Yup, they are the same person, both bd69dc1c4c10c7258a11ec849c866ad09691b3b654f85b13c82b5284553bbcbd and 8e29686cd3930faaa1d3338f82e21d8cf15872503baecacff1f57a5063e6eac7 were signed with 1DKjtZJ4DJiXvkhv5iJHHS3XwTc4tBAvqa
Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either).
On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely
Although to be fair, the loan that was defaulted on by BitcoinBoss666 was secured with collateral that was retained by the lender, so there was really no loss to the lender, and negative trust is probably not appropriate for BitcoinBoss666 (and as a result, would not be appropriate for BonusGame either).
On the other hand, I do believe that the OP is acting very suspicious, and should probably be watched fairly closely
not entirely unreasonable. however, i think lenders deserve to know if a prospective debtor has defaulted on loans, at least for some amount of time (maybe similar to credit reporting)......if i were a lender, i wouldn't want to liquidate collateral. wouldn't want the headache, and wouldn't want to risk losing money over it.
In my eyes I would not consider BitcoinBoss666 to be a scammer, unless it can be well documented that the collateral he offered was not worth the amount of the loan as of the time he took out the loan.