Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2019, 07:38:42 AM

If I were in any control, all of them would be long red and banished and the trolls like Quicksie, TECSHARE etc. banned.

I do not doubt that you would ban/banish anyone who disagrees with you about wanting to ban/banish anyone that disagrees with you, but that is not what this forum is about. I think many would have a bone to pick with that as a good many of us believe in freedom of expression..
Thanks for that written admission of how authoritarian you are.. Banish all the lenders, lol..
I thought you were the supreme leader of the cult of lauda?

Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2019, 07:38:42 AM

I ask myself why you have high merit and then I notice who merits such garbage. Roll Eyes

High merit? My merit hasn't even kept up with my activity..
My received merit is quite diverse.. I have more merit from the crazy leftist FH mod that I completely disagree with on most matters than from QS, and Theymos himself which I am quite proud of..
Your top 10, on the other hand, looks like shit..

Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2019, 07:38:42 AM

"'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me.

Are you a gun banner also?
BTW that is how gun sales work where I come from, unless you knowingly sell a gun to someone that is not allowed to have them or knowing they are going to do something bad with it before you sell it to them, you aren't responsible..

Quote from: shasan on January 26, 2019, 11:14:30 PM

But today I saw it was against DT's opinion I already changed my lending terms.

You fold too easily..

Quote from: shasan on January 26, 2019, 11:14:30 PM

But today I saw it was against DT's opinion I already changed my lending terms.
1. Account can't be used as collateral
= If so, then any lender cant take multiple loans at the same time and also would not be able to sell anything which can be reversed.
Lenders will give neutral trust once give a loan. And will not give any loan if there is an active loan which can be seen on neutral trust. If lenders or Borrowers break the rules then they/s/he will get negative trust by DT.

Mine prefer method 1. Let's see what is saying by reputed forum members/DT/Moderators.

So you want a strict criteria of how lenders can operate or be red tagged?
If I give a loan to someone that has another outstanding loan I will get tagged for it?
I will get tagged if I don't place a neutral on the account that has an outstanding loan?
I can't give an anonymous, non-public, loan without getting tagged?

Quote from: Lauda on January 26, 2019, 11:20:55 PM

Is there really a need for someone to accept loan requests that involve accounts? If you claim so, then explain why it is absolutely necessary.

Why not?
Because that is what they want to do and they should be free to do so..
Taking someones account is incentive for them to repay their loan to get it back. It reduces the risk of the loan..

Quote from: suchmoon on January 26, 2019, 11:29:31 PM

I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that unsecured loans are risky? That's shocking but still not a good excuse for account trading, not to mention all the other potential shenanigans. For example when you take an account as collateral you could be getting a hacked one, which the perp is basically selling to you with no intent to pay back the loan. Essentially you're creating a market for such accounts.

If you want to give out unsecured or poorly secured loans - take the risk yourself, don't push it on the community.

A lender would demand a signature from a staked address of the account up for collateral to ensure it is not hacked to guard against that.
Are you, suchmoon, against lenders holding accounts as collateral as long as they don't then sell them? Like Darkstar does..

All loans carry some risk, even altcoin secured loans carry risk because markets move all the time..
See Darkstar's trust rating left on coolcryptovator https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1980983

Quote from: marlboroza on January 26, 2019, 11:40:50 PM

All these examples(scams) you posted could be avoided by simply taking valid collateral, when you take account as collateral from someone whose only intention is to scam, you create more mess then it should be by selling these account and/or complaining that someone scammed you - but you allowed them to scam you. And then we have drama in scam accusation, meta, reputation, PM..
And we wouldn't have this discussion if some of you guys haven't took forum account as collateral and "liquidated" them.

Why is it so hard to take valid collateral and not someone's reputation/age/etc?

Lenders should not be allowed to make no-collateral loans at all?
They should not be free to take whatever risk they think is worth the reward?

Quote from: shasan on January 26, 2019, 11:50:44 PM

For example: actmyname asked for a loan of 0.25BTC without collateral where 2 people send so total received 0.5BTC. actmyname refunded 2nd sender.

I saw that and and left him a positive feedback for his action there I believe if we are talking about the same situation..

Quote from: Timelord2067 on January 27, 2019, 12:48:17 AM

Didn't master-p ^(*) get an unsecured loan then walked away with the funds?

* (I know one of those "trusted types" did - just trying to recall who it was)

As Darkstar said, lending is taking a risk to earn profit..
You don't win em all..

I am obviously against stopping lenders from taking accounts as collateral as long as they don't sell them because selling accounts is now a well established NONO..
I believe they should be free to do so and generally people should be as free as possible in all circumstances.

If you want to set up strict control of lenders as shasan suggested with extreme regulation narrowly guiding lenders to exactly the way they must operate their business go ahead and do that but I think such control exerted over people is ludicrous..