Topic: The Pharmacist,actmyname,Vod.. The mafia trying to get controll of bitcointalk ? - page 2. (Read 2836 times)

Isn't that how it works now...? 

In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. I wouldn't be against ditching the whole DT system completely.. and let members make their own trust lists.

The fact that someone even tries to sell the asset that has been offered for collateral is reason enough for a lot of people to mistrust someone... for you two it isn't, OK. But for a lot of other people it is (whether you think it is "fair" or "logical" is irrelevant)... I hope you learned that lesson.

how im going to sell something  that i use as collateral ? iwas trying either to sell it or get loan by that moment so if i ahve sell it i cant use it as collateral and if i get a loan i cant sellits eassy as 1,2,3

Isn't the collateral will be in deposit to the person who give the loan or escrow so the person who needs loan can't actually do anything with it ?
So searching to sell the collateral and also offer it for loan in same place its not something that can affect the person who give the loan or i am wrong?
Soon as the escrow or the person who give the loan takes the collateral, the person who needs loan can't do anything with it because its not in his position.
So i understand so far searching for the best way to earn fast money either ask for loan with valid collateral and in same place selling the collateral is something wrong.
I guess the person who needs loan searching for the fastest way to get this money either by loan with collateral or sell the collateral.
The only bad thing leaves here that the person who request the loan proves he's not even thinking to repay his loan consider he's also selling his collateral.

Let's see:


So while the loan is still outstanding, the "collateral" is still "pledged". If someone tries to sell the collateral while the loan has not been payed in full (plus interest, if agreed upon), that person is deemed to be either a) stupid (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person) or, b) untrustworthy (which justifies a negative trust rating so people know not to do business with that person)...

Its not my business and nothing i have to do with but i don't get the idea about any red trust based on selling the collateral you providing for loan request.
From what i read so far, by requesting loan you should provide 120% collateral right?
So basically you paying 20% above of what you get to not make the person who give you loan in loss right?
In that case physically you can't even bring any loss to the person who give loan right? He always leave with 20% profit or even less if you pay your loan because he take less % right?
Consider person is looking for loan he's looking also for quick cash to pay something.
So trying to sell the collateral before anyone give you loan will bring the person who asking for loan less loss.
The only "bad" thing here is that selling your collateral providing valid proof that you are not looking to repay your loan and just let the person who giving the loan with the 20% profit.
So the only wrong thing i see here is that the person who asking for loan is badly looking for cash and either looking for loan or sell his collateral.
What's the idea of the red trust if the person who give the loan will end up with 20% profit from the collateral  in the end?
I know its not something good to ask for loan which you have no intentions to pay back because you also looking to sell your collateral but in the end the person who give loan leave with 120% collateral  which is 20% profit ??
Correct me if i am wrong please because its my first time talking about loans and stuff...
I never needed loan to understand the full process but from simple view of person who never needed or ask for loan in the end i always see profit for the person who give the loan.
I would like to understand why that's something which should be punished with red trust.

*I'm not here to defend or protect someone but clear for myself why people get red trust for that.

and tea is red

Apples and oranges.

they got proof that I sold my collateral ?? no so why i have negative trust?

And that's the exact same thing you are doing. 

Please add me to your revenge list bozo - I am enjoying your idiocy. 

WHy ?Thats exectly what DT2 members are doing

I'm assuming you have some blockchain proof of these payments because making such an allegation without proof would be just scammy.

By the way , it is of no importance if you remove it or not as I got much better things to do like staying here and posting for pennies. You can send me your congratulations at a minimum since I just got certified about 10 days before in IT Fundamentals.



This is what I intend to learn now, that is why I am staying very little time on the forum. Remove it or not the negative will not affect me in anyway, this is who I am , maybe was not the best example, but since everybody talked against multiaccount, I immediately left all the accounts I had obtained illegally showing extremely good behaviour.

Just had a pizza with a Mojito Soda tonight , didn't go to the club like I always do, I was having a laugh with my friends telling about this story here in the forum and just had a good time.

Now , regarding me trading with half the forum, that is not possible  for a normal human being, second what I asked was during the first time when I got the negative and lastly now please answer my only question I have for you.

Why don't you remove the negative rating since I have shown good behaviour and abandoned all accounts in which I was accused for ? For a lot of time namely 10 months. I have also done a few trades ,which thankfully all have gone well. What is the meaning of this negative which now it is non-valid in my opinion. You don't give second chances, at least that is the impression I have created for you in my mind based on your actions , regarding my specific case.

You didn't:

---

I am happy that we are entertaining you. I can't say the same thing for you. Since you decided not to go to club tonight, can you comment this:

Why are you mentioning certain things and then avoiding answer when asked?

It is of not any good to your account defending now, by the way I am was about to go to the club tonight but your company here seems a better one so am having fun with you two tonight.I don't have an alt army, anyone knows my accounts, it is public knowledge on the forum  

Edit: Going to the club, it is becoming boring here. See you tomorrow.

Somehow I am supposed to know who every random around here is and the names of each participant of their alt army. Seems plausible. Some of the DT and non-DT children still got plenty to learn.

---

Not today. Cheerio.

I did but you want to play and I can play all night if you want and it is funny how Lauda is playing the role of a good DT ex member when he kept me with my other account zend7 on his Bitmixer.io campaign for months , that just shows what integrity DT members have.
Back then he didn't mind.