Topic: Lending flags (Read 369 times)

I can confirm that you are showing up in the flag for otcrypto for me:


You are not showing in any of the other flags, so I'm assuming your original comment still stands?

Well that's weird I already supported the flag two times already. The first one was through the link where the flag wasn't still visible to his profile and the second one was when the flag is visible to his profile and he already got tagged. This is already my third time now so I'll be providing a screenshot as a proof that I did supported the flag. Also I'm not deleting and withdrawing my support if you may ask.

Another brand new asking for a loan offering ID as collateral, with "high guaranteed return". Very similar to the last flag

Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=588

I believe that can be done, even manually, but since the user has stated twice that has supported the flag



and yet he has showed up in none of them, I don't think someone would say that is going to do/has done something twice and lie about it

I've tested it from LoyceBot: I can support a flag and delete my opinion several times in a row.

The personal incident was just to point out that flags should be placed by the action, rather than the amount.

And I actually agree with you, it's not okay to assume all newbies are scammers. I have discouraged that same attitude in Meta some times. On the other hand, all those actions (valid collateral, escrow,....) are taken because lending to a newbie/brand new account is risky AF. If on the OP no collateral/escriw is mentioned, I consider a type 1 flag OK, since the action is high risk. If upon further discussion OP agrees to use escrow/provides valid collateral, I would stop supporting the flag

PS: support still not showing, I may PM theymos as this might be a bug?

One personal incident with one scammer does not simply make other members scammers as well. Going in with your assumption would simply make all the newbies even asking for a loan a scammer even if they have a collateral to do so. I won't simply jump on that kind of judgement simply because of their rank or the collateral they are offering, if I am the one covering the loan I would simply just negotiate the amounts or ask for an escrow just to keep the deal working on both of our sides.

P.S.
Supported the flag again, it seems like I have supported it when the flag wasn't still visible on his profile.

Brand new user, and the first thing he decides to do is to ask for 3 BTC, providing ID as collateral and wanting to be contacted by email rather than the forum

Flag link:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=583

Up to a point I do actually agree with you. But since the "incident" I had with a "likely scammer", and some neg trust+flag left behind, I'm well aware that it's not about the amount to be scammed, but actually about the scam itslef (the situation was a whole misunderstanding caused by some devil-ish beer I had had). That's why even if it's still up to the lender to take the risk, a type 1 flag is okay to me; because the action itself is high-risk.

PS: I dont see you are supporting the flag

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto since the collateral he is giving is way off compared to the loan he is asking, 500$ for a 200,000$ loan is just way too much to even consider that amount as a collateral. The loaner is simply risking a big amount for just a fraction of his collateral. On Blink's case even though his offering of BIFI is valid and it's on the loaners end if he/she accepts it as a collateral even though only a few exchange accepts it, and you should consider the value of what he is asking and that's only 8$. The same thing can be said on Dummyticketxo's case it would really depend on how the potential loaner view's his collateral in terms of its value. They might be newbies asking for loan but I think only otcrypto has the highest chance to scam you.

New user, requesting an exhorbitantly big loan, assuring "there are no risks involved". No collateral is ever mentioned.

Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=579

Example 1

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/small-loan-with-collateral-5170230

Old newbie account, recently wakes up, changes email and heads almost straight on to ask for a loan.


Does he provide collateral? Yes; but when a bit research is done...


Would I consider this high risk? Yes.

Some more "evidence"


So, based on that, and some other evidence provided by other users, I do now create a type 1 flag; as I believe that dealing with the user is high risk (yes, I'm pretty sure that you people here on Rep board already know that; but I want to leave nothing at random).



Link to the flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=557

---

---

Example 2

Newbie asking for a loan with an invalid collateral.


He is told that his collateral is not valid due to various factors, and he replies telling how much it did cost to develop, yada yada....


After that reply, user stops answering on the thread, a couple of other users say how likely he is to scam.... and suddenly and out of the blue, the OP gets edited


So back on topic; would I consider dealing with this user as high-risk? Definately

Link to the flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=558

Recently, I've been giving some thought to flags and "disposable" accounts used in the lending board to try to scam by defaulting the loan. It is my understanding that flag type 1 can be used when, even if there has been not malicious act; the intentions may be, and the flag acts as a warning. So for that same reason, I've decided to create the thread; so that instead of creating a new one for each user that looks "suspicious enough", and taking into consideration that the reason would be the same for all the flags; I see no harm in using a single one to place all of the flags, and using the post rather than the thread as a reference.

I'll leave a couple of examples on the post below this one; and will use this one to display a table of all the flags created, linking each flagged profile to the post of reference. Anyone can create a post to flag here; this is not just for myself.

Will this stop people creating disposable accounts? I hope so, but believe it not. However, I do believe that if the account gets burnt fast enough, scamming is less likely to happen.

Edit: I am not saying that every user who gets flagged is a scammer; if any user believes that has been incorretly flagged, that can be discussed here (as it will be the reference thread) and the rest of the users will decide whether to keep supporting it, oppose it, join it or whatever they wish

---

---

Thanks to suchmoon and Darkstar_ for pointing me out that this was rather doable referencing me to this thread of Steamtyme

---

---

List of flagged users:

Table may be a bit sloppy; I hope it improves with time