Topic: marcotheminer - page 2. (Read 1289 times)

It smells more and more like an exit scam.

I see an address, no signature. For what it's worth, I have no reason to believe you bought the account. I didn't interact with you before.

If you stop asking for bigger and bigger loans, I'll stop thinking you're planning an exit scam.

I love it when people claim the loan they need is "peanuts". That may be true for some people, but the fact is you don't have this "peanut" amount, which makes it much more than "peanuts" for you.

I'd say open a topic and post all the details

A hasty call on my part: I realise there's no point in calling things like that. Here is an opportunity for 5,000 eur in 20 days.

Again, serious investors will have the peace of mind they need. Trust me, I was and still am a serious investor when I have cash.



Yes, you can find it in my old loan threads. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11077414

& Please, stop with the "exit scam" possibility. It's fun to have some drama where someone might run off with $5000eur, but it's peanuts. This is legitimate revenue generation. Those with real interest/ability to invest, will ask the right questions - and soon realise if they are wasting their time or soon to make money.

Honestly can't say much more than that, all the proof I need I have.

Well, it appears that plan changed. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/closed-5123782

To be thorough: can you give a link to a signed message and staked address? And since accounts are often sold including staked address, it will be much more convincing if you sign from a non-empty staked address.

Yes, since day 0 until now. Signed address has been given several times since returning to active mode.

Are we sure this is the original marcotheminer? I've only skimmed the thread but he was pretty inactive from about 2016 and has only really recently started up again, especially with the loans. Has a signed message been provide from some old addresses?


Jeeze, you really do have a hard-on for me. It was really fun for me to sit back and watch you run around desperately trying to get people to tag me merely for not removing the word 'Cloudbet' from the premier league pool when all the shenanigans was going on. You should read what you've just written a few times because I actually find great irony and hypocrisy in this post as you seriously contradict yourself. I'll explain why. You yourself were quick to want Cloudbet be painted with negative feedback and I think one of the main reasons why was because you knew I was running a Cloudbet-sponsored pool so that would be one avenue you could use to beat off to in an attempt to try 'get' me. I followed the situation closely but unlike the lynch mob I wasn't ready to throw them under the bus straight away because I thought there was a good chance the scam accuser was either lying or there was something fishy going on and it certainly wasn't apparent what was actually happening or that Cloubet were doing something dodgy nor did I feel like me running a pool merely with the word 'Cloudbet' in front of it was going to do much damage in this situation even if the worst turned out to be true, but I was waiting for all the facts, unlike you who wanted them painted red asap because it was in your interests to. In fact, it later transpired that Cloudbet was doing the good thing by delaying payment because they could see something fishy was going on and didn't add up right and someone else was trying to claim the money and that was later admitted by the original claimant and rightful owner of the money. If you had gotten your way and Cloudbet panicked and acquiesced to the demands of the red-painting lynch mob and just immediately sent the money back to the person who asked for it so the community didn't turn against them and ruin their rep forever then he would have likely run off with it and that would have been ok for you because chop chop, it had to be instant even though you didn't know all the facts. Imagine if that had happened and a scammer got all that money just because they didn't want their reputation ruined by the baying mob here hungry for blood instead of waiting for all the facts and research to have been done to make sure the money was actually going to the right person. What would have happened then. Would you have been rallying for them to send another 330 btc to the rightful owner? You were thinking with your dick and you should wait for the facts first before you blow your load, especially when all you really wanted from the situation was it diverted on to me.

He was SATISFIED BEFORE I paid him, do you see this? I could have satisfied him the DAY I was late, but I had made "quick promises" stupidly rather than wait the day and make a sure call and say look I need 7days more, so and so will happen, here's my plan and progress.

The day it was due I had my backup income opportunity - the one I was sure of by Friday and shared with Roman (he can confirm this).

==

Understand my words and you'll see where I'm coming from. I do business, things get done. Yeah, these things happen. But my mistakes, I agree fully don't need to repeat.

?


By 7 days in, the lender was calmed by my PROOF to him. That Thursday he has SOLID reassurance he would be paid ASAP. And I even got income before I expected today (0.3BTC).

I would say wait 2 weeks. That's scam territory. Some borrowers straight up disappear for 10-12 days easily.

Every other situation I've had I under promise and over deliver. I fucked up 2 small loans - no a big deal in my books.

This is part of the problem, the fact that you can't see this from anybody else's viewpoint other than your own.  It may not seem like a big deal to you, but you weren't the one wondering if you were going to ever see your money again or whether the borrower was just stringing you along with false promises.

Also, I think bones was asking a rhetorical question when he asked how long DT members should wait before tagging someone for repaying a loan late, and it certainly isn't a question that you ought to be answering.  In fact, seeing as how the only thing your input has gotten you is more red trust, you might want to just remain quiet.  You are definitely not helping yourself with your words.

Come to think of it, you're promoting a likely money laundering vessel. You're getting set pay.

Do I attack you personally for that? This is still Bitcoin. That arbitrage bot COULD still be real. Yeah, it's typically like HYIPs, but it shows proof I accept. DYOR.

===


NO LONGER SEEKING LOANS (1Month)
I received the expected 0.3BTC, so that's a month of income right there.

If I am not going to trade with person x regardless of their trust rating, you tagging person x is not going to protect me because it will not change anything. On the other hand, if I am considering buying widgets and you tag person x who sells widgets, then I would be protected (to the extent I am willing to listen to your warning) if you tag him for being a scammer. If you also sell and/or trade widgets, then you would want person x to be tagged if he is a scammer because if he scams a bunch of widget buyers, the marketplace could get a reputation that it isn’t safe to buy widgets, scarring potential buyers away.

You may not limit your tags to widget scammers in the above example because a scammer who sells hammers might scare away potential widget buyers and otherwise give the marketplace a reputation where people mostly get scammed, or the victim of a scam attempt.

In the same example, if you tag people unfairly who trade hammers, the marketplace might get a reputation for not being fair and potential widget buyers might not want to use the marketplace to buy widgets, hurting your business. Also some people might be afraid to do business with you if you tag people unfairly.

I see no need to be protecting only a certain category of people. When I tag an account, it's meant to protect anyone.

     How long do you recommend we wait to tag someone for being late on a short term loan? Especially when the lender starts a thread bringing up their concerns? It appears 10 days late on a loan that's only supposed to be a week is not sufficient grace for some people around here. Should DT sit on their hands for 30 days? 60 Days? 90 days? Indefinitely? Also, if DT spots the same account trying to get another loan while another is late, should DT sit on their hands?
    The only reason that I am not adding another negative trust comment to marcotheminer's trust page is because I do agree with LoyceV that this probably has more than enough redundancy at this point.
    Also, if someone is denying payment because DT started red tagging them for being late, that is untrustworthy behavior. In the end, I'm glad marcotheminer made everyone whole plus penalty and interest. However, in the future, it appears when marcotheminer is negotiating terms, he needs to learn to under-promise and over-deliver. As a bill collector, there is nothing more irritating than constantly getting "call me tomorrow, and I will pay," or "the check is in the mail." If they must be late, I would prefer that they just tell me a week or even a month (and make good) so I don't have to keep following up.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but marcotheminer had the lender anxious enough that he started a scam accusation thread, and the extra interest was only added once marcotheminer had been negged and pressured to pay the guy back. 

You still haven't said who you're talking about, because I'm 100% sure you have specific members in mind that for some reason you won't share.  If you're talking about me, please tell me how I'm unable to empathize with the lender in this case because of the hard time marcotheminer was giving him.  How much experience is enough?  Please tell me, I'm dying to know what your standards are.

There was a very clear issue here, and it wasn't something someone had to go digging for.  It's also disheartening how your attitude has changed since you received that neg for trying to escrow $100k.  Hopefully you can see that this isn't malicious, just as hilariousandco's neg on you wasn't malicious.  We're dealing with the internet, anonymous people, and an irreversible form of currency.  This is the only way to keep the community clean, especially when no one goes to the authorities when they get scammed.

For promoting Ponzi on signature space Marco tagged by Suchmoon and other DT. But later they gave him a chance and all DT removed negative trust which has been given for promoting Ponzi.

If I were to have tagged him for anything, it would be promoting a Ponzi in his sig space.



It was definitely a Ponzi or else straight up scam. There's no room for debate with silly promises like these:



However, I am of the opinion that once somebody has been tagged for something, there is no reason to add another tag for the same thing. I've been trying to give them out sparingly.

You guys are very good at painting users. Always keen to find an issue in others. You are helping the community?

---

This guy may be late to pay but he repaid the lender with extra amount as late fees. One of the lender panicked so he created a topic. And you lot just ruined everything for this user?

After your red tag this guy could deny repayment. Who would suffer then? The OP of course, coz he would lost his money. Good thing that this guys did not do that.

---

Where were you guys when hilariousandco did not remove cloudbet's name from his CL prize pool topic while there were a big scam accusations of 330 BTC was open. It was resolved later but wasn't it obvious if I or any other user would do the same then your lot would red paint them?

You would not mass with hilariousandco because he has the same power or to some extend more influence then you all lot have.

2double0 is not my account, it is not used by me, I do not own/use it. How many times do I need to say this?


Ah this again. I have NO outstanding debts ANYWHERE. Connect all the accounts/addresses you want: I use marcotheminer, it is my forum account. Whatever links I've had to other accounts are long irrelevant.

And please: What "old loans"

---

In general agreement with what you've said.

May I add too: piggy-backing on others' trusts is a sure way of showing a member doesn't think for themselves. If they jump on the negative-trust bandwagon, they're just wanting to flex some power or something probably. Because by that point adding an extra negative trust adds nothing of value to making others aware of the negative-trusted user's actions (obviously, unless they were +100 in the green).

I am referring to anyone who doesn't regularly trade, or who has not previously traded extensively.

My concern is not about being qualified to hand out ratings, my concern is about the lack of self governance. The most active DT members have never traded (or have seldom traded) in the marketplace, and have not been selected to be on DT by anyone with any kind of substantial trading history in the forum marketplace, and as such, their judgment as to when (or when not) to leave a particular rating does not represent the consensus (nor the will) of those who will use the DT system in any substantial way.  Instead, ratings, or lack thereof has more to do with the person is a member of a clique of a small group of people.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the original term of the loan was supposed to be for one week, with ~13% interest, instead, the loan was repaid 17 days, and approximately 66% interest was paid. 5x the agreed amount of interest was paid in exchange for the loan lasting approximately 2.43x it should have.

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

I suspected 2double0 was linked with marco (archived)
Marco gave a loan to 2double0 but they didn't keep that record. I have also created a post where I thought 2double0 might be a scammer.
Quickseller also thought they are using by the same owner, see his/her topic on reputation board.