Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 45 results by Smithy337
AUCTION STARTED https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1334000.new#new
Escrow available
Auction starting price: 1 BTC (price does not include shipping or escrow fees)
Minimum bid: 0.05 BTC
Auction ends: 2pm 27 January 2016 UTC time
More information: http://www.bitcoinarchitecture.com/
http://i.imgur.com/z4aqPvx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mLvWiKF.jpg
Auction starting price: 1 BTC (price does not include shipping or escrow fees)
Minimum bid: 0.05 BTC
Auction ends: 2pm 27 January 2016 UTC time
More information: http://www.bitcoinarchitecture.com/
http://i.imgur.com/z4aqPvx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mLvWiKF.jpg
Nothing is stopping you from repaying. 
You know that negative trust can be removed, but you are waiting for a reward to stick to your word.
In the end, you won't pay a cent and will just move on to a different account.
You know that negative trust can be removed, but you are waiting for a reward to stick to your word.
In the end, you won't pay a cent and will just move on to a different account.
No, you complicated everything. I know your character and I know you won't remove the neg trust after I pay the $15.
I understand asking a premium for the piece because it is the first one, but
the website has new one that can be had 1.5BTC
Maybe auction it??
Thanks
the website has new one that can be had 1.5BTC
Maybe auction it??
Thanks
I'm open to offers but this is a first edition of the series. I will wait a little longer and then open an auction. Thank you for the suggestion.
I'm trying to end this dispute by reversing everything to its original state, I'm not sure what your problem is.
Have you paid out the bounty yet as you stated you would? 48 hours came and went three months ago.
Thanks for the neg rep, your actions just cost someone $15.
Oh, after three months you were suddenly going to pay?
Clearly.
Hmm I don't see this dispute being settled as it is a very gray area. However, I also don't like my forum reputation being dragged through the mud. Considering $15 = 0.03 BTC, I'll make the payment to the user who posted an image of the sunglasses that most resemble what I ended up buying. This is contingent on my negative trust rating being removed.
Deal?
Deal?
Escrow available
Price: 2.5 BTC
More information: http://www.bitcoinarchitecture.com/
http://i.imgur.com/z4aqPvx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mLvWiKF.jpg
Price: 2.5 BTC
More information: http://www.bitcoinarchitecture.com/
http://i.imgur.com/z4aqPvx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mLvWiKF.jpg
I'm trying to end this dispute by reversing everything to its original state, I'm not sure what your problem is.
Have you paid out the bounty yet as you stated you would? 48 hours came and went three months ago.
Thanks for the neg rep, your actions just cost someone $15.
Re: ►⭕️ [WTS] BULL VERSUS BEAR - ฿ - BITCOIN ARTWORKS - LTD EDITION OF 25 PIECES ⭕️◄
Due to personal circumstances, I will be taking offers for my 1st edition Bull vs Bear piece. If bitcoinarchitecture agrees, I would like to use them as escrow (if necessary). Please send me a message with offers.
Hey Smithy,
Sorry to hear you have to let go of the #1 piece.
But can you please start your own [WTS] thread with picture, price etc.
This is to avoid confusion concerning payment address etc.
If you want to sell quick you could also do an auction.
Thanks
BA
Thank you very much BA, I love your work, although unfortunately I have to let it go (I work in the tourism industry and it hasn't met expectations this season). I will make my own thread (sorry for the possible confusion this may have caused).
Regards
Maybe negative trust, but there was no btc risked losing just by giving him an answer 
So your time has no value?
You owe me 30 satoshi for the time it took to read your comment and reply!
Careful, bitcointalk is full of users on power trips. My argument was well balanced to why changing terms mid-thread can set a bad precedent for future cases, but apparently logic doesn't exist here. I don't really care, at the end of the day, it is only ~0.03 BTC
Hmm I don't see this dispute being settled as it is a very gray area. However, I also don't like my forum reputation being dragged through the mud. Considering $15 = 0.03 BTC, I'll make the payment to the user who posted an image of the sunglasses that most resemble what I ended up buying. This is contingent on my negative trust rating being removed.
Deal?
Deal?
LOL. Probably no deal. Extortion is yet another sign of dishonesty.
If they can find a solution with those in the thread I see no problem to remove my rating. The solution however is not to send me coins, but I also didnt understand it that way.
You are kinder than me. If the user can't understand they need to do the proper thing without a reward, I don't feel sorry for them.
I'm trying to end this dispute by reversing everything to its original state, I'm not sure what your problem is.
Re: ►⭕️ [WTS] BULL VERSUS BEAR - ฿ - BITCOIN ARTWORKS - LTD EDITION OF 25 PIECES ⭕️◄
Due to personal circumstances, I will be taking offers for my 1st edition Bull vs Bear piece. If bitcoinarchitecture agrees, I would like to use them as escrow (if necessary). Please send me a message with offers.
http://i.imgur.com/ymzJr3d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ymzJr3d.jpg
Hmm I don't see this dispute being settled as it is a very gray area. However, I also don't like my forum reputation being dragged through the mud. Considering $15 = 0.03 BTC, I'll make the payment to the user who posted an image of the sunglasses that most resemble what I ended up buying. This is contingent on my negative trust rating being removed.
Deal?
Deal?
-snip-
The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.
The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.
So only the first post counts? Was that a rule that was clearly known to those involved? Is that a normal and common behaviour in trades?
Here's a car wash example; I state that I'll pay $15 for my car to be washed (this takes x amount of time, effort and material).
To make it clear here, x is unknown for everyone involved. Finding a specific pair of glasses is not a priori achievable with fixed amounts of time, effort and material. From taking a look at a dirty car its pretty evident how much work, efford and material is involved/needed.
As I want my car washed promptly, I then tell the washers that they only need to clean the tyres.
This is not what you said though. You said - to stay with the example - "wash it as good as possible in the next 48 hours and I will pay the person that did the best job."
So I originally was going to pay $15 for a full car wash, why would I pay $15 for only my tyres (that takes significantly less time, effort and material)?
Because you said you would.
What if I deem the tyre clean unsatisfactory? Would you still pay for a half assed job? No. IF someone still washed my car fully, then they would be entitled to the original agreement.
If you dont want to change the agreement you should not announce a change in the agreement.
I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm not sure why you have 'trust'.
I dont think so, but this is hardly the topic here. I have the impression you tried to weasel out of a statement you made and later regretted.
Since you are clearly struggling to justify your rating, here is another example.
Let's pretend the terms were stated in the OP; that I will pay $15 for someone to find the EXACT sunglasses. Let's say the thread is 6 pages long and somewhere in those 6 pages I state that I no longer plan on paying a reward. Obviously everyone will see the OP but it is unlikely that they will see that the terms have changed, which would be deemed unfair.
Even though the unchanged OP clearly states the terms, I no longer have to pay a bounty because I buried a response in that thread that overrules the original terms?
Is this what you're trying to say? Because if this is so, the mods need to review your account. All I have done in that example is switch the current scenario, thus highlighting your misjudgement.
I just realized that my account has negative rep. Sorry for the confusion.
It clearly states in the OP terms:
During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.
I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.
It clearly states in the OP terms:
[ img]http://i.imgur.com/iXHILoh.jpg[/img]
Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).
Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).
During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.
I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.
So when I change our deal midway I dont have to honor the changes? You motivated people to invest time in finding something for you with this statement, this is what you wanted according to your own words. Obviously you looked for something specific, but you also said
-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.
The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.
Here's a car wash example; I state that I'll pay $15 for my car to be washed (this takes x amount of time, effort and material). As I want my car washed promptly, I then tell the washers that they only need to clean the tyres.
So I originally was going to pay $15 for a full car wash, why would I pay $15 for only my tyres (that takes significantly less time, effort and material)? What if I deem the tyre clean unsatisfactory? Would you still pay for a half assed job? No. IF someone still washed my car fully, then they would be entitled to the original agreement.
I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm not sure why you have 'trust'.
I just realized that my account has negative rep. Sorry for the confusion.
It clearly states in the OP terms:
During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.
I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.
It clearly states in the OP terms:
http://i.imgur.com/iXHILoh.jpg
Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).
Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).
During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.
I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.
OP, have you seen these sunglasses:
Marc Jacobs Sunglasses MJ252/S Black
http://en.designerseven.com/sunglasses/marc-jacobs-mj252s_12876.html
http://www.visiofactory.com/en/sunglasses/2626-sun-glasses-marc-jacobs-mj-252-s-807-lf-black-and-silver-shading-lenses-827886558810.html
They look very similar.
http://i.imgur.com/ojGyhuR.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tBHYBa0.jpg
Marc Jacobs Sunglasses MJ252/S Black
http://en.designerseven.com/sunglasses/marc-jacobs-mj252s_12876.html
http://www.visiofactory.com/en/sunglasses/2626-sun-glasses-marc-jacobs-mj-252-s-807-lf-black-and-silver-shading-lenses-827886558810.html
They look very similar.
http://i.imgur.com/ojGyhuR.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tBHYBa0.jpg
Similar. But the frame is a little thicker where it attaches to the arms.