to decide what they accept as "valid collaterall" (hence why it is left unexplained intentionally in the lending rules)).
Jump to: