Quote from: mikeywith on January 25, 2019, 10:45:09 PM

1- Loan is repaid, end of story.
2- User Default on Loan.

how were you planing to handle no 2 exactly? i am not aware of any other thing that can be done except for selling the account.

Or, you could hold the account for an indefinite period of time hoping they will some day repay the loan.. No?
Why would the lender absolutely have to sell it? He wouldn't..

Quote from: Coolcryptovator on January 25, 2019, 09:33:46 PM

Everyone know that accept collateral as an account is equal to trading account. I can say it's legal way to sell an account. Because I have seen previously if you tag them then you will receive retaliatory tag. And then someone from DT1 will put him on DT2. Then ther will start another story what happened with The Pharmacist previously. And I believe this is not a good practice for DT member.
That's why no one want to tag this kind of case. But I strongly agree with tag sold account even avoid tag to lender.

Quote from: Lauda on January 24, 2019, 04:38:04 PM

Quote from: CryptopreneurBrainboss on January 24, 2019, 04:36:15 PM

No offends guys but I haven't be clarified my questions haven't been answered. If you say an account used for collateral should be tagged for account farming when should the red tag be given? After lone default (to prevent account selling) or immediately it's offered as collateral and should all accounts involved be tagged for account farming?

Both the lender and the user should be immediately tagged.

Why are you afraid of retaliation? You would win wouldn't you?
Their are a few of you and you are in control. Why don't you just conspire together and all tag all of them at once?
You are not doing "the right thing to do" in your opinion to "keep the forum safe"?
You can just exclude whoever retaliated to keep your greens anyway..

I am not a huge fan of DT babyproofing the forum with padded walls over such menial things to possibly save the lowest common denominators from petty scams but I implore you to do what you think is right..
Have your nannystate if you want a nannystate.. It is afterall, what would give you the most power..

Trusting an account just because things are being posted from an account is stupid anyway because any account can be hacked at any time. Accounts themselves should not be trusted in any way.
Your staked address is your proof of reputation not your account.
Your account may have notes on it about your reputation, or someone's reputation, but posting from an account does not prove that is your reputation.
A bitcoin signed message from your staked address is. Or PGP key.
People should be cryptographically signing their contracts/agreements before deals are initiated.

Education is the key to scam prevention IMO, just like sex education is the key to AIDS prevention.
Expecting all hacked and sold accounts to be tagged is a false sense of security if you are uneducated.

Red tags aren't going to stop the lenders from lending. Red tags aren't going to stop account sellers from selling accounts (infact it's proof of business to them)..
Soon enough red tags aren't even going to stop accounts from joining signature campaigns, it already does't in many..

Quote from: coinlocket$ on January 23, 2019, 12:18:43 AM

Should do we tag:
1- sellers of Bitcointalk accounts - Yes
2- sellers of email database - Yes
3- sellers of followers (more followers on social media: fake hype and more stacks on bounties
4- sellers of social media accounts facebook, twitter, telegram or whatever
5- sellers of betting accounts with probably other owners personal data

RE:

Quote from: Lauda on January 23, 2019, 05:59:27 AM

We should be tagging for all of those actions.

Talk about job security, you all sure have a lot of tagging work to do..
The more things you can justify tagging for the better, just like the government, the more things you can control and regulate the better..