Bitcoin Forum

Quickseller/ ACCTseller (they are both the same person) sold me this hero account a few months ago for 1.1 BTC. He assured me that the account was not hacked.

Until after the transaction, I find this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.0

Which is a dispute between the original owner (ownership is proven in the thread) and Quickseller. This is the equivalent of me buying a used car that was stated to have never been in a car accident and then finding out afterwards that the car had indeed been in a car accident.

As a result of this dispute, this account received numerous negative trust ratings and I have not been able to get it in a signature campaign since (the intended use). Therefore, I cannot make my investment back.

Quickseller REFUSES to take responsibility and does not want the account back (for obvious reasons).

Please ban these accounts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357263

• Can you prove the account was actually purchased by you?
• Do you have proof of payment?
• Do you have any evidence that Quicksilver and ACCTseller are the same person?
• What specific term of our agreement was breached as a result of your discovery of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.0) (the thread referenced in your OP)?
• Do you have any proof that you have actually applied to join a signature campaign?
• Why did not not publicly attempt to join a signature campaign as the rules of most/all signature campaigns state that you must do?
• Why would it be appropriate for me to "take" the account back?
• Why have you not taken my advice as to how to sell an account and attempt to do so?
• Can you provide any examples of an (alleged or not) scammer has been banned?
• Which specific forum rule are you accusing me of breaking that would cause me to deserve a ban?
• At which point was current ownership proven in the "bayuo" thread?

---

---

My Counterclaims

• There was no condition or term of any potential agreement that we have had that I have breached.
• I told you if you were able to point to a specific representation that turned out to be not true, or any agreement with you that I did not follow through on then I would refund you your money. You have not point to any of such.
• You recently left me negative trust, after which I sent you a message asking you to remove it, and I was met with a response that essentially was blackmail/extortion.
• You have previously made an empty threat on the "bayuo" thread saying that you would expose all of my inventory/accounts, which you did not have access to nor did you follow through on
• You claimed to be close to purchasing an account that is on default trust for the purpose of giving me and my accounts negative trust
• You have threatened by business (this goes hand and hand with the above blackmail claim)
• You have not publicly attempted to participate in any signature campaigns, nor did you claim payment the first month you owned the account when it was enrolled in the Prime Dice campaign, which sadly makes me conclude that you purchased the account with the intention of trying to scam someone.
• An account was recently purchased from me that likely pulled what was probably a "fake scam", which I believe was a failed attempt to make it look like one of my alt accounts was scamming, I speculate you were behind this*

Evidence will follow (*I will not provide evidence on this one for privacy reasons in the event that I am wrong about this)

What exactly did you "see coming"?

Does the OP want to offer any proof of his claims? The burden of proof is on the accuser. I can say that the majority of his claims are not true.

The below quote is from the "bayuo" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.0;all) thread. I have bolded the relevant part when zedicus publicly threatens to expose my accounts for sale:

---

---

This are the two PM's that I received with him claiming to be close to purchasing a default trust account with the intention of giving me negative trust.
Additionally I find it suspicious (and likely untrue) that he "owns" multiple accounts that participate in signature campaigns, but he does not actually post. If it is true, then he is probably the cause of a lot of spam.

---

---

This is when he threatened my business by saying that my business is "over"

---

---

Here is another example of when he threatened all of my accounts and my business:

---

---

Another threat:

---

---

Here is evidence that I gave him advice as to how to sell his account if that is what he wanted to do so:

---

---

Here is more proof that I offered to help him sell the account:
Upon the community's request I am "report" any of the above messages to an administrator who can confirm the authenticity of such PM's. Multiple quoted and discussed the first quoted post in this post.

If I left out any evidence of my above claims then post here and I will see what I can find.

Right......"hacked"

Yes. Everything is in PM's from our purchase including the payment address.


Before I answer this. Do you publicly deny that ACCTseller is not your alternate account? If you don't deny this, why did you need to ask this question?


That whole thread is about Zedicus being a HACKED account. You assured me that this was not the case before purchase. Why do I want to give you money for YOUR baggage? I didn't want to be involved in this. IF I had known these details before purchase, I would have (like any other reasonable person) turned down the offer.




Yes. Because I have pm'd the operators before applying to see whether this tainted account can or cannot be used in signature campaigns.



Simple. You lied to me to get a sale. You did not tell me this account was under dispute with the original owner. No one would have purchased this account if they had known. Should I make a poll about this?



Because at the end of the day, I couldn't bring myself to sell this account. Who would want it?



The same rule that applies if I sell iPhone 6's in the marketplace and ship poo instead.




The part where he signs a message. Instead of asking stupid questions, go and read the thread.

Thank you.

I simply want my money back. Any reasonable person in the same position would not have purchased this account if they knew it was under dispute by the original owner. Plain and simple. Yet Quickseller/ ACCTseller continues to spew defensive crap.

I gave him months to make things right by me. He was just hoping that it would all go away. My hand was forced.

Please provide proof in public. If you want to make a claim then the burden is on you to prove your case, not on me to prove my innocence. Have you ever hear of innocent until proven guilty?
See my above comment. If you cannot prove a claim then you should not make such claim. I do not need to deny anything, it is on you to prove what you say is true.
Where is the proof that zedicus is a hacked account? Both theymos and BadBear have said (on reddit and the "bayuo" thread that there is not evidence of such to support giving the account back to bayuo. They have more information that anyone else on here has. The only proof that I have seen is something that would indicate that the account was previously owned by bayuo.

As a result of freedom of speech, anyone is able to make any claim they wish, despite the lack of truth to such claim

Provide such proof.
Did you specifically inquire about a dispute of ownership? If so then what was my response? Please provide proof.

If you did not make such inquiry then what statement did I make that was a lie? Please provide proof.

You cannot rely on hypothetical situations to support a claim.

Why did you ask for help selling it only days ago? What changed between then and now that caused you to not want to sell the account?

Someone who is wanting to earn money by posting in a signature campaign who is interested in Bitcoin would want the account.

A search for "poo" in the market place rules and guidelines (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.0) comes up with no results. A similar search in the Unoffical list of official forum rules thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0;all) shows several results discussing pools, but nothing regarding "poo"

Please provide a link that proves I broke a forum rule (if one were to assume your allegations are true).
At which point was current
ownership proven? A signed message does not proof current ownership, it only proves previous ownership. If ownership was proven then how/why are you still in possession of the account?

Also please address my blackmail/extortion claims against you.

Do you deny that the messages I published are accurate? Do you deny the messages I published would be classified as blackmail/extortion? If so then please make an argument.

If you admit to blackmailing me then what incentive would I have to act honestly with you (if one were to hypothetically assume that I did in fact owe you money)?

Quickseller, I do not have time for your games. To the ACTUAL POINT of this thread.

Did you sell me an account that you knew was being disputed by the owner (or someone who had control over this account in the past)? YES

Would a reasonable person in my position still purchase an account with this extra information that you purposefully withheld? NO

If you do not want to make this right, you need a scam tag. People need to know that you have dishonest business practices.

I think it is pretty fucken obvious that I own this account (since I am posting from it), so stop with the games and give me a REFUND!

This is how I read Quickseller's responses:

Do you have a cat?

Can you show me proof of this cat?

Is the cat brown and orange?

Do you like cats?

Can you provide proof that you like cats?

Do you like cats more than dogs?

Do cats live longer than horses?

Have you ever seen a cat ride a horse?

If so, prove it?

TLDR - Stop asking stupid questions. I thought this topic was very clear. You were dishonest
(FRAUD) and now I want my money back. Your whole business revolves around honesty, why let this spill out? You're only ruining yourself with your relentless text vomit.

If I had the money to spare I'd pay you for that. I had to choice but to LOL when I read this...

You still can. All negatives you've received are untrusted so all signature campaigns are still going to accept you.

So this isn't a valid arguement.

That's a pretty broad generalization; different signature campaign managers look for different things in their participants, but I wouldn't be surprised if most would be weary of accepting someone with what is potentially a stolen account - I know I would be, and would likely rather not have anything to do with it, in order to avoid it reflecting negatively on my campaign.

EDIT: but give it a try zedicus - LuckyBit is currently open. :)

Wait I am confused, do you mean Quickseller or Quicksilver?

I can tell you right now that luckybit and gawminers would accept him. So would a few others.

@marcotheminer,
If he would have applied for the bit-x campaign, he would have been selected in it?

Also, as Bayuo has proved that the account "zedicus" belongs to him only, will Quickseller give him the funds he received for hacking his account, i.e., BTC1.1 (as shown in the evidences above), or does "zedicus" guarantee that if he gets a refund from Quickseller, will he then transfer the ownership of this account back to Bayuo?

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302)

Quickseller should show a screenshot of the PM in which you can see the payment address for the account. Zedicus too.

After Zedicus signs this address to prove that he is the real buyer.

Didn't this only come to light after it was sold? And this is the problem with buying and selling accounts which both buyers and sellers should be aware of the risks involved. And as Marco said the account isn't ruined because it doesn't have defaulttrust feedback (though the longer you drag this out the more likely it is to recieve some especially since you're now issuing threats).

I don't think it is too much to ask that you prove what you are claiming. In both criminal and civil litigation the burden is on the person bringing the claim (in this case you) to prove their case. 
No, I deny this. There was a dispute over the ownership of the zedicus account at one point, however it was resolved on 16 Aug, 2014 at 2:59 PM UDT. There was no additional evidence presented by bayuo after this time. See the below quote:
(bold done by me). Unless you can prove that you purchased the account from me prior to this time then you have no case. Even if you can prove you purchased the account before this time any harm that you had suffered was reversed when the dispute was resolved.
The fact that a reasonable person may or may not want to purchase the account is irrelevant. In order to withhold information, such information needs to be first requested. I deny that you requested any information about a dispute of account ownership. You have provided no such proof and appear unwilling to provide such proof. 
You are entitled to your own opinion. There is nothing to make right.
The whole basis of your claim is that you are saying the zedicus account was hacked and stolen from the original owner. If you are saying that the fact you are able to post from your account proves ownership then you invalidate your claim the ownership of the account even could be under dispute.

Right. Plus even if you have default negative trust you can participate in bit mixer and Bitcoin Scratchticket.

Also you have claimed that you have tried to join signature campaigns via PM, but have provided no proof of such.

Additionally according to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=530420.msg9698941#msg9698941) another account ( Pierre11 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=177007)) whose ownership is much more questionable received payment from the GAW campaign. Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=840008.0;all) is the scam accusation claiming the account was stolen. At one point it is even admitted that the account was given to the incorrect person.
This is libel. bayuo has not proved that he is the current owner, nor has it been proven that I hacked the account. I have provided evidence to the contrary.

Is there any evidence for this allegation?
If true, it makes a mockery of the entire default list.

@Quickseller,
What evidence are you talking about? I've been watching that thread very carefully and I didn't find any, link me through quoting the same...

I am confident enough that zedicus was planning on trying to scam when he purchased the account that I am willing to offer a bounty of .02 for anyone who can show a PM from zedicus regarding doing business that was received between 16 Aug 2014 and 8 Sep 2014. In order to prove the PM is real, you must either report it and a moderator can confirm it or an escrow can access your account (who we both trust) and can post what was received from zedicus. I will keep this offer open until 11 dec 2014 at 11:59 UDT.

If you are looking for evidence that zedicus was not hacked, then I presented it in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.msg8738615#msg8738615)

No, it was ongoing before I purchased this account.

Quickseller, publicly deny that you do not own ACCTseller and I will rebut your text vomit.


Also please be aware that Quickseller is an account seller so he controls A LOT of accounts. There is probably a lot of shills already in this thread.

I am sorry sir, but you need to prove your claims, it is not up to me to prove my innocence.

You are correct. I do own a lot of accounts but none of them (none that I have for sale) have posed here. Also there are only 9 accounts besides you and me that have posted here, even if they were all my shills, that is hardly a lot. Plus the majority of the accounts that have posted have been neutral to the situation.

EDIT: I also don't need to use shills because my argument is valid and logical.

There does seem to be a bit of signature spam however they are not taking sides

I agree. That is a good way to sort this out. If quick seller can post screenshots or ask a trusted member (I'm thinking vod) to log in to his account to verify that he did indeed bought the zedicus account from the original owner.

Lolz, was that for me? You meant to say that I am spamming here and I ain't taking any sides? Seriously? It's not like that... You are offering some bounty to prove that zedicus used to scam you, but remember, if you are trustworthy and most importantly, if you are telling the truth, I will do it for free for you as like everyone here, me too wants to know the truth and we know that none of you both will give your credentials to anyone to prove who's correct and who's not... I bet if you both, Quickseller and zedicus, give your credentials to hilariousandco as he's the staff member here and if he takes the responsibility to reveal the truth out here, then it may sort out the things going on here... Do you both agree with the same, and will you (hilariousandco) please look into the matter personally this time and sort this out, Sir?

Had I known for certain it was a hacked account? No.

As it was a week ago (as I wasn't aware like other managers wouldn't have been)? Yes.

But now? Probably not.

It is not certain that this is a hacked account. No new information has come out about the sale of this account. The other thread in meta got a lot more attention then this thread has gotten

What I meant was: "If I know for certain it was a hacked account..."

Quickseller knew the account was hacked!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.msg11674128#msg11674128

If the account was in fact hacked, then Quickseller, knowingly or otherwise sold stolen property. If he never had legal ownership of it to begin with, he has no right to keep the collected funds because there was no valid exchange. The rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Just a quick analogy for you for comparison...
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/must-a-pawn-shop-return-stolen-property-to-its-owner/

He may or may not have known it was hacked, but as far as possession and the law are concerned it doesn't make any difference, he must return the property and the funds, and be more selective about accounts he buys in the future.

The account was not hacked, as BadBear confirmed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741302.msg8382439#msg8382439):


Bayuo sold me the account, received money for it and then later claimed it was hacked so he would receive his account back and obviously get to keep the money he received from the sale. Just a pathetic scam attempt.

Only he doesn't confirm it wasn't hacked. He explicitly said he doesn't know either way.

I think most people would consider this conclusive evidence:

He says there is good reason to believe that he shouldn't be the owner of the account anymore. Although yes, he does say that he doesn't know with certainty either way, the preponderance of the evidence does support it not being hacked.
Nope. All that confirms is that he was able to produce a signed message from an address previously associated with his account. Additionally, Light mentions that the signed message is from a cashed version of a thread, which implies that the post that included the address was deleted. I was in communication with him for over 3 days before the account was actually purchased, the bayuo account was created very shortly after the account was sold, so if the account was in fact hacked then the hacker would have needed to gain access to the actual password of the account, not change the password, both send and receive PM's to me without the "real" owner of the account noticing, and then bayuo would just so happen to know which thread an address was posted on despite not being able to search for such address because the post was deleted. Also the "real" owner of the account would have had to not noticed PM notification emails received any time I had sent the account a PM.

Can I ask if you seriously think all this would be plausible? It should also be noted that bayuo claims to employ extensive security measures and claims to have used a very long/complex password. It should also be noted that there was no corresponding report of theft of bitcoin from bayuo and he never reported that he found any malware.

Since Badbear wont elaborate as usual, it really isn't very helpful and doesn't tell us much. Usually signing a message previously used on an account is considered fairly solid evidence of ownership. I don't find it that odd that he used a cached address, he probably used Google, making it quite a simple task to search for.  As far as the emails, I could see some one not checking their inbox for an extended period of time. If his intent was to scam then why wouldn't he prepare a more visible Bitcoin address in a post or set up a pgp key prior, instead of fishing around for deleted posts?

None of this sounds unrealistic to me. Obviously this situation creates issues with telling which accounts are or are not stolen in the future. If it is just one person's word against another's, then what is to stop account sellers from regularly selling stolen accounts and just claiming anyone who complains is just trying to scam? Conversely what is stopping account sellers from scamming? IMO there should be some kind of standard set for this type of situation otherwise this will be a recurring issue, especially after the forum hack.

A signed message is solid evidence that an account was owned as of the date the address was posted. It proves that he at one point owned the account, which is undisputed. If you were to sell your account then you would still be able to produce a signed message from any addresses previously associated with your account.

I don't know how many bitcoin addresses you have, however I counted over 130 used addresses in my electrum wallet whose seed was generated only >3 months ago (and which wallet is not the only one I use). If he were to do a google search then he would have needed to know which address to search for.

I remember checking his post history and was unable to find a posted address. If his address or pgp key was more visible then he would be risking being asked for a signed message which would have foiled his plan to scam. He needed an address that could easily be linked back to his account, but only to someone who knows where to look, or to someone who is shown very specific evidence.

I admit that when I purchased the zedicus account, I was very new and that it was a mistake to not get a signed message prior to paying for it, however that does not mean that the account was hacked. The generally accepted standard to prove ownership of an account is to provide a signed message that specifies that the ownership is transferring, then if/when someone comes around to claim the account was hacked, that signed message can be presented to disprove such allegation.

These scam artists linger on this forum, tend to back each other up and always apply diversionary tactics!  The scam accusation clearly states Quickseller NO Quicksilver ...... Who'd have thought, dogie's number one wingman quite aside from trading in forum accounts (which is a scam of its own right), also scams his customers! You couldn't make it up if you tried.

So if we banned account sales you would then feel more confident in sending money to scammers? This is exactly one of the reasons why it's allowed as if it was banned it wouldn't change anything apart from give users a false sense of security. People would just sell accounts off site and out of sight.


If it's easy to tell which accounts were sold then it shouldn't be a big issue. People need to make their own minds up about users and 9/10 should be using escrow anyway. Accounts can always be hacked so you should be aware of that too.


You could just create your own army of alts for this, no need to buy one. Should we ban alts now?


I think you're exaggerating here. I'm not denying that sometimes people do buy them in an attempt to scam but but most are busted before they even get a chance to. I haven't seen a bought account scam anywhere near that amount and usually they end up trying to scam and getting neg-bombed before they have the chance forever ruining their account and wasting their money in in the process.


How do you know they were bought? He could just have used his own alts or urged or paid others to leave negative.


Sounds like it doesn't take much to fool you. Being a "woman" should set off red flags instantly.


How were they clearly bought? Anyone could create both a bitcointalk account and Facebook account pretending to be a girl free of charge. If people are naive enough to send money just because they're a woman then there's not much anyone can do for them nor is it the staff's job to babysit them.


For the same reason scams and scammers aren't moderated: Almost impossible to police and incredibly time consuming for staff to check for these things, not to mention we can get it wrong. What if we accidentally thought you were the scammer and banned you? Fair game? Nope. It's easier to allow them and let users police and defend themselves as they should be able to do. As much as you dislike the practice banning accounts sales will do absolutely nothing but push them off site.


It's not defrauding anyone. They're paying for an advert in a signature and that's what they get.


Then why punish everybody including legit people who are just trying to make some extra money from accounts, especially when we can't even enforce it adequately?


I think you're exaggerating the numbers again, but people really need to learn to protect themselves better as harsh as it may sound. The only person who can protect you from being scammed is yourself and sadly sometimes it takes getting burned once or twice before they learn, but most people can handle themselves and if not they certainly need to learn because one thing I know is scammers will never go away and will always be looking for new ways to outsmart you and steal your money. Your solution and logic for this is like trying to put a bandage over a cancer. We can't see it so the cancer is now gone and cured? No, it's still there, just out of sight.

Think about that again ..... They are paying for an advert in the signature of a person who's gained a good reputation on the forum, suposedly by possitively contributing to the forum. An account that has been bought will surely not be able to carry on in that vein, thus the advertiser has been shortchanged. Scam though and through!

And that is quite aside from whatever nefarious acts and / or omissions the account can be used for, and the most prevalent use of such being standing up for fellow scumbags when they get exposed. Honestly, it may be a known evil that scams do (and will continue to) happen, but for a member of staff (tagged as such) to come out and say buying a hero account for the purpose of joining a signature advertising campaign does not amout to a scam is pathetic.

In your opinion, which just so happens to suit your argument. They're paying for a Hero member account and that's what they're getting. If they wanted to make sure that the account was originally and always owned by that person they should ask for a signed message from a very old address first, but they probably don't care and the only person that seems to care about it is you.


Twisted logic, and I don't think you know what the definition of a scam is. Nothing has been stolen or swindled. Maybe if they stated 'account must be owned by original owner' you could argue some terms of service have been broken, but they don't. Still not a scam either way.


It's not pathetic and it's not a scam, it's logical, especially if you were open to the logic/reasoning/argument behind why their sale is allowed in the first place, but the irony is you're a scammer (tagged as such) hiding behind an account that has no other purpose than to troll now. I wonder how many times your account has changed hands or what other nefarious activities it has been involved in? Who knows?

And your opinion does not suit your argument? For cying out out, that is what opinions are! But that you supposedly set the rules on what amounts to be an OK trade (in accounts on the forum) makes you right is no-where near the right thing, and that is NOT just my opinion.


Apart from the advertiser's and the gullible user's trust.



Me tagged as a scammer, hiding behind an account?  Did I miss something here? Whatever you are smoking, ive up on it.
But like I mentioned before, you have no reason to attack my personality, not even on the back of my comments in this thread. But I know scammers in this forum stick together ..... so there.

Out of curiosity, how much money have you made in the currency exchange subform?

There are very few instances where sold accounts have been used to scam, in fact the vast majority of accounts end up in signature deals when the company is advertising based on how "flashy" they can make their signature. An even less percentage of accounts are actually successful in pulling of  a scam attempt so, as mentioned above, the scammer only ends up with a loss because he received nothing from the scam attempt yet had to pay to buy the account.

Considering that your thread is roughly a year old, I don't think that is all that bad (that is quite good actually), although I am sure you had to put a good amount of effort into earning that much money.

When you are in business, you should expect to lose some amount of money due to fraud/scams/ect., that is a normal cost of doing business, as a good risk manager, you should take steps to minimize those losses as much as possible by taking certain precautions.

As mentioned previously, banning the sale of accounts is only going to move the trade of accounts off the site, which would likely make doing business on here more risky and more scam attempts will be likely.

Selling accounts would become a higher risk endeavor, and almost universally speaking, things that involve more risk would mean that the expected reward would be higher.

As I mentioned previously, there are very few instances of fraudsters/scammers using purchased accounts to attempt to scam, and they have incentives not to do so because if they get caught trying to scam then they would loose their initial investment.

Even if scammers were unable to purchase older accounts, there would be nothing that would stop them from cultivating their own accounts which would still enable them to scam, and since the incentive is no longer there to not scam with a high level account, they would have a greater incentive to try to pull off a scam attempt.

It would make the account trading environment more difficult, however in the realm of things it would not be all that hard IMO

I originally started trading forum accounts, however I left that business after the market became very saturated and no longer worth it for me. 

I now occasionally trade physical coins however I intend to be able to ultimately collect a number of coins. I do very much enjoy trading on here.

I also act as escrow for a variety of deals however that pretty much results in dust earnings.

My project somewhat was assuming that the price of Bitcoin was going to be a lot higher.

I think a major reason why so many scammers are successful in the currency exchange section is because there is no sticky warning people of the importance of using escrow and as a result people get greedy when they see a really good deal.

I think a lot of the scams are done by the same person and/or the same group of people.

We'll start seeing many more attempts to scam using bought accounts. Account values continue to drop as Hero and Legendary accounts become more common, price will continue to drop making it much easier for a scammer to buy, scam, profit and repeat. It's inevitable as newer and even some older members here who don't know better blindly trust those with Hero and Legendary account status or accounts with trust. I'm pretty sure scammers and account sellers have been also farming "trust accounts" as well.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done to stop this. Private keys will be sold with accounts and scammers will try to keep the same posting style making it very hard to tell it's been sold. Banning account sales will stop the more lazy scammers but not the ones that are more determined.

Didn't cloudthink purchase accounts? How is that going right now?

Yes cloud think purchased several accounts, including the first one that I ever created (bluemangroup) from a reseller, which was very disappointing when I saw it with negative trust. However the purchase of these accounts did not work out very well for them because they were outed an alts of a scammer and their value went to pretty much zero.

This will exaggerate the importance of using escrow on *every* trade and to actually read the comments, the amount risked, and the reputation of the people who left trust with a potential trading partner. If the amounts risked and reputation of received trust is all virtually zero then such trust ratings should probably be ignored. If a large percentage of positive ratings are from people in your trust network then there is a good chance that person is farming trust and should be treated as a scammer. If there are/is scam reports by reputable people (regardless of if they are in your trust network) then you should trade with additional caution.

I think people should overall understand that the short delay in the time it takes to complete a transaction and the small added fee to use escrow is a very small price to pay when compared to the losses associated with getting scammed.

Curious to know if those are REAL gold coins and how much you're paying for them to profit selling them for spot. Something seems off...

Sorry for getting off topic here.

I am not familiar with those coins, so I would need to pass. I avoid trading in markets that I have not studied and am familiar with. This means that I avoid trying in physical coins that I know have fetched a nice premium in the past.

If the coins are in good condition and they have some numismatic value, then I would suggest getting them graded, most likely be ANACS as getting coins graded is almost universally going to increase it's value.

You might be able to find a market for these coins in the goods section of the marketplace.

I would also like an answer to xetsr's question.