Topic: Legendary account seller - page 3. (Read 1527 times)

Correct timestamp: you tagged iluvbitcoins, then you removed tag, then you tagged him again, then he retaliated "trust abuse", then Ognasty included him to his trust network, then your trust become little orange -1 and then you removed tag.

Besides, iluvbitcoins mentioned in thread that he wouldn't sell account to some random newbie, which isn't the case here.

Btw, @grtthegreat, you didn't address this:
For example, shasan also takes forum accounts as collateral but he runs scam accusation against them when they default, as far as I can see. You did literally nothing.

With who you exactly agree? You knowingly run investment fraud in 2014. You even said it is "fair" ponzi.

During 2015-2016 you sold lots accounts:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/800-activity-1905-posts-hero-member-account-1337283
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/3300-posts-2012-senior-member-account-1333733
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/266-activity-senior-member-account-01-btc-1331574
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1-x-84-2-x-70-activity-member-accounts-1327672 3 accounts
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/140-activity-full-member-account-1309723
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/168-activity-full-member-account-1291844
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sold-senior-member-account-for-035-btc-1059168
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wts-224-activity-full-member-account-0035-btc-negotiable-1548494 --> this was in July 2016. as far as I remember accounts were getting -ve for this at that time.

Now, 2019. - selling accounts again, I mean, not selling, "liquidating"  

---

I left neutral on profile for now.

Hmm... delete the evidence... I see...

Archived for future reference. http://archive.fo/d8Yzj#selection-2865.47-2865.105

What is this false bullshit that you are posting? If I were in any control, all of them would be long red and banished and the trolls like Quicksie, TECSHARE etc. banned.

Sounds good, doesn't work. Much of the rest of your post contains incorrect information; I ask myself why you have high merit and then I notice who merits such garbage.

"'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me.

Users who make valuable contributions don't need to buy accounts like that. They can happily contribute with a Copper account for a fraction of the cost or even for free if they don't mind a 6-minute wait between posts.





I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand even the basic premise of the issue.

well even known scammers have a 50:50 chance of scamming the next person, so why do we bother point out scammers?  why do you think people here discourage account sales? it's by default that when someone wants to buy an established account then their intention is to scam, there are minor exceptions but this does not justify selling accounts and therefore risking other members money.

you sold an account and that's about it, i do not  "yet" tag people for selling accounts, but those who do , should not give you any exception, the reason why they tag account sellers still exist in your case regardless of the cause, and if they won't tag you, then perhaps they should give everybody else a "second chance".

the funny part is this, if the buyer is a scammer, then it's your fault for risking other member's money and  if he is a saint then you risked his money knowing that his account will be painted in red by DT members and become useless and not worth the money he paid for it . apparently only that 0.05 btc of yours matters.



exactly, if you are not willing to take a loss once in a while, then do not get involved in such business, and once you decide to take an account as a collateral , don't sell it and risk everybody else's money just to save yourself.

That's the exact situation I didn't want to happen again when I was made aware of grtthegreat selling this account.  When I started tagging account sellers in 2016, I always checked their feedback first and if they were extremely trusted, I didn't neg them.  OmegaStarScream was one of those if I recall correctly.  In addition, I've removed negs from account sellers/buyers after some time has passed IF they've shown proof that they've done trustworthy things and haven't been just a scummy account dealer. 

In the case of iluvbitcoins and grtthegreat, all the evidence of trustworthiness was already there.  In the former case, I chose consistency in tagging sellers over weighing in other factors, like his trust page.  I regretted that and didn't want to repeat the same mistake with grtthegreat--plus he gave me his word via PM that he'd stop accepting BCT accounts as collateral and wouldn't sell any more accounts.  Take that for what it's worth.

If any other member thinks I made the wrong decision here, I completely understand--and you're obviously free to leave grtthegreat a neg if you see fit to do so.  I'm reading all the replies here and am trying to gauge how the community feels about how the tagging should be done.  My feeling is that each case ought to be looked at individually, because there are sometimes mitigating factors that would suggest that some account sellers shouldn't get negged, and perhaps a neutral would be more appropriate if any feedback had to be given at all. 

Not all account sellers are the same.  There are ones who should clearly get tagged, e.g., in threads where the OP says he has multiple Sr. Member accounts in stock and is obviously an account farmer.  I really don't like the fact that grtthegreat sold a green-trusted account, and I'm glad it was identified.  I figured it would be with the info he gave about it in the sales thread.  I almost changed my mind when I found that out, but I didn't.

If you think I screwed up, please tell me.  As I said, I was conflicted about this just as I was with the iluvbitcoins case, and I'm open to suggestions. 

This situation is pretty much why I only tag accounts that have been sold, not account sellers. I don’t think it is fair to just allow some people to sell accounts because they happen to be a good guy otherwise. The distinction is purely subjective.

You can cover losses through interest payments from other borrowers. That is why interest exists; if lending was risk free, then people would be able to offer zero interest/extremely low interest.

Obviously you are free to do whatever, but other lenders in the past were left negative trust for selling accounts. See iluvbitcoins

1

1. I wasn't forced to take the accounts as collateral, but I returned recently and without checking if accounts are a still possibly valid collateral, I went ahead and accepted them as one. It was my bad, but as soon as someone pointed it out, I immediately made relevant changes.

2. Let's talk of a case where the account (or any other damn thing) is sold, the seller as a matter of fact has no control whatsoever on what the buyer does with it in the future. How about that a newbie would use the already leveled up account constructively instead of for scamming? Had you been equally rebellious if the same user made some really valuable contribution?

3. Please understand that I do not support the act of selling accounts, and also that it was nothing more than a mere act of liquidating the collateral.


2

I do not quite understand how I would even have a beforehand idea of what the newbie's intention was?! There's a 50:50 chance that the user will scam. Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.


3

Ain't collateral meant for liquidation in case the loan is defaulted upon? No one waits hoping for the lendee to pay the loan back!


4

Isn't it a loss either way?! All lending services in the world have an interest component, and the only purpose is to make a small profit out of the loaned amount. If profit never was a motive, why aren't the loans interest free? Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.

Yes, I believe that it is acceptable for a lender to take an account as collateral, if they believe that the person behind the account is likely to motivated to repay the loan and get their account back. For example, if I were desperate and needed a quick loan, if I put up my account as collateral, I would move heaven and earth to make sure that loan was paid. The only way that I would default on the loan is if I became incapacitated.

Nothing forces you to sell the account. I believe I still have a few accounts that defaulted loans in my possession, and have just accepted it as a loss.


No. Taking an account as collateral can prevent others from being scammed by that individual while the loan is still active.


When you lend, you should be aware of risks from defaults. I know for certain that I have an account from early 2017 that I obtained via default, and I'm still holding onto it in hopes of eventual repayment (and because I don't want to sell it)

So what is the consensus/deal here? I see all the arguments but somebody should come up with something. Theymos, maybe?

dude needs his money, he can't wait for "indefinite period of time", nobody can. he waited for 3 days and then started to sell the account.

your argument is invalid, that lendee could have came straight and informed the lender that he was never going to pay the loan, the lendee could have passed away, there are tons of things that could have happened and the lender would have no way out but to sell the account , that's why it's called a "collateral" - something you pre-plan to sell to repay yourself.

Yes, now that theymos has diluted the DT system, we the people can tag everyone. It will be somewhat like the reign of terror. However, we promise that no guillotines will be used.

Or, you could hold the account for an indefinite period of time hoping they will some day repay the loan.. No?
Why would the lender absolutely have to sell it? He wouldn't..



Why are you afraid of retaliation? You would win wouldn't you?
Their are a few of you and you are in control. Why don't you just conspire together and all tag all of them at once?
You are not doing "the right thing to do" in your opinion to "keep the forum safe"?
You can just exclude whoever retaliated to keep your greens anyway..

I am not a huge fan of DT babyproofing the forum with padded walls over such menial things to possibly save the lowest common denominators from petty scams but I implore you to do what you think is right..
Have your nannystate if you want a nannystate.. It is afterall, what would give you the most power..

Trusting an account just because things are being posted from an account is stupid anyway because any account can be hacked at any time. Accounts themselves should not be trusted in any way.
Your staked address is your proof of reputation not your account.
Your account may have notes on it about your reputation, or someone's reputation, but posting from an account does not prove that is your reputation.
A bitcoin signed message from your staked address is. Or PGP key.
People should be cryptographically signing their contracts/agreements before deals are initiated.

Education is the key to scam prevention IMO, just like sex education is the key to AIDS prevention.
Expecting all hacked and sold accounts to be tagged is a false sense of security if you are uneducated.

Red tags aren't going to stop the lenders from lending. Red tags aren't going to stop account sellers from selling accounts (infact it's proof of business to them)..
Soon enough red tags aren't even going to stop accounts from joining signature campaigns, it already does't in many..

RE:

Talk about job security, you all sure have a lot of tagging work to do..
The more things you can justify tagging for the better, just like the government, the more things you can control and regulate the better..

You mean zazarb's thread.
And you haven't thought it would be OK to warn zazarb or anyone else that account changed hands? At least with neutral?

---

Question. No one here mentioned shasan (I double checked it) and not a single account posted in shasan's thread.
What he has to do with this thread?

let's use some simple logic, when you accepted the account as a collateral, you knew there were only 2 options ahead.

1- Loan is repaid, end of story.
2- User Default on Loan.

how were you planing to handle no 2 exactly? i am not aware of any other thing that can be done except for selling the account.

i'l give you the benefit of the doubt and say you gambled, you thought chances were the guy was going to pay back the loan but , things went south , you need your money back, you sold the account, so that you do not lose money.

but what about other people's money that you potentially put at risk? you sold a Hero ranked account to a newbie, what exactly did you think the newbie was planning to do with that account? post in the Ivory Tower board?

Everyone know that accept collateral as an account is equal to trading account. I can say it's legal way to sell an account. Because I have seen previously if you tag them then you will receive retaliatory tag. And then someone from DT1 will put him on DT2. Then ther will start another story what happened with The Pharmacist previously. And I believe this is not a good practice for DT member.
That's why no one want to tag this kind of case. But I strongly agree with tag sold account even avoid tag to lender.

Oh please. Who forced you to take the account as collateral?

Let me put this another way. You didn't give a shit if someone ended up scammed by a Hero account, or if the buyer ended with a worthless account (as is the case now with the red trust) because of a piddly ~$20 you expected to make from that loan.

At a minimum I would expect users in the DT network to tag my account if it is in fact a sold account in your hypothetical example here. My account, if bought, could most definitely be used to scam a large amount of bitcoin.

I am not attacking anyone here personally either, just joking with The Pharmacist in my 1st post, but I am very curious to see where this discussion leads so that current and potential DT users have something to reference when these sorts of situations arise.