Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:17:22 PM

I made a pretty insightful reply to your reply here before the thread got somewhat derailed.

"insightful" eh?

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, however from what I got from your prior posts about the loan is that you sent/tipped him ~1BTC, he did nothing with that BTC (CLAM) that he received from you and then repaid/tipped the same ~1BTC back to you. Or did I miss something?

That's pretty much how it went.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

Reputation scammers (and trust farmers) will generally start out with smaller amounts, and then will say something along the lines of "dooglus trusted me with with 1 BTC here, so you can trust me with 1.5 BTC" Then when I^* decide that I can trust them with 1.5 because you trusted them with 1, then they can say "dooglus trusted me with 1 BTC and QS trusted me with 1.5 BTC, so I can be trusted with 2.5 BTC". Then the next person gets scammed when they run away with 2.5 BTC, and both myself and you (in this example) would partially be to blame for the third person's loss. (The amounts may not escalate as quickly and there may not be as few "steps" in these kinds of scams, but I think this example gets the overall point across).

*I don't think I would fall for this kind of scheme, but you never know if it was in a more complex form.

Cool story, but what does it have to do with this thread?

The way that people build up trust is the same whether they are scammers or not. Nobody is going to trust you with a large amount until you have shown that you can be trusted with a smaller amount.

It is possible that tsp will scam in the future, and that my report of him paying back the coins I loaned him will have facilitated his scam. The same can be said of any positive trust rating given to any account by anyone.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

From what I understand, you concur that tspacepilot was due n from TF/coinchat (with the possibility of n being zero), but instead received n + x (with x being a positive integer).

No, that is wrong. I think that x is a small non-integer closer to 0 than to 1.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

There is precent to calling someone a scammer when they receive money they should not have received.

[unrelated stories deleted]

Those cases are quite different. KoS refused to give the money back. tsp didn't. He was willing to discuss the situation but TF refused.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money. tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done.

That's what I said.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

I would dispute that tspacepilot attempted to discuss the matter in a way that would result in tspacepilot repaying money that was sent to him in error.
[
If you look at
]this thread closely, you will see that, although tspacepilot did "dispute" the amount that he owed, that TF providing an accounting of the amounts owed would be a waste of time because the overall consensus was that tspacepilot did not have any intention of paying anything back. I counted 5 people saying something along the lines that they did not think tspacepilot was going to repay anything back, which included 3 staff members (tysat apparently is no longer a staff member, but was counted as one in this case).

OK. Because "consensus"?

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

Additionally, tspacepilot demonstrated his willingness to repay by saying that the amount he stole was closer to 0.01 (then .5), and then later said if the amount demanded was 0.001 that he would pay just to make the issue go away:

You keep twisting people's words. Those two statements are not in any way mutually inconsistent. He is saying that the amount his bot earned is small, and that he would be willing to pay a small amount to make this nonsense go away.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

Also, IIRC, you had posted that he told you the amount was something closer to a few thousand satoshi (0.00002), so the amounts he is willing to admit to stealing keeps getting smaller Roll Eyes

I don't remember the amount he told me other than that it was tiny. Perhaps I understated its size. It's an amount earned by a malfunctioning bot on a site run by a suspected scammer without any terms and conditions in place at the time forbidding the running of such bots. Let it go already.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 06, 2015, 04:07:57 AM

While yes, 0.001 is closer to .01 then .5 is, however this is generally not the way that people will speak/argue a point, so I think it is reasonable to say that tspacepilot was admitting to stealing at least .01, but was only willing to repay .001 (which is 10% of the amount stolen).

At no point has tsp admitted to stealing anything.

I think you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have little to no grasp of the concept of what is "reasonable".