Bitcoin Forum

If you are posting on this thread, please educate yourself about the previous Escrow issue that occurred with Moreia and Redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=211419) or stay out.
Thank you.

As you can see on RedSn0w's (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=211419) trust page here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=211419 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=211419) He was given negative trust from Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020). I personally believe that Redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=211419) should either be given no negative trust from the situation or neutral trust. He took responsibility in the end and the deal went well... he ended up ending his escrow service due to the occurrences. I believe Quickseller (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=358020) has no right to give the negative trust to him and he should remove it, if anyone should be the one giving negative trust it should be Moreia, and he is okay with Redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=211419).

Please post your replies on whether the negative trust should be removed or what should happen, Quickseller is being ignorant and not listening to my messages so I decided to take matters to here.

Thank you.

PS: I am doing this as a friend of Redsn0w (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=211419) and because I don't believe he is at the wrong in this matter.

RedSn0w did screw up in his escrow services - so he should at least at admit that and take steps so it doesn't happen again.

But in the end, all worked out.  So I can see both points of view.    :-\

He did admit it and he ended his services in response to it.
I mean, this other guy has no relation to this event...

Thanks for michaeladair to this thread ( it was not necessary)  and thanks to vod for the opinion. At the end I've admitted my "stupid" mistake and with the help of the community all was "recovered" but now I think I don't deserve the negative feedback from quickseller.

However thanks again for  your attention , the transparence is the better thing.

atleast you cleared up the issue at hand and made a deal that made both parties happy here, thats what really counts, you made good on your mistake!

It's not what happens to you that matters, it's how you react to it.

You can get a good example of how NOT to react by looking at the recent issue with takagari.  He made it so much worse for himself.

Give it some time, and contact quickseller in the future.  Let all parties cool down.  Don't keep harassing him if he is not budging. 

I was thinking of making a thread with the very same topic after seeing that and vod/taka feud (I think someone should address the later btw, it's getting out of control).

I think the negative trust should be removed and replaced with neutral one. it's not like he lied to or scammed anyone.
however, the neutral trust should stand. after all, he did refuse to take the blame before he finally admitted his mistake.

I think that I've reacted  properly , I didn't go away from the forum I tried to resolve the issues generated due my mistake ( email not changed) and at the end  with the help of community no one of the parts has been damaged.

Now he left me negative feedback, but it was not necessary.   

I actually did contact him, he sent one word messages that were bleak and ignorant. That's why I brought it here...

Since I am being extorted by michaeladair (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=343948) to remove my negative trust, or to change it to neutral, I will post here about my trust rating that I gave him. I am not 100% sure what his connection is to Redsn0w per the OP they are friends

For the record he did give me negative trust, however he since removed it when I informed him that what he is/was doing is extortion.

I have really never trusted Redsn0w, as he seems to be too eager to be holding other's money for them. I have seen many signature campaigns pop up where he immediately would offer his services via PM (I know he offered it because you make a post saying that he sent a PM - which is unnecessary BTW, especially when you are wearing a paid signature). He also appear to be building up trust as I have seen you trade with others on default trust list (and have few trades - with the exception of your escrow services - with people who are not on default trust list) this makes me believe the only reason for the trade was for the trust rating. I do not see any received feedback from anyone that was not either using him as escrow or is on default trust list. It appears that he was always the one risking getting scammed when dealing with users on default trust list.

Even though he argues that everything turned out okay (and went smoothly), in the end it did not. He gave both lihuajkl and Moreia a false sense of security when providing his services. My interpretation of how moreia's account was hacked was that it was not sophisticated. The theory seems to be that the email address was public when he took control of the account and did not change it to private (nor did he change the actual email address) - these are what is claimed. It has been said that only one account has ever been hacked because of weak forum security, so I would doubt it was the forum's fault it got hacked.  

Once the account was out of his control, redsn0w appeared to be primarily concerned about his reputation (by saying things like I think someone is trying to ruin my reputation) and wanted to know who was behind the hack. He was not quick to accept responsibility, he repeatedly said that the mistake was unintentional when asked if he will cover the lender's losses. The only acceptable response to that question would be some variation of "yes". It was only when BadBear gave Redsn0w negative trust (that he later removed) that Redsn0w "closed" his escrow service (although it does not appear to be closed). He is still operating as escrow for ActionCrypto.com signature campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906838.msg10012675#msg10012675) and recently gave Dogedigital (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=315650) positive trust because he escrowed a transaction with today's time stamp (although he could have previously acted as escrow and just added it now).

Additionally even though Redsn0w has several neutral trust ratings warning people not to use him as escrow he still received at least one escrow referral (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=912106.msg10017875#msg10017875) as recently as two days ago.

Additionally, unrelated to the escrow transaction at issue, he did on at least one occasion did something that a much older, very trusted escrow provider thought was an attempt to steal his PGP private key as evidenced in the below post found on his escrow thread.

You are allowed to act as escrow and have other commitments outside of the forum. Your presence was not the issue, the issue was that you were not there to promise that you would make good on the situation.

I removed my negative because redsn0w said he would no longer act as escrow, so I didn't see it as necessary. I have seen reports/posts that this is not the case, but haven't had time to look into it.

Thanks for your opinion , I don't know  michaeladair. He sent me a PM for first to try help me.



is this my fault ?




Yes of course , deals that involved forum accounts are not secure ....




Steal a PGP key , are you serious ? In that days I had some invitations to the keybase.io site and I wanted to share them with the users. I've seen that he didn't signed a pgp message in his escrow thread and I wanted to send him an invite



However , now can you change it from  negative to neutral.  I think I don't deserve the neg. feedback, however thanks for your fast response (it seems that you didn't want to reply to my pm).

My responses to you were constant with how you would expect someone to react when being extorted. Your first message to me implied that something bad would happen if I did not remove my trust.
My second response was me informing you that you were very clearly trying to extort/blackmail me.
Per google You were threatening me with negative trust if I did not remove the trust rating on Redsn0w, someone who you admit is your friend (showing a clear conflict of interest)

Uhm, #1 I removed the negative trust not because you called it Extortion, but because I made this topic and it wasn't necessary after.
#2 The Coinichiwa thing was for a free btc campaign they were giving out a few days ago, both of us being on it was a coincidence.

*I've asked the  admin of actionCrypto.com , if he still want me to manage his signature campaign and he replied :





The problem is that the negative feedback is not necessary (at my point of view) I'm still managing the *actionCrypto signature campaign because he want it , and hold the funds of the altcoin  FINDCOIN ( but that before my mystake not after).

Those are his words not mine

He is still holding funds for a signature campaign  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=906838.msg10012675#msg10012675), just paid out to participants today and there is no mention of him returning funds to the owner of the site nor that he is going to resign. Per the OP of the campaign he is holding funds in 1GkgLFg9YVyvLzKbsipzJJjy5r33mpv4ki and per the blockchain there is ~.46 BTC in the address.

Let the ones that are being hurt by the person to be giving out negative trust. Not an outsider.
I know that sounds a little Hypocritical, but my point still stands.

Read the post above  yours ...

Yes and also for the FINDCoin project , but before my mistake not after.The transparency is the first thing , I didn't make nothing wrong it was only the  mistake (generated by me) that "ruined" me.

You directly threatened me and saw that your threat did not work. If you can can find a different definition of extortion that does not match what you did then I would be wiling to concede on that point, but I don't think you can.

#2 - I concede the conichiwa message has nothing to do with anything however per the OP you are friends with him - even if this is not the case it is not relevant

I realized what I did was threatening, but when I asked Redsn0w about the situation he said you ignored his messages and didn't reply. So I took the matters into my hands because I thought you'd listen to an outside source. Sorry if you felt insecure about the threat, I'm sorry....

It does seem like a conflict of interest if he's your friend and it's arguable as to whether redsnow is deserved of this trust but he did do something wrong regardless and I think he lucked out greatly on the situation. I think it was only a matter of time before something like this happened and could've been much worse and we never got to find out what red ultimately would have done had the account been lost. Redsnow stated a couple of times that he he himself didn't know what he would do if BadBear hadn't've of stepped in and couldn't answer whether he would've paid back the money which is a bit disturbing since he is meant to be guaranteeing it. That being said, he did close his escrow of his own accord which showed maturity but it also seems that he may start his escrow again at some point in the future which may not be a good idea for reasons already stated and in that case the feedback may be a good warning for people to use caution. The trust currently doesn't leave him marked as untrustworthy either but an orange warning which may by apt for the reason just stated.

That is not how the trust system works. The other parties involved may not be high profile enough of users for what they claim to matter. Look at Vod's untrusted feedback. How many times has he scammed according to his untrusted feedback - probably 20......how many times has he actually scammed - probably zero.

I didn't feel insecure about your threat. I knew that any feedback left under that basis would not be taken seriously. In my eyes, anyone who leaves negative trust for "trust abuse" (which is essentially what you were claiming) should not have any of their trust reports relied upon

You have funds for two different escrow projects in a single address? Are both parties you are holding money for aware of this? Are the participants in your signature campaign aware of this? If there are no funds in the escrow address to cover signature payments (the only money left is for the FINDCoin project) then participants would keep their signature up under the impression you have enough money to pay when you really do not

I think it is fair that the trust rating should be removed once the escrow service in my deal is completed and sealed.
Does anyone else agree with this?

@Quickseller as I told you I'm not friend of michaeladair ::). So at the end Could you change the feedback to neutral ? I think you don't trust me , but I'm still receiving pm to make as escrow and obviously my reply was all the time:


All the bad situation has been "recovered" and is it a valid point for your feedback ? I think the feedback was right if  I went away from the forum or "worst" the account  had not been recovered.


I have not start nothing , I'm continue to manage  the sig. campaign as before and I've asked them if they want me as "manager" and they said : yes.

there, the core of this problem has spoken.

I do agree that it should. I don't see any problem as long as redsn0w doesn't open up another escrow service in the near future

Yes the know everything , and as you didn't  do.. they have reasoned . No, obviously the FIND  bounty address  is :

FmEqKohExKEgj7oFEKG7f9rh2AnSfSKF37   

For the question about the signature campaign , the 0.46 btc cover one week & more . Obviously if the funds don't cover the week I will pay from my own btc.


Please ,  be wise. Thanks again , for the reply.

~ @Quickseller , Can I ask you here in public one thing ?

You are going to pay from your own money if they don't give you enough? I would think it would be more wise to warn them that you might not have enough money to cover all the payments and how much you have. I somewhat think that statement was made because you thought that is what I wanted to hear

yes

I said may start in the future and you're still currently offering services regardless. Do you plan to keep doing so after the terms expire of these current jobs or are you planning to restart your service in the future because this is the concern?

7 Newbie       : 700 * 0,000045 = 0.0315 BTC
4 Jr. member :  400 * 0,00009  =  0.036 BTC
9 Member      :  900 * 0,000175 = 0,1575 BTC
10 11 F. member : 1100 * 0,000275 = 0.3025  BTC
4 5 Sr. member : 500 *  0,000275 =  0,1375  BTC
============================
                                     total  =  0,665  BTC

It is the max. payout in one week for the actual enrolled users. They have yet to send me  more funds for this week , maybe tomorrow I will check the address .
                                             

If I don't trust you , should I leave you a negative feedback ? Is this how the trust system works now ?


Obviously not, I'm trying to finish this two "escrow" services and  when the  campaign and findcoin project will finish  I will stop ( and maybe one day  I will restart , but not for deal involved forum accounts .. it is not secure and not fairness).

Oh I forgot , I'm still holding the moreia's account in collateral  ... nobody   remembered it.

The trust system is not moderated. You are allowed to leave negative trust feedback for any reason (or no reason). If you look at my untrusted feedback, you will notice that I have been trolled for various reasons via my feedback. If you leave someone negative feedback for the sole reason that you do not trust them then others will likely not trust your feedback reports.

EDIT: to clarify my previous statement regarding not trusting you: this is not the main reason why I left my feedback, it does play a minor role but the overriding factor is how you handled the escrow transaction and your initial reaction when it was uncertain that you would be able to recover the account.

Do you think your feedback is "right" ? Why don't change it to neutral as the other users done ?  I think I don't deserve the negative feedback , it is this the problem.

I'm not offering more new escrow service here , and it is obviously if one want deal with me he has to check my history profile ( as all the users make to the other users before start  a deal).


So is this the reason ? Only my attitude I was very tired in that moment... it was not a simple situation , but now it is not a valid reason ... I've admitted my mistake and account has been recovered.

Could you please think again about the negative feedback ? Maybe it is a right reason change it to *neutral*.

If it's justifiable and there is genuine concern, but if it isn't the feedback will very likely get brought up here and the reasoning questioned much like this thread now. If people abuse the feedback system over personal issues it usually comes back to bite them.


It's not obvious and it's still a concern that you are still considering the escrow once this all blows over. Just because you won't do accounts anymore isn't the problem. What happens if you screw up on something else and make an even costlier mistake? The issue here was your error not that accounts are insecure (they're pretty secure once handled right).

Yes I believe my feedback is right. You have asked me many times, and I was threatened with negative feedback to remove it. Trust me if there was a doubt that it was right I would have removed it a long time ago and admitted my mistake.

My trust rating for you is not going to stop anyone from trading with you. At the very most it would cause someone to want to use escrow while trading with you, however even the most reputable people are willing to accept escrow

edit: I personally think the people who have left neutral feedback is incorrect

In this case his negative feedback is not right , as moreia told (he was involved in "first  row").



I'm waiting the funds , if  tomorrow will not arrive  I will post in the signature campaign topic that the funds will not cover all the 100 posts during the week.



I think the negative feedback was right if I went away from the run or "bad"  I've lost  forever the moreia's account , but this is not the case. I'm still here , and the account was recovered.


]I didn't ask him to put a negative feedback to you , it was his decision.

I dont think feedback either way is necessary. We would have had to have seen his actions if the account was not recovered, and the loan was not paid. I was an escrow agent for a long while and luckily never had an issue, but if the escrow agent messes up, and something goes wrong, it is on them. If the account had not been recovered, and the loan not paid, redsn0w would have had to repay the loan. Thats why escrow agents charge fees and ask for tips, its to cover their liability. Since that is not the case, theres no reason to leave feedback either way. It would be positive feedback if he paid the loan as per his escrow agent obligation if the lendee ran off and the account was no longer secure, it could be neutral now I suppose if you wish, and it would be negative if redsn0w had not paid the loan if the account was lost and the lendee ran off.

Honestly, probably the most valuable information that could have come out of this, is to see how redsn0w handled something going wrong. Not really a big deal as far as how it turned out.

*Edit* I'm not going to change my wording around in my original post, but I will mention here, that feedback is fine, but I don't think there is enough info for a Trust call.

How I see it all feedback in the trust system is at the discretion of the person leaving it. For example if you wouldnt trust someone with your btc after a situation has unfolded then you're entitled to leave that as a form of feedback. Preferably the situation is an interaction with you but it can be an interaction that is not made directly with you. Although now that neutral feedback has been brought in it may be a good idea to consider it more.

Thanks for yours opinion , it is appreciated. Now BedBear left me negative feedback , for continuing the two (3) escrow services  [ sig. campaign - FIND , moreia's account). My only mistake/error was  to not change/hide the email ... I don't have problem to hold the funds or other type of "deals".

You're not offering them currently but have admitted you may in the future and I think it's very likely you will, and in that case the feedback is an apt warning. What he wrote seems accurate and fair:

Refused to take personal responsibility when he messed up an transaction he was handling escrow for. The situation resolved itself because of a policy exception by a forum administrator.

He may be a honest person however should not be trusted to hold funds for others nor to handle any kind of escrow.

I agree with what he said and think you're likely a decent person but you did refuse to answer certain questions which makes me question your suitability as an escrow and for that reason I wouldn't trust you as one and would advise using someone else and I think his feedback is a valuable warning to others in this case so they can take it into consideration.


How so? Just because he wasn't involved and moreia has forgiven you doesn't invalidate your mistake or the concerns that arose from it.


But we never got the chance to see what happened if the situation wasn't resolved by BadBear. You yourself admitted you don't know what you would have done so you could've 'run' had it not been resolved. What if you lose a 10btc deal next time? You may run then rather than have to pay it back out of your own pocket. Should the feedback be removed until this happens again to see how you will react? I don't think it should.

Thanks guys for yours opinion , in this forum I've learned if you make a mistake you will receive a ~negative feedback ( also if the "mistake" has been "recovered). It is strange , but it is how it works here. If the account has not been recovered I will sure would paid him , because I didn't want to ruin my reputation for 0.80 bitcoin.  However , sorry for the "trouble" that I've generated here, and thanks again.

Mistakes can cost people a lot of money here and people are right to question your ability as an escrow. It's easy to say in retrospect that you would've paid but your previous comments make me not so certain. 0.8 isn't much and it's possible you would have just paid it to save your rep but what if a signature campaign or an ipo goes bad next time where there's a lot more money at stake?

This is why I've stopped to provide new escrow services and try to complete the actuals , but I have received another negative feedback. I've tried to "demonstrate" or better repay my mistake and with the help of the admin and the other users the account was recovered.

Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?

I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue.  Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all?

Hey gaize I got an idea! Lets make some MORE infighting among trusted members. Clearly we need more of that. We can fix the scammers by shotgunning negatives everywhere so no need to worry about them.

That's assuming we have the same intelligence as you.  I'm not so easily manipulated.   ;)

I am glad you got the point of my statement clearly, but hey why break for introspection when you can create MORE INFIGHTING.

I had to lookup Infighting in my pokedex... never heard it before.

Of course, why would you use a dictionary? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infighting

You said we should have less fighting among trusted members. So you agree that Redsn0w shouldn't be begged, right?

IMO, redsn0w did indeed fuck up, but he fixed the situation and the harmed party seems to be satisfied. THAT SHOULD BE ALL THAT MATTERS. Everyone else engaging in a witchunt against him IMO is out of line and needs to get a life.

there's something I don't understand here. I'm trying to and I'll start by asking this: do you agree that badbear should remove his neg trust?

I don't think he deserves negative trust from third parties no. I think if the harmed user wanted to leave negative feedback that would be appropriate. IMO this need for the staff to some how perfect the trust system by obsessively policing it is the very reason it has become so destructive. Their job is to POLICE THE FORUM, not the trust.

If they try to also police the trust they also bring their baggage from dealing with scammers, trolls, and spammers all day and act callously with little regard for anyone involved, and with little thought, because by their own admission they don't have time to be doing this. Furthermore they have no interest in the matter either way, and this is a sure way to prevent any kind of restorative justice where only the two involved parties negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. Instead of restorative justice they just meter out punishments and move on leaving both parties worse off than when they started.

Why are staff members any different from 'regular' users? They can have valid opinions on this too, but I'm sensing you just don't like staff and the power you think it gives them. There are always two viewpoints to feedback and I'm on the fence on this situation. Is negative justified? Yes. Is it harsh? Possibly. Should it stay? Depends on what redsnow is planning. Many people have concerns about his ability to escrow and that has now been voiced after his error. Yes, the error was unfortunate and relatively small but one that still almost cost someone money and likely would have had a big, bad staff member not stepped in to sort it.


This can apply to regular members too. In fact isn't this pretty much exactly what happend in your case as you got annoyed by someone you thought was troling/harassing you?

ah I see. for a second there I thought that you agreed that third parties should leave negative feedback on redsn0w if they feel like it, yet telling them to stop doing the witch hunt when michaeladairm asked you.

the off-topic replies kinda threw me of the loop

Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.

The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting. In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better.

Yes , I told  : I will not provide anymore my escrow service here in the community. I thought I could complete the 3 escrow services and obviously don't start  new ones (as it is right).  Now the negative feedback will be not never removed , or am I wrong ?

You sure seem to be making grand assumptions about how fatigued the staff are. I suspect you're projecting your frustration and fatigue with the community rather than the staff's viewpoint. It doesn't cause more harm, you just felt the force of it after doing something you thought you were entitled to. A completely neglected system would let anyone with minor or petty gripes get what they want, as in the attempt in your case.


But sometimes mummy and daddy need to get involved when children get out of hand and can't play nice.


That's what you hoped. And Amis might be still marked with negative but it's untrusted and people will now disregard it once they see who it's from.

Seriously I'm done with your whole fiasco. What do you actually attempt to get out of this? All you're doing is making yourself look bad and making people respect you less and less.


From who? I'm sure BadBear will remove it once your current escrows cease and you don't start a new service. Maybe Quickseller will remove or neutralise his over time.

Hi , thanks for the fast response. Yes from BedBear , I hope when these 3 escrow services will finish he "may" remove his negative feedback. It would be very appreciated. The negative ones from Quickseller , I also hope he will "reason" well and at the end will make the right choice.

That sounds really wrong if you ask me. It shows disrespect towards Quickseller and his opinion. I wouldn't remove my rating if someone said something like that to me.

I don't ask him to remove the negative feedback , I think it was better a neutral one.  For me it is not problem , because I don't think that I deserve a negative feedback (at the end).


*I respect every opinion, as you see I'm not rude or arrogant ....

This is not an assumption, you have stated with your own words you do not have time to review these cases carefully. Furthermore I don't have to assume anything, in your case all I have to do is witness your hostile stance toward anyone who questions your decisions. It does in fact cause more harm than good, because a scammer is back in minutes, how long does it take an honest member trying to obey the rules to recover their reputation? It may never happen in a lot of people's cases. They just lose all of their time and effort invested. You guys are using hand grenades to swat flys and then claiming the pile of bodies left over from bystanders is not a big deal.


Isn't the entire concept of Bitcoin supposed to be focused around person to person trading? Furthermore your response just demonstrates your lack of respect for users here. Just because YOU think it is a good reason to intervene does not make anyone involved children, but I am sure it suits your authority complex well.



You have said you are done commenting on my posts about 3 times now, do you really mean it? I never wanted to leave a negative on Armis's reputation permanently, but you made sure that all paths to any form of restorative justice between us were replaced with with authoritarian centralized punishment. So I guess we both lose because of your obsessive need for control and punishment rather than focusing on how both parties could find resolution (which I offered to him publicly).

My neutral is staying, but it's just that, a neutral. I don't disagree with the negatives, though. He isn't exactly drowning in negative trust points.

Even though he isn't drowning in negative points they still hurt... I mean, when you see the trust under someone's name you get a little discouraged when you see any negative trust at all... I'm not sure redsnow deserves that for something he fixed.

Thing is, he didn't fix it. BadBear fixed it, not redsn0w. If it wasn't for the crew, redsn0w would have had a serious problem with, most likely, even bigger consequences.

Yes I've only "recovered" the account from the troll , he wrote the passwod in the signture after he has been banned. Thanks to BadBear to have unBanned (moreia's account)  after that situation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=909632.msg10066106#msg10066106
loan has been repaid waiting for redsn0w now

Hi , I sent you the access data. I'm sorry again for my mistake, have a great day.



redsn0w

Though as a note, if redsn0w does start offering escrow again in the future, say after getting his negatives removed...then there's a problem. Unless a long, long period of time has passed.