Bitcoin Forum

...and probably lots of sockpuppet accounts but Badbear gives Quickseller a pass.

The user has left me a false negative trust report. I never reached an agreement with him.

This is what went down.

1. I message him with terms I set for a trade
2. Other party sends me and quickseller a message telling him he agrees on my terms I set for the escrow
3. Quickseller sends me his version of terms, that are unrelated to the terms I had set and agreeded with the other trader asking me to agree on his terms
4. I message quickseller poiting this out
5. He tells me he's not willing to change HIS terms although I and the other trader had agreeded on other terms and wanted him to honor them
6. I decline to complete the trade using him as escrow

We're now here

Short for what I'd consider fair: him to review the rating to something more accurate/change it to a comment saying that he personally doesn't trust me/remove the rating.

https://i.imgur.com/2mZ3jp4.png?1

PS:
Most likely that he's going to make a huge rant about how what I say is not true and I deserve his trust rating. Well I don't really want to bother with this much anyway. I don't consider him a scammer, I just feel that things are simple, I never reached an agreement with him, therefore his rating is false. I'd consider him making a comment saying that he personally doesn't trust me more justified. Also I didn't scam anyone, nor tried too. But you're more likely to believe him, you see, he's trusted.

Can you tell as what was your version of terms and what was quicksellar version?

I don't want to bother with this much. Why not ask quickseller? He has all his messages, my terms were in the initial message to him. A message that was received by him and the other trader.

He replyied with some terms that didn't seem to be well optimised to our trade, I think that part of it was even copy pasted. He made thing overly complicated and in result angered me enough to cancel the deal before reaching an agreement with him as the escrower.

Quickseller is good guy. If you get that red trust he must have good reason. You dont wanna give proof this is ok. Bye and gl.

I don't doubtthat he's a good guy. I'm not even saying that he's a scammer. But don't I have the right to be unsatisfied with his service? People make mistakes, I felt that his service was unprofesional with my case and didn't want to use his services after getting angry.

He has the record of the messages, I invite him to post the first three messages that the three parties involved exchanged. Me, the trader and him. First message is me setting the terms. Second message is the trader confiming that he agrees while replying to both participants. Third message is quickseller giving us his custom terms.

I saw his terms, got angry and more angry after exchanging PMs with quickseller. Ultimately declined the deal.

He claims we reached an agreement, we didn't.

Also I understand why people would want proof. But my evidence is no different than his. It all just boils down to how you look at this. If he can proove that I scammed someone then whatever, give me more negative feedbacks.

But I didn't. If he dares to posts the messages exchanged it'll be visible that I never agreeded with him, never had a disagreement with the trader and importantly, didn't scam the trader. If anything using him as an escrow made the trasaction harder. I'm sure that you would trust evidence posted by him more anyway, since surely if I end up posting anything here I'll be accused of evidence manipulation.

Hey worshipper, what quickseller do is the normal procedure on most escrows. He is only protecting the seller.

I use quickseller before as escrow and he also bought some of my accounts. He is honest and good guy.

What I can say is lets resume the transaction to solve this up. And everyone will be happy.

I wouldn't mind continuing the transaction, but not in this moment, because I'm obviously frustrated.

You can't tell me that him giving me a negative trust rating because I asked him to follow the terms we had agreed on is protecting the seller.

You were on the other end receiving the messages, you agreed with my terms and let him know. He sent back terms that were different and that I didn't want to follow. I simply didn't want to finish this transaction with him as the middleman because his unprofesionality frustrated me.

If he wanted to protect you, he would have at least sent a message mentioning that he'll alter the terms of the escrow. But that's not even his job, why would I pay him to change the terms?
I never had an agreement with him

I didn't try to scam you or him

Those are facts based on that he left me a comletely unjustified trust rating

Whatever, since I see you're still lokking for this deal with me.

I'll send you a message until tomorrow, and likely pay first just for the sake of completing this deal. I kind of feel guilty for getting you through this because it's none of your fault, (unless of course you're quickseller [joke]).

Post the damn messages man or it never happened. Simple.

There are two things I would like to point out. First of all, right now your story and Quickseller's don't match up - your timeline of events doesn't mention you ever agreeing to a specific set of terms, while Quickseller notes that you DID agree and then failed to meet your end. Without proof, this is just a she-said he-said case - you're not convincing anyone you're not in the wrong.

Secondly, the trust system itself isn't purely meant to deal with scams - it's simply a forum-wide report on individual users by other users on whether they think that person can be trusted. In this case (while you haven't scammed anyone), Quickseller has indicated that you are not considered trustworthy by him.

So, uhm... Why doesn't quickseller post the messages? Is he afraid that tecshare will start accusing him of trust abuse?  ;D

If you want to continue the transaction just let me know I'm waiting for the transaction.

Obviously I'm not Quickseller.  :)

Why dont you give us proof and not wait for quickseller to give his?  As i see this, you want to clear name from quickseller's false accusatipn about you then you must do all the things you can do on your side

Original escrow agreement:

First message from him:

Message to him after I received credentials:
Second message from him:

Ironically the seller did adhere to his scammy, post agreement term that account details be provided before escrow is funded. When account details are provided prior to escrow being funded, the escrow is forced to take control of the account or risk that they make a statement that they cannot confirm to be true.

By taking control of the account then the seller is at risk because the identity of the account would be publicly know via the security log. The buyer would know the identity of the account with a good amount of certainty because there are not a lot of passwords being changed at any given time. This would allow the buyer to publish the identity of the account which would do irreversible damage to the value of the account being sold.

There is nothing in the original agreement that says the identity must be confirmed prior to funding escrow. The point of escrow is to guarantee that both parties are thoroughly protected.

The negative will remain.  

Wrong, you could confirm this by looking at a link of the profile. Having read through the first 3 messages, I think that the user wanted to fund the address after you confirmed that it did fit the description you had, not after you had the password.


WHAT?

Anyone can provide any username to an account. If I was given a name of an account then I would be forced to make a statement that I cannot verify is true.

Regardless, the seller did provide me with the username/password of an account that matched the description (and I confirmed as much to the seller) of the account being sold, yet the buyer still backed out of the transaction.

Then ask for a username and password of the account being sold, simple.

If I did that then I would need to make a statement that I cannot verify to be true. If I check the password, then confirm details of the account then the seller could change the password on me and there would be no way for me to deliver the account to the buyer. If I changed the password then the seller would be at risk as the buyer could publish the identity of the account.

Regardless this is a moot point because the buyer did provide the identity of the account to me, and I did confirm that I was able to verify that it met the criteria as listed in the agreement. Yet the escrow address has not been funded.

Why did you think it's a good idea to post it here? That sounds more like a "Service Discussion" to me.

IMO ratings should be discussed via PM unless there's an issue affecting more than 2 BCT members.

You didn't read the OP did you?

Pretty shitty thing to do If you don't have an agreement.

I will be certain to avoid the user.

After Reading all of it! It appears to me what the buyer wanted was just for you to get the profile link and see if these details are correct

I don't suppose seller can send you wrong info which would be matching so much of the description , after receiving link and confirming it you can just proceed with the Escrow , and as per terms you'll have the account first so you can re-check that the account is same which was mentioned before and you proceed . I don't really understand here what there was to make it such complicated. :-\

Edit:
Also , you state he tried to change terms which would result in scam , he clearly stated that you check it with Profile link and you won't need to change password and thus it won't appear up in Seclog

Quickseller, let's clear some things up shall we?

I sent you a message asking you to escrow this transaction (this was only the begining) specifically stating that I want you to check on the acount BEFORE asking me for money, seller agrees.

Now let me stop right here, you're thinking that what I do is fishy and finally even give me a negative trust rating. What lead here was you thinking that I'm trying to scam or expose the seller. And I ask, why would I do this? Why would I pretend that I want to buy an account just to know the name of the account and ruin it's reputation? Would I earn money from that in some way? Logically speaking, I would have no motivation to ruin an account's reputation, you were being overly protective clearly. But let's just say that this is normal with bitcoin and forget it.

Back to the events on a chronological order, afetr the seller agrees with my terms, you send me terms saying that I should pay on your escrow address first, disregarding my terms without a thought. Your excuse was that the transaction wouldn't be secure. Let me tell you something, you couls ask the user for a link to his profile and a sign message, custom post or anything similar. This way you could verify that he owns the account and just check if what he said about the account's rank was valid just with a link.

So you have no excuse when you say that you wouldn't check on the account just with a link, I told you to do it, I didn't though I'd have to tell you how to do it since you're supposedely experienced with that kind of stuff. No password change=no public logging, but you could still, securely check the account with the term I set.

And even if you couldn't, you could have not accepted the fucking trade. Plain and simple. Why accept a trade by changing the terms. See where this lead to?

So after I saw your terms I messaged you, tellink you how they don't comply with the ones I sent, you reply with this:


Let me breack your reply down:

[0.9] already addressed

[1] You're telling me that my funds would be secure, well I could very well be paying your fee for an account that wery well doesn't exist. I've had my funds stuck in limbo before because of sellers being non responsive. I can't afford this since I want my funds to be in liquidity constant. I wouldn't trust you, not in the sense of stealing me, bu in the sense of keeping my funds for too long since I don't know your policy.

[2]The seller did finally give you the password out of his own good will, disregarding your terms that none of us agreed upon. Note that I wasn't warned that he's going to send you the details directly after you sent your "secure" terms. I finally refused the transaction because I thought of your service as unprofesional and ended with a negative trust rating.

Let me also add a TL;DR of things I consider importand:

1. We didn't reach an agreement as you claim
2. You did create other terms and probably even missread the initial agreement between me and the seller which was the reason that we wanted to use your service


3. There was no good reason for me to try and "scam" or hurt the reputation of the seller. (But you have every right you want not to believe this)

If anything quickseller, you made things much more difficult. I don't know why you would give me a negative trust rating for not wanting to complete a deal with you. You know that backing off from a deal is not scamming. I had no intention to scam anybody, and I think that it's not right for you to use your good trust like that. Honestly, do you want people to be scared for backing from deals even if you don't treat em right? Because that's what I feel you did to me.

You'll have to admit that your rating is partly innacurate though. Probably the most important part(s) about it is/are innacurate.

I think that it mostly leans to the personal kind of trust rating of the type "I don't trust this person". And you can't say that I was the only one at fault in our trade, although I admit on letting my anger overcome logic. But I'll never admit to scamming or even attempting to.

Quickseller, if you don't trust me, it's fine. You can add a comment on my profile saying that. This in my opinion is more appropriate for personal opinions. Since I din't infact scam anyone. Nor it would be possible for me to scam someone out of money through our trade.

I don't agree on giving a negative for backing out of terms of an escrow. There was no Bitcoin/information stolen. Because someone disagrees on terms doesn't mean it merits a negative rating. At most I would put a neutral with a warning that a successful escrow wasn't completed (even though that's probably not needed)  So, I don't think it's the correct decision to give a negative for simply backing out of a deal. Yes it's not very professional or ideal for the buyer/seller but it doesn't seem like any damage was done or there was any intent of a malicious action.

I guess my point is that there was no risk involved with this, because terms weren't agreed on. Although having said that, the buyer did act very unprofessional in the way of dealing with it and he should understand that a escrow must have separate terms to the buyer/seller to cover their arse too. If you didn't change the password, then the account could be taken back by the seller. But, without changing the password you can't verify that they are selling the account that they claim to be. If the terms had been agreed and the an issue had occurred then a negative is fully justified. But simply not accepting terms doesn't justify a negative.

I don't think Quickseller was doing anything wrong, he's probably gone about it the correct way in most parts, some parts I would do differently. But, he's trying to make sure that both parties are safe and because worhiper wanted no password change that basically means the seller can claim that account back whenever he likes. Quickseller has in his terms that a password change is necessary which I totally agree on.

It seems worhiper initial thoughts might of been, Quickseller stating in his terms that a password change is not going to happen, therefore worhiper will not hold Quickseller responsible if the account is reclaimed by the seller after the initial escrow is completed (sending/releasing and confirming the account is accessible by the buyer). However, there is a flaw in that thinking, that as a buyer they can claim that they have not received the correct credentials for the account, even though they might have access to it and the buyer might ask for the escrow to not be completed and have his money transferred back to him. Quickseller because he hasn't had the credentials himself can't confirm  that worhiper has access to the account. This is the whole point of having a escrow in this sort of transaction. So, all Quickseller at this point can only assume and he would probably need to return the money back to the buyer, meaning the seller might have held up to his side of the deal, but because Quickseller can't verify that himself he would end up being scammed. There is a workaround for Quickseller, he would need to put into is terms that the seller agrees to this and that he completely understands the risk involved in this sort of process and that he will not hold Quickseller responsible if the deal does go sour because of the reason stated above. Although, personally I wouldn't want to do this. This has the potential to cause problems and isn't using a escrow to it's complete potential.

I can understand why Quickseller wouldn't want to do this to avoid future problems. I wouldn't want to go ahead with this sort of deal. Maybe that's why Quickseller has justified his negative because of the reason above, but that's acting on assumption rather than evidence. I like to think innocent until proven guilty.

Unless, I'm not completely understanding what went on. Obviously, we as the community are only receiving partial information. I do believe that Worship might of misunderstood the process, and the risks of not changing the password.


The accepted practice of doing a money, for account trade is this:

1. Seller, buyer & escrow state their terms and are agreed upon by all parties. This includes the buyers sending address & the sellers receiving address.
2. Seller sends the credentials to the escrow.
3. Escrow confirms that the account has been sent and the credentials and the stated terms are met.
4. Escrow changes the account credentials and notifies the buyer that the payment can be sent.  
Now, in my opinion, the escrow doesn't need to hold the money, all he needs to do is hold the account details. The money can be transferred from the buyer to the seller. Because the escrow has confirmed that the terms have been met, e.g activity, posts and feedback. So there is no need for the escrow to hold any Bitcoin.
5. Buyer/Seller notify the escrow that the money has been sent/received.
6 Escrow checks whether this is true. If it is he releases the account to the buyer.  


Anyone who doesn't agree to those terms, doesn't use myself as a escrow. I wouldn't give them a negative for not agreeing to the terms. Seems that Quickseller was following these steps.

That is actually a complicated and risky step

By holding the account it means to change the account password, it will then show up in the seclog, there is harm that the buyer will back out after noticing the username of the account. best thing to do is tht escrow hold both bitcoin and account . Bitcoin will be release after the buyer confirm that he got full control of the account

Even if he knows the account name after changing password, there is no harm since he sent payment already

From what I understood, the OP just wanted the escrow to confirm if the profile of the account being sold matches with the information provided to the OP. It could be done by the escrow just getting the profile link and the escrow could tell the OP that he has checked the details and they match/do not match the description and also mention that he does not have the username nor password yet. Then the OP was OK to send the bitcoins to the escrow after which the escrow would confirm the transaction, get the username and password from the account owner and change the password. If the account owner provides the escrow with a different account whose details don't match with the account profile link he had given earlier, the transaction would be VOID and the escrow could provide the bitcoins back to the OP saying that account seller was a FRAUD else the transaction would be complete.


I don't get why the OP was given negative feedback when he had made his terms clear that he just wanted the escrow to have the profile link and verify the details with just the profile name and not take hold of the password. I know that the escrow's terms did not let him check the details of the account before funding his account but if he does not agree to it, there is no reason to give a negative feedback. It is just that the deal dint work out and in no way it proves anyone was not trustworthy.

No one can get scammed. You just return the account back to the seller. I've never had a problem, and people who have used myself have always preferred to send the money directly. It's not the most confidential way as someone can find out the name before purchasing this way, but this is all agreed in advance. If someone does want me to hold the money, then that isn't a problem. That comment I included because I normally let the seller decide which they would prefer. I do agree though, and that's why the seller is given an option.

The account was checked. The OP still backed out of the deal. This was stated multiple times in the past. The issue of it being a good idea to check the account first is a moot point.

But the OP said you dint check:

Back to the events on a chronological order, afetr the seller agrees with my terms, you send me terms saying that I should pay on your escrow address first, disregarding my terms without a thought. Your excuse was that the transaction wouldn't be secure. Let me tell you something, you couls ask the user for a link to his profile and a sign message, custom post or anything similar. This way you could verify that he owns the account and just check if what he said about the account's rank was valid just with a link.

So you have no excuse when you say that you wouldn't check on the account just with a link, I told you to do it, I didn't though I'd have to tell you how to do it since you're supposedely experienced with that kind of stuff. No password change=no public logging, but you could still, securely check the account with the term I set.

*******************

Anyways, if the account was checked and the OP still backed out of the deal, does it mean he wasn't interested in paying you? It appears as if he wasn't happy with you as an escrow and found you unprofessional. He neither cancelled the deal after sending you the payment nor bought the account and took the details from you and then cancelled the deal. If it was the latter, the trust rating would be right.

At the end, it's your wish whether to remove or not the trust rating and I just gave my POV.

I am not dumb enough to send him someone else's property without first receiving payment.

The OP lied. Big surprise, that is what scammers do. The details were checked, he was notified and still backed out.


The negative stays

Doesn't this affect the future reputation of all three parties here (buyer, seller, escrow)?

I think the correct section is this (Scam Accusations) we are not talking about a service but of the negative trust that worhiper_-_ received by Quickseller.

I did.


It is a trust system - not a trade feedback system - you can trust or distrust anyone for any reason.


It looks like it's only an issue between OP and Quickseller and if it's a problem for anyone else it's still in the wrong forum section.

I just read the whole thing, and I disagree with Quickseller on this. The buyer here never scammed anyone, he just backed out of the deal, because he didn't agree to your terms. He wasn't aware if the password has been changed or not. And just because he would get to know the name of the account, does not make it a scam and no wrong use could come out of it in future.

Also, I feel its not you who should decide to give him the negative rating or not. Ask the seller if he wants him to give it. If they are still going ahead with the deal without you as an escrow, doesn't mean you feel bad and give the rating, just because you didn't get 0.008 BTC from the deal.

I just feel you are giving negative ratings around so people later come to you to buy your accounts.
You should seriously put off the arrogant egoistic behavior, that seems to be reflected in your posts

-Peace

by letting some people know the account username that you are selling that is actually a harm, people wish to stay anonimous with their alt that is for sure


Try to send again or open a thread in meta and ask tm2013 to confirm there, this will be the best thing you can do as they might have couple of PM sent to them, they might have miss your PM

You should have stated it earlier in the proof you posted that the account was verified , if he backed out after terms were full-filled , it's upto you if you want to remove neg trust because he backed out or not

In defence of Quickseller, its sometimes needed to change the rules in order to not get in risks as the escrow. Because you never know if buyer and seller are actually the same person and this person tries to scam you. Though those all are things cleared before the trade actually starts.

At the end i will explain risks to the party at risk and if its fine for him/her then i proceed with the way they want.

Saying that... i would not give a negative trust if buyer and seller had an agreement and not all rules were on the table. I would neg rep when a deal is broken between buyer and seller. Not if they want to use another escrow only for example. (I would take out the part in your template about neg repping everyone who steps out a bit. This sounds like a threat and a risk one cant overview.)

It seems pretty universal in this thread (and I agree too) that backing out of a deal because you don't agree to everyone's terms is certainly not a breach of trust (no harm was done and no money/info was lost) and doesn't deserve negative feedback.  However, as others have also reminded us, the trust system is not moderated so really the only thing we can do in this situation is modify our trust lists accordingly:


Sorry, worshipper, for your experience.  I certainly wouldn't have gone through with a deal if I didn't agree to all the terms.

Imagine going to a retail store and you asked to verify if they had an item and if it matched the description. you asked many questions if they had discounts if they offer insurance etc, Before buying but than you decide never mind you don't want it any more for what ever reason or maybe the reason was they offered insurance and when your at the check out the insurance price they quoted was different at the time of purchase.  And then the store manager  called you names and stated false information about you then kicked you out of the store for not buying item, when you were interested.



Yea that is what Quickseller basically did.

He is the store manager.



quickseller didn't like him wasting his time, so the best thing to do was to say negative feedback here you come.

I agree fully with this.

I don't think Wohiper was trying to scam. Just wasn't 100% clear on everything. Not worth a negative trust rating imo.

If you bothered to read the entire thread, instead of just spamming your signature with shit posts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755795.msg8849676#msg8849676), you would see that the OP did have his conditions met. The issue is not that any money was lost, the issue is that he was trying to steal information (either that or he was hoping that I would not respond quickly and the seller would agree to not use escrow - and when I did respond quickly, he wanted to use some flimsy excuse not to use my escrow services with the hope that the seller would agree to trade without escrow).

The terms that he originally sent did not specifically state that the account details must be validated prior to him funding escrow. The terms stated that if I would be able to confirm the account details as described then I should send an escrow address.

I have explained numerous times why the specific way the OP wanted to trade to go would not protect both parties.

As I mentioned a number of times above, the OP's scammy request was fulfilled yet he still did not go through with the trade. Even after the OP made this thread the seller made numerous attempts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11071186#msg11071186) to get the deal closed but declined to do so. Looking at the security log (http://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php), I can say with a good amount of confidence that the account did not have a chance of ownership after the deal was canceled.

A more accurate version of the events would be as follows:
1 - All parties reach an agreement as to the terms of the trade
2 - The OP changes the terms of the trade that remove protection of both the escrow and the other party he is trading with
3 - The changed terms were fulfilled
4 - The OP backs out of the trade.

You are an idiot. Your scenario could not be farther from what any party claims to have happened. You are clearly trying to distort facts because you are upset that I caught you trying to borrow more bitcoin then what you thought the collateral was worth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=938434.msg10283409#msg10283409)  

Oh yah, you must be right here.  It has to be the case that I am an idiot and I didn't read and so is everyone else who disagrees with you.  You know you're dealing with a fragile ego when "you didn't read and I hate you" is the automatic reply to someone who disagrees with you.


And look, another idiot!  Quickseller is surrounded by idiots.  What can he do?

(I know what I can do, 2nd time this hothead calls me an idiot this week, 5th time I've heard this guy calling other people he disagrees with idiots just recently---I just used the ignore button so that I don't have to read any more "constructive" replies from this guy who accuses everyone else of "spamming their signature".)

Good luck Quickseller, see ya in the funny papers.

Just more evidence the right move here is to avoid this broker as you run the risk of this sort of foul treatment should things go sideways. Clearly he is not willing to resolve the issue with the OP and just come to an understanding and agree to disagree. Sometimes just walking away is the best course of action. Looks like the OP did the right thing.


Seems to me that people are on the ball regarding this failed sale.


Added this to my list.

Firstly, an escrow's job is to protect all parties involved, including themselves.

Quickseller had already verified the account statistics, seller was ready, all necessary terms had been met. The buyer was waffling for unknown reasons. For Quickseller to take control of the account first is an unnecessary risk for the seller, and also a risk for himself as a reputable escrow.

Sure there's a risk that the seller doesn't actually control the account, but that's the whole purpose of the escrow. The reasons the OP gives for not wanting to fund the escrow address are shady at best (he basically says he doesn't trust quickseller, then why is he using him as escrow?).

Taking control of the account first is a risk that should be avoided, any good escrow will know this.

I fully respect everyone's right to protect themselves and set their own terms.  Nevertheless, if I ask you to do business with me on my terms, and you say "no I need you to use my terms".  Then when I walk away am I doing something shady?  Maybe so, in that you might consider anyone who doesn't accept your terms to be shady, but really think it's going quite over the top to go on an put a permant marker on someone for simply saying "no that's not what I'm in for".

I've read too many threads in the last week where Quickseller jumps all over over somone and calls them an idiot if they disagree with him.  This obviously affects my opinion here too.  If I knew him to be a calm and levelheaded person then I'd think, wow he must have had great cause to mark woshiper with negative trust.  However, as I've seen his quick temper flare before, I tend to think that worshiper may be telling the truth here.

In any case, I realy think this speaks to some of the brokenness of the Default trust network.  People join a bitcoin forum to learn about bitcoins, only a small subset are going to read through the details of Meta and how a trust system works. Yet the majority are going to be influnced by "Trust: +3" in green or "Trust: -3 Trade with extreme caution!".  In my opinion, default trust should be either removed (people who want to participate in the trust network can start adding people to their trust lists) or else pruned back severly to only perhaps Theymos and one or two of the Staff.  I think this would help reduce a lot of drama over big personalities who end up doing a good trade with one of the blessed (level 1s on default trust) and then end up in default trust themselves on level2 and go around willy nilly dropping red tags on people.

What terms were changed?




He verified it all, gave him an address, buyer then backed out after...what exactly? The only thing quickseller dictated was how the actual transfer would take place, which is his job as escrow.

Mind my ignorant response because it still isn't sinking in with me.
Could you do an ELI5 (Explain like I'm 5 version) of two parties not agreeing on terms is scamming?

(Sorry for going around in circles here)

Again, I see no terms changed. The OP got everything he wanted, and when the escrow tries to conduct the exchange itself in a safe manner for all parties involved, it's suddenly a problem? Yeah that's shady. Especially when he can't come up with a better reason than he did. All of a sudden he doesn't trust QS? Doesn't want his money tied up?

Not buying it.

Obvisously I didn't get what I wanted. You see, the only term that I actually cared about what for the escrow to check the account before I send in money. This was obvisously changed in his terms without alerting anyone prior. I didn't agree to his terms and finally backed of this deal because he was the middleman and I didn't like that.

Him pointing out that the other party had already sent him the digital goods has nothing to do with all this. Because even the other party had to disregard quickseller's terms to do this. What's the point of using him as an escrow if he can't even honor the set terms? He was the one making the transaction "risky" not me.

The seller was actually forced to breack quickseller's terms in order to honor our original agreement but you don't see quickseller making a mention to that. Because he doens't want to admit that he actually made the transaction harder to complete.

Even though he had received the goods, which happened to my surprise, after I had told him that I didn't like him imposing his own terms, I backed off the deal because of course I wouldn't want such an unprofesional middleman to be handling my transactions.

I also indicated how the transfer would take place in the original terms. When is the important part actually, because I wanted to send funds after verification if quickseller didn't like that, he could simply say no.

Playing the personal insult card? Shame on you, you also have a signature, do you realise how hypocritical you are right now? I'm actually not getting my signature payment because of you btw. :P


The first message you ever received from me was a message with terms I and the seller had to agree upon. He messaged us both confirming that he agrees. AFTER that you copy paste your standard escrow message that you didn't bother to personalise enough so it would fit the set terms. So please stop wielding that lie around. As soon as I received your terms, I messaged you saying that I don't agree. Next thing I did was to back out from the deal. No money involved, no fraud. Most inmportantly, NO AGREEMENT.

IF you think that the scam in my part was wasting your time, I'd gladly pay your fee although we didn't complete the transaction.

From what I understood:

Terms if worhiper_-_ :

#1: Seller gives account to escrow, escrow change password and confirm account details.
#2: Buyer sends Bitcoin to escrow.
#3: Escrow releases.

Terms of Quickseller:

#1: Buyer sends Bitcoin to escrow.
#2: Seller sends account credentials to escrow, escrow change password and verify account details.
#3: Escrow releases.

Can't you see a problem in worhiper_-_'s terms? His terms put escrow and seller into risk and it is shady. IMHO Quickseller should stay with his decision as is now.

NO NO NO! You obviously didn't bother to read the most important parts here. I asked him to verify that the account fits the seller's description. Not obtain it and change the password...

And even sent him a message saying this can be done just by looking at a link of the profile.

But just the fact that he changed the terms is unexceptable for an escrow. If he thaught my terms were not good enough it would be better to not accept the deal and cause no harm.

I already mentioned it in my post.


Without changing password, Quickseller will be in danger if seller changes password and tell Quickseller did it.


Seller can give fake link.


Your fact were harming both seller and escrow. I escrow according to the same terms like Quickseller and I am fairly certain others do the same too.

I think that you're still missing an important part. worhiper_-_ asked for quickseller to come into contact with the seller prior to asking the escrow to be funded. All that he was asking was for him to verify that the account mentioned existed and wasn't in fact a fictional creation of the seller.

worhiper_-_ even mentioned how this would be possible without quickseller receiving or even changing the password of the account. Quickseller was never asked to receive the account before receiving funding, only asked to review if it matches the description.

Of course, what you describe makes no sense, but that wasn't the case. I get that worhiper wanted something like this:

1. Quickseller to contact the seller privately, just see the profile of the account and confirm that it matches the description
2. send worhiper an address for him to fund the escrow
3. get the account
4. deliver the account/release the funds


worhiper message quickseller after he received quickseller's terms giving him a way he thought was ok to do this without the need to receive the account prior to funding. If wohiper was satisfied with this why not follow it? It wouldn't cause any harm.

The problem is the seller could lie (i.e. give a fake profile link that he doesn't own) if the escrow just gets a link and to the actual credentials. You as the buyer could have accepted the risk but that wouldn't make much sense. May I ask why you didn't want to fund the escrow first? It was impossible for the seller to get your coins if the account wasn't real, you would have safely received the BTC back.

Anyhow you didn't want the escrow to change the account's password but he did and he sent you this PM right?

You wanted to confirm the details of the account and you got it. And not only that but also the fact the account was really owned by the seller (which wouldn't have been possible just looking at the profile as you asked).

Can you explain why you refused to continue the deal at this point?

Personally I do think OP's behavior was shady but I also think there was a lack of communication. I would have refused escrowing if OP continues asking for confirmation of the account before funding the escrow (which can't be confirmed without changing the password) and I would have explained the seller the risk. Possibly I would have added a neutral feedback, but I consider a negative one to be too harsh.

Because I don't know quickseller's policies and how he handles such situations. I wouldn't want my money stuck with him for too long. It's happened before with other trusted escrowers. And to be honest, as we speak a large chunk of my bitcoins is sitting with an escrower of this forum because a seller hasn't been online for some days.

I had told him that I didn't like his practices and that I was likely to not accept this transaction because of that.


I was angry at what quickseller did, lost all interest at allowing him to handle my transactions. I didn't really think about it much mostly because of my anger. If I remember right, I must have sent that message saying I refuse the transaction before I even read my inbox but that doesn't really have much to do.

The seller sent quickseller the account disregarding his terms. Quickseller didn't ask him to do this. I wasn't expecting him to do this after quickseller sent his own version of terms, he still did it out of good will but the damage had already been done.



If quickseller refused the transaction I wouldn't have received a negative trust rating.

I do agree that there was a lack of comunication. I would have handled this calmly, but I already said that I was just too angry at this point. Right now I'm thinking that this was a large misunderstanding, but probably quickseller doesn't feel that way.

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

@worhiper_-_: Your terms put escrow and/or buyer in risk. Quickseller came up with usual terms which all good escrow do to protect buyer and seller. I can't see a valid point in this.

AFAIK he left a negative feedback because your terms were shady and when Quickseller came up with good and safer terms, you cancelled the deal which most scammers do.

That's just an ASSUMPTION that he can be a scammer but here there is no proof of him scamming anyone. If one has to assume anyone as a cheat, nobody would be doing any transaction with any member out here. That's what's wrong with the trust system that it works on an assumption and one does not need a solid PROOF/EVIDENCE that the person is a scammer. It shouldn't work on assumptions.

If one isn't happy with the escrow's terms, he has a RIGHT to backout. There is no rule here which states that he/she should accept his terms else he is a SCAMMER.

Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Without logging in an account.

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them. If everyone leaves a trust feedback only after a scam happens then the scams would not be prevented. People can leave a negative feedback if they "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" as stated in the corresponding screen. Of course you have to really believe that, so the user must have had a fishy or suspicious behavior but of course the trust system must work on assumptions, otherwise it would be useless.

What we must discuss here is whether or not OP's behavior was shady enough to assume he may have had scammy intentions, not whether the trust system must work on assumptions.

Yup, it's assumption that he can be a scammer but the negative feedback was for shady behavior which isn't good when doing a deal.

There is no rule saying buyer should accept escrow's terms but you are missing the point. worhiper_-_ wants to put both seller and escrow to risk.

1. He wants escrow to check the details:

1.a: Escrow asks seller link to give the profile, seller gives a fake link and escrow is at risk.
1.b: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, seller gives and escrow checks it without changing password. Seller change password and tells escrow did it. Escrow is at risk.

1.c: Escrow asks seller to give username and password, escrow change it and look details. Buyer looks at log, find username and cancel the deal. Seller is at risk.

^^^ This is why worhiper_-_'s term is shady.

Safer term:

1. Escrow asks to fund the address and buyer funds it.
2. Wait for 1 confirmation(to protect from double spend), escrow asks account credentials, change password and look details.
3. Release Bitcoins to seller and account to buyer.

^^^ This is Quickseller's terms.

Leaving negative feedback for the shady behavior by worhiper_-_ is okay.

Some of you guys are kind of missing the point. I didn't scam anyone nor could scam anyone with my interaction with quickseller even if I wanted to. That's what escrow is for in the end of the story.

If quickseller thinks I'm not good to deal with, he can add a personal comment. You can't justtify his inaccurate negative rating by saying that I might scam someone in the future, because this way you justify any innacurate kind of trust rating.

I declined to continue using his service, he gave me negative trust. Even if you take just that, it seems like a very personal case, he shouldn't abuse his power in the trust list to solve personal issues like that.

This would be all right and good if it weren't for the "default trust" list which, in my opinion, makes those on it too powerful to be operating on "oh i find that guy a little suspicious".  When/if someone on default trust decides you're a little suspicious, everyone who hasn't looked very carefuly into some obscure facts about the Meta of this forum basicaly thinks you got caught stealing or something: "Warning: trade with extreme caution".

I think that if they removed the default trust list on new accounts so that people actually had to build their own trust network with their own experiences then we wouldn't have so many of these threads.  It would merely be a matter of (in this case) Quickseller and worshiper-_- have decided not to work together.

Default trust is designed to protect new users as they do not know who is appropriate to trust for things like escrow and sending first. Once users get more experienced they should be able to make a custom trust list.

Although if default trust works the way it should then people will not need to make huge changes to their trust list for the most part, especially if they are not very active in the marketplace sections.

Even if someone has negative trust, it doesn't mean that people will pay attention to it. I made the mistake of giving every ponzi negative trust during the last ponzi craze and as a result the ponzi operators were able to distract questions about why they should be trusted with others' money (in large amounts) which resulted in the ponzi operators being able to scam for more.

Non of the above justfies you leaving misleading and unjustified negative trust ratings to users.

i was responding to the post above mine.

My negative feedback is accurate. All your conditions were met. You backed out of the deal.

(Note, due to his anger control problems, I've still got Quicktemper on ignore, so I'm only replying because you quoted him.)

In my opinion the main issue here is that someone has been given too much responsibilty.  On the one hand, he should be quite allowed to put willy-nilly feedback reflective of whatever opinions he has into your feedback list.  The issue comes in that now he's a "protector of the new users".  The fact that he admits this in my opinion shows that the trust system is broken.  It's hard to see how quickseller's opinion on whether he wants to do business with you should amount to red letters that say "trade with extreme caution".

I can see two fixes, but I doubt either will be implemented:

1) Reduce Default Trust drastically (default depth of 1, perhaps, or trim the list down to just a handful of people, or both) or else eliminate it altogether.
2) Change the red letter "Warning: trade with extreme caution" to something more reflective of simple opinons.  "Note: this users is untrusted by a few important people", or something like that.

If either of these things were implemented, we would see a lot less Vod threads and feedback abuse threads in the Meta section and it's hard to see how it would make the forum anything but better and calmer.

So backing out of a deal is worthy of a negative trust review now?

If that's the case, how is your rating accurate then? You never agreed with me, I never agreed with you. But somehow you keep saying that conditions were met and we had an agreement.

You argueing semantics. The trust rating is factually accurate.

Negative trust is usually appropriate. The only exception to this rule would be when there is some change of circumstances that are reasonably out of any ones control and reasonably were not anticipated.

Edit: the vast majority of the I hate Vod/quickseller/tomatocage threads are made by scammers.

It's not accurate but of course you're not willing to admit that. Let me breack this down for ya so you can no longer play it dumb...

https://i.imgur.com/2mZ3jp4.png?1


We didnt't agree on anything.


Quite obviously, I didn't want you to be handling my transactions given how unprofesional you are. Look at you, giving negative trust rating to people that don't appreciate your "service"... It's sad that you were given that power.


How hypocritical huh? I asked you to honor the original terms me and the other party had already agreed upon and hired you to secure a transaction with.


You are claiming that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving money, I didn't.

Good, post some neutral feedback then since this is a personal opinion.

Like I said semantics.

The fact that I was acting as escrow did not influence the negative, although it did give me quick access to the fact/evidence that you backed out of a trade. If I was made aware of a similar situation with another escrow, and was shown proof then I would most likely leave a similar negative feedback.

The fact that my opinion is that people should avoid doing business with you means that I should give a negative. If I was saying that people should avoid dealing with you without escrow then a neutral would maybe be appropriate but probably not   

Maybe a neutral is more appropriate?

Who is Quickseller trying to be a carbon copy of Dogie or something. Welcome to the ignore list and I will be sure to warn anyone off that asks me about your services or sales. Run don't walk away from this unprofessional person.

Cripes the same sort of drag it out when a simple solution where you COMPROMISE would be sufficient to make everyone happy.

I can see why this guy defends Dogie they are brothers or something.

Worhiper it is obvious no matter how hard you try to make a logical argument this guy is never going to be swayed. Cut your losses neg rep him back for being a douchebag and move on.

I have a feeling this thread is going to be the next 'dogie hate thread' but for quickseller. We might even get some action from tecshare, who knows?

Someone lock it please.

Why? No one locked the dogie scam thread when quickseller swooped in and trashed people there.

I am sure we're all big boys and girls that allows people to comment quite naturally to the similarities in both people.

Irregardless worhiper is primed to make a few more posts to see if his logic might sink in... again I'd say just negative rep back and walk away nothing is going to change.

I might as well just incorporate quickseller into the "dogie abuse of members" thread - they seem to be the same person anyway....

Either that or they're twins  ;)

Screw that guy. never liked him anyway

Um... why is that? At the end it would be the most secure way to do it.

An escrow could simply let buyer and seller make their rules and point out risks. If the seller is fine with showing the account to the buyer then its up to them. The escrow only gives additional security if wished.

If the buyer wants to be more sure then the seller could give the link to the profile and put some text in it so the escrow knows he controls it. That would prevent giving some fake profile link.

Though the most secure way would to give the login details and change it to temporary ones. Of course the escrow then needs to check if there are ways to gain access again. For example through email. This has to be changed too of course.

If the seller fears he can find out if the pass is changed then the escrow only changes the password after the coins came in. Though those things have to be cleared beforehand. Trade starts only after buyer, seller and escrow agree on terms. Which means terms have to be on the table first.

At the end the escrow holds both items and he KNOWS that the trade will be secure.


Um... is that your reason you stopped? Because you suddenly feared that your coins might be stuck too long? If true then this sounds very weak for an explaination.

And as long as you dont speak with escrow and seller that you need everything be done fast, you will have waiting times with practically every escrow. Thats part of the deal for getting security or you speak about that point beforehand. But not when everything is already running. That doesnt sound like a valid reason to be honest.


Um... im happy you are no judge as profession. I mean the defendant doesnt want to speak... he must be guilty. I really dont think it makes sense to leave the trust system for people that decide someone might scam. Who are they to judge before anything happened? If i would have done so i would have marked many persons red and i dont know of anyone who actually scammed later.

Trust system protects against scammers who clearly offer things everyone can see are scam attempts. But going out of a deal is not enough to justify knowing he is a scammer. Quickseller not even claimed that. But the red color says he is now. I think only a handful would check where the red actually came from.


I disagree. Seeing a red trust lets me leave fast since im very sure that established members checked things and found he is not trustworthy. Thats something i cant see for worhipper.

And you negrepped ponzi persons and they found more persons to be scammed because of that? I cant believe that and everyone who invested then deserves being scammed.

If you take control of an account prior to receiving payment then the identity of the account will leak to the buyer then the buyer could publish the identity of the account which would cause damage to the seller. It would also be that there could be a large amount of time that the escrow is in control of the account and it the account was immediately previously involved in something malicious then it may look like the escrow was behind the malicious activity.

Another risk to the escrow would be that the account could get banned while in possession of the escrow and there would be a question of if the escrow did something to get the account banned or if it was the behavior of the seller.

A third risk to the escrow is what happens when the buyer takes a long time to pay. If the escrow is taking possession of the account first then there is an argument to pay the seller directly so there could be a delay in payment then the account would eventually get returned to the seller. If the buyer does not receive notification that the account is returned to the seller then the seller could end up with both payment and the account   

If the buyer were to pay first then funds would be safe for the buyer in the event that the seller is unable to deliver. The escrow would be in control of the private key associated with the escrow address so he can refund the buyer in the event the seller cannot deliver.


I am saying that ponzis were able to more easily deflect questions about their ability to be trusted and let them say that everyone that's runs a ponzi has negative trust and is not a reflection on them specifically. 

I see you totally missed the point of what I said:
First, it's not the same sending someone to jail than leaving a negative ratings, so comparing a forum to a court and a user to a judge makes no sense whatsoever. Besides a negative trust can easily be removed. I've left negative feedback when I have more than 50% certainty someone is a scammer and I keep watching. Most the times I confirm his intentions but of course more than once I've removed it a few minutes or hours later.
Second, I said the user must have fishy or shady behavior that makes him suspicious in order for him to receive a negative trust. Of course him not wanting "to speak" is not enough (not sure why you even wrote this).
The whole point of what I posted and you quoted is that the trust system must rely on a certain level of assumption. If someone clearly shows a scammy behavior then it's natural for him to receive a negative feedback, but not without any reason at all.

Here I'm not saying OP deserves a negative trust (or doesn't). I'm just saying a certain degree of assumption is required for the trust system to work. If fact if you had read the other posts of this thread you would have read my other post where I say I think a negative feedback is too harsh. But definitely OP's behavior was somewhat shady.

Its good to question these things and the fact that there can be so many risks to the escrow.
May I ask why you left the risk exist for an account pagalwana , which you recently escrowed ?
and risked the buyer getting a negative feedback(which he did now) ?

From what I saw , this scam accusation was started https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1005463.0
I saw, You then left a negative Reputation to pagalwana (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379178). But a few days later, you removed the negative rating, and escrowed the account for a selling deal, without probably(or maybe) informing the buyer about the risk of getting the negative rep again(which he now did).

Also, I don't see the reason why would you leave a negative rating on this account ?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152819   . Didn't the trust rating system change recently ? And shouldn't that be a neutral trust rating, rather than a negative rating ?
If that user didn't want to use an escrow its his wish, and its the buyers risk to not trade with him . But just doing that doesn't make him a scammer to deserve a negative rating.

Don't consider this post a get back to you for the negative trust you gave me . Just that I provided more than convincing evidence to prove I bought this account. Even then you did not even care to reply half the times, and refused to remove the rating, despite the fact that I started a scam accusation against the person who sold me this account before your rating came into place. And now I see you go ahead and remove a negative trust from another similar instance and account, and you even went ahead to agree to escrow to sell it.

There is always the possibility that a purchased account will receive negative trust. The fact that there is a scam accusation against him does not change that fact. I removed the negative because I verified with the lender that he had taken the account as collateral.

The buyer of that account should message the person who left the negative trust to try to explain the situation. I have PM'ed TC to let him know that the account is most likely no longer an alt of SuperSTARS777.
No. He was publicly offering escrow then was trying to weasel his way out of escrow. That is scammy behavior

Ok, But I provided you the same proof. I even started a scam accusation against the seller , and his alt accounts for trying to scam and giving fake trust ratings to himself, all this before you gave me a negative trust rating after 2 months.
I even provided you the messages, and the transactions. I am also open to the admins doing an IP check and what not , to make sure of it. What other proof did you need for it then ?  I don't even see you open to conversation about the trust rating and the scam accusation on the other guy.


But it still doesn't really make him a scammer. I still feel in these cases you should warn them, or leave a neutral trust rating as long as they didn't scam anyone. By giving them a negative rating, you completely remove them from the forum, as they are no longer able to participate in anything, and lose their reputation. The forum isn't a quicksell buy, place where everyone just buys new accounts to post and start a business if their previous account has been given a negative trust.

It's pretty funny how quickseller can get away with such lies just because he's in the default trust. :P

I'm sure that he only did add -trust because he did feel that something was wrong with the transaction. I don't blame him either. If this was something that could have put him at risk of having to pay for something that he was just trying to help with, its completely understandable. I like Quickseller and thinks that he does a outstanding job zeroing out the scammers and potential scammers on the forum, I don't think that the rating should be changed, but shouldn't be added to by others either. I've seen tons of people just post on others trust because someone else did. While that's fine too, I think the circumstances surrounding this case feedback should only be left by Quickseller, and not by anybody else and Quicksellers notation in the trust should be this thread where it shows all the evidence of the case and let the person use their own judgement with dealing with this user. If I was the OP I would just give it some time and show people on the forum that you wasn't trying to scam anybody, that you made a small mistake in judgement and apologize. Then ask Quickseller to either remove it or rate it as neutral.

I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak?

P.S. Account trading = >:(

You have no way of knowing if the account named by the seller is actually owned by the seller, or even if it is, you have no way of knowing that the seller will actually provide the password to the account once escrow is funded. That method puts the escrow at risk.

So how can you ever know that you're not dealing with a middleman scammer if you've never met them in person and had a chance to sign their PGP keyring, for later encrypting an OTP to them to place in a custom field of the account for sale, as you watch them on Skype webcam+screen sharing decrypt your PGP message, write it on a piece of paper held up to the webcam, then logout of their main account, login to the account for sale, place the OTP, and finally you hit refresh on the profile on your own computer?

You don't however the fact that you are using a certain person for escrow means that you can assume that each party trusts the escrow service, if the parties do not trust the escrow then they should not be using them as escrow. The opposite is true for each respective trading party as well. The fact that each trading party is using escrow means that there is not mutual trust.

When you are using escrow it generally means two things:

• Both parties trust the escrow
• Both parties are not able to trust eachother

I don't see a way for an escrow agent to ever be riskless in an account trade without meatspace contact. I would not be an escrow agent if there was no way for me to trust AND verify both sides.

One hopes in 2025 when the new forum is ready, this BS practice will be put to bed.

Didn't you hear? they've pushed it back to 2030.

The way you can mitigate risk to be low enough for it to be NPV positive over the long run is to get the buyer and seller to agree on specific details that the account being traded will meet (e.g. created date, min number of posts, min number of activity, trust, quality of posts, being able to sign a message from an old BTC/GPG key posted with the account). Once that is agreed to then the buyer should send funds to the escrow, and once funds are confirmed by the escrow the seller should provide the account name and password to the escrow only, the escrow should change the password/email/ect. and confirm the account being traded matches the description that both parties agreed upon. Once the account details have been verified, then the escrow should provide the changed password and name to the buyer only who has an opportunity to further inspect the account and authorize the release of escrow funds. If the buyer disputes something about the account then he can remain in possession of the account while a dispute is being mediated (and remain responsible for any malice), however unless the escrow makes a mistake, any dispute should be very cut and dry. In the event that the seller either provides an account that does not match the agreed upon description then the escrow would change the password back to what the seller provided and reject the account.

This would avoid the escrow from ever needing to potentially make a false statement they would be held accountable for, and would equally protect the buyer and seller. It would also result in the escrow being in control of the account for as little time as possible and would minimize the time that more then one party knows the password to the account which would minimize the chance that there could be a question as to if the escrow did something malicious while he was in control of the account.

lol.

I like how several people post here telling you how you would have verified that the seller actually owned such an account, which is what I asked by the way... Yet you ignore it and pretend that you would have logged into the account and changed the password, like I ever asked that.


Turns out quickseller is one of the most pretendious persons in this forum. Pretty sad people like him own a place in the default trust. :P

Ask the person who has him on their list to remove him problem solved.

Guys a nuisance and should not be on a trust list of anyone if this is how he behaves.

He's already out of my trust list.  ::)

http://gfycat.com/FlatBogusDeermouse

It is impossible, try again to put "~Quickseller" and after clear your browser cache, I am sure you will see his negative trust in the "untrusted section".

It takes some time to update.

If Quickseller thought the buyer was trying something he could've pointed that out and mention the changed terms. There is a good chance Quickseller left the feedback as he didn't like the loss in income. He has already shown he will try to earn even when the ethical thing would've been to not encourage scam sites.

Nah I do not think, it is an instant update.



I did not follow the situation so I cannot say anything about the trade that it has involved all the parts (worhiper_-_ , meren and Quickseller).

Once you update your trust list, effect will be immediate.


The terms were good and was PM'ed. Then "worhiper_-_" can ask why it was changed but he just backed out the deal. That isn't good IMHO. However, it probably is good to leave a neutral trust feedback

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that but there are also some inconsistencies on your part. 

The negative stands. I have taken the opinions of others into consideration and they were not able to change my mind. Most of the people who are advocating for the removal of my trust are not reputable in my eyes.
Okay then. Case closed.
no

It's funny how you still claim that your rating is 100% accurate. :P

You must be extremely pretentious to go around saying that we two had an agreement while it's so clear that we never did. It's also very selfish of you to use your advantage of being in the default trust to bring down people that have bad things to say about your service but that's another story.

Quickseller, IMO changing his rating to a neutral is in your own best interest. You know why?  Because now anyone considering trading with you in the future will see that this may happen to them if they change their minds or don't like your terms of a deal and simply not trade with you to begin with.

I am not sure why you think that I sell bitcointalk accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=704370.0;all). I think it should be pretty clear that I do not currently sell any. I am also not sure why you created your account just to make that statement, it really isn't all that controversial (although it is incorrect). I am sure that a good number of people in the default trust network sell bitcointalk accounts, probably just not from their account that is on default trust. If you think that I am giving positive trust to any of my accounts that I am selling/have sold in the past then you are free to bring it to my attention and if I do not give you a satisfactory answer then you are free to open a thread accusing me of such (or you can just jump straight to opening a thread), however I can assure you that is not something I engage in. Your theory has also been debunked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=943068.msg10333183#msg10333183) in the past.

It is factually accurate. Any dispute about my rating is solely about semantics and the substance behind my ratings is accurate. If you really want to argue about semantics then I can modify my comment to say "After an escrow agreement was sent to worhiper_-_, he demanded changes to the escrow agreement that would put both the escrow and seller at risk, after worhiper_-_'s scammy demands were me he failed to fund the escrow address.  I would avoid doing business with this person under any circumstances" however I really don't think it is necessary.

I have also reviewed your post history and it appears that you have been one of the first people to invest in various HYIP's that eventually ended up scamming, yet you always got your money back  ::)

You may be correct in saying that that people may think that I would give a negative in the event that someone  had some kind of change in circumstances and needed to back out of a trade with mutual understanding, however that was not the case in this situation. He even admits that the only reason he backed out of the deal was because he was angry (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11070885#msg11070885), however after having a long time to "cool down" he has not gone through with the deal. If there was a mutual agreement to cancel the deal with all parties agreeing then a negative would have not even be considered. If this means that I have more difficulty conducting business in the future then so be it, however I am not going to allow a scammer to blackmail me into removing a negative I left for a scammer and that will be the cost of calling out scammers.

You are probably right in principle.  But in practice I suppose that very of quickseller's potential customers spend much time reading through these kinds of threads on meta.

Font size 3 text (sigh) quoted for those that want to read it

He's still got it ;)

There are ways to make the transfer so that it isnt revealed. For example only changing after escrow has the coins in escrow address.

Even if not, its up to buyer and seller to negotiate on a security level they feel comfortable with. Escrow only should step in when its unsecure for him or to give a tip about a potential risk. But at the end its up to them to decide what they feel comfortable with.


I dont see that problem since its easily proven that the escrow isnt in charge.


Then you might let the logins send to you only after the escrow address is funded. Its highly unlikely that it gets banned in the time after that.


Buyer funds first then. And why should the escrow release the coins to the seller before the buyer claims the accounts are secured?


Might be that scammers are often virtuous with words. Though assuming that this here was a scam attempt sounds a far fetched assumption. Its not that he posted some "Double your bitcoin"-Links, where you know with certainty whats going on.

Edit:


Then the escrow gives back the bitcoins. No risk at all. Since those things practically never happens, its not a risk at all. Even when, no harm done. The seller can get a red trust and thats it. If he later comes and claims he was in hospital then things can proceed.

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer, would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

I guess if the seller in this case is buying the accounts and the escrow can confirm, then it might be enough to take that trust away? But still, 50% sure that someone is a scammer. Im really not sure that he is one. So that makes it fully dependend on the user who views the case. And im sure if you move on that way that you will hurt someones justice feelings and he will neg rep you too at the end. I wonder how the scam accusation threads will read then.

Not speak meant its easy to judge a delinquent at court when he doesnt defend itself. Its obvious he cant say anything against because he is guilty. Luckily there is a rule that allows this and it cant be taken against him. Might be you dont take a red trust as a court order but look around the forums, the ones with the red trust are practically all scammers. It doesnt matter if you spread red votes on believes, its practically a scammer label. And i would not care to read what was written in there. If someone "had a feeling" that he might be a scammer. I simply wouldnt use him. And he would be out of business as long as he doesnt create a scam accusation threat.

Ok, you dont think the red trust is justified. But i think OP wasnt shady too. Only rules werent made clear before the start. The trade already started without that. I wouldnt want to be in a trade and then hear new rules being added to the contract.

I only speak for me but i dont bother reading anything more when someone has red trust. Because in the past it was a sign for a scammer. Simply as that.

And whats the small mistake in judgement? Am i understood it wrong that rules werent clear before the trade started?

Ding ding ding ding... we have a winner. He didn't get paid so acted like a prick.

Do not, repeat do not, do business with this guy. He is a prick.

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

Just to make it clear (in case it wasn't for you on my previous posts) I do not think it's OK to leave a negative trust if I just have a hunch someone is a scammer. But it's OK to do it if I'm 99% convinced he is trying to scam (even if he hasn't yet). As I've said I have left negative trust with only about 50% certainty but I never consider it closed on those conditions. I keep reading the replies and either keep it if that certainty goes close to 100% or remove it otherwise. Several scams are produced because of a newbie making a deal right after a scammer posts a thread. That thread usually has several red flags that older users can notice but not newbies. It's possible someone can show "false positive" red flags such as not using escrow or not providing collateral for a loan. But on those cases they will correct quite fast if someone points that out. If they do of course the negative trust should be immediately removed. I'm convinced it's OK to leave a red rating if I'm 99% sure someone tries to scam (as I also said that doesn't apply for a judge and someone accused of a crime). Although I'm not on default trust I think some people will read the feedback and I hope I prevented at least one scam.

There would be much more scams if only those who succeeded on scamming received red trust and not those with clear scammy/shady behavior. They could scam, get negative trust, create a new account and repeat knowing they won't get his account red until they scam again.

(Again your post and my response are somewhat off-topic. I'm talking in general here, not about OP.)

Edit:
Regarding this probably it's not worth commenting because I think OP's behavior was somewhat shady and you don't and that's that. However to make it clear I think it was shady mainly because the conditions he demanded didn't protect the seller and because he backed out of the deal even after all his conditions were met (OP recognized (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11084561#msg11084561) the conditions were met and he backed out just because he was angry). I don't think that's enough to tag him as a scammer but that's definitely not a professional behavior. It's like when someone bids on an auction and then cancels the deal after winning. The other party could have rejected other deals because OP already confirmed it. Personally I prefer not to deal with someone that does this kind of things.

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

I hope you are correct.  Unfortunately, I have the opportunity to put your assertion to the empirical test.

I don't think that would be an example of what I posted. It seems very arguable from the little I know about it. I will probably read that thread (and the old one) more carefully later when I have some time and comment if I think it's worth by then. But it's BadBear's decision.

What if seller change password and tell it waa escrow who did it? It can't be resolved easily unless admins involve in this.


IMHO giving tips about security it good but escrowing according to their terms aren't always good. If their terms aren't good, escrow should come up with new terms which is comfortable for both. The terms Quickseller came up with were good but backing out that deal for making a safer terms is shady.

It's more uncomfortable if the escrow doesn't discuss the changes in the terms that he things should take place with the other parties. Quickseller gave the other parties new terms without discussing the changes with them, he now claims that he had reached an agreement with worshiper while in fact there was never an agreement between them since the original terms were different with the ones quickseller presented.

And while backing off this deal seems a bit shady, it didn't cause any harm. Not it could have caused any. That's why I believe a neutral rating instead of a negative one would have been more justified since Quickseller has no evidence to support that this user attempted to scam someone. Yes, what worsiper did was unprofessional but not fraudulent. If quickseller doesn't want to deal with him again he's free to do whatever he wants. But ruining his credibility in the eyes of those that follow default trust for having an unsuccessful transaction with him is not required. And in the end of the day, quickseller wasn't all that professional in this transaction, he could have been the one to deny providing his service from the start instead of presenting new terms  and avoid all this.

What quickseller is doing is basically using his position in level 2 default trust to send negative trust ratings to users that he dislikes. It's kinda sad that the trust system has come to this.

Scammer will often agree to use escrow and then disappear once escrow is set up with the hopes that escrow will take too long to respond so their trading partner will simply agree to send first (and end up getting scammed). All of the OP's terms demands were met yet he still backed out of the deal.
no

You denying all the facts simply makes his allegation that you're unprofessional sound more realistic. :P

I have never dealt or even interacted with that person in the past. To say that I previously disliked him and gave him a negative as a result is ridiculous

I never actually said or implied that. Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I say.


To clarify:
To me it seems like you gave him a negative rating for having an unsuccessful transaction with him while he never scammed you.

And you're telling me that he could end up being a scammer later? Is this a prophecy? Because he couldn't scam you or the seller in the transaction you were handling even if he wanted to. And this is not how trust ratings are supposed to work. :P

No. You said
You said nothing about a failed transaction.

However to address your concerns, it is not only appropriate to leave negative trust when someone scammed you, otherwise when new users get scammed, the scammer will never receive actual negative trust.

The negative trust was the result of scammy behavior. Period

I did say that you disliked him, but didn't say that you did before this transaction.

Also unsuccesfull=failed

They're synonymous words. So maybe next time read a little bit more carefully so you don't put words in other's mouth and misinterpret what they say?

Also, define scammy behaviour. For me lying and misinterpreting people's posts is closer to scammy behaviour. And that's I feel that you're to be doing here.

Can't give a definition to the terms you're using eh?  :D :D

Scammy behavior is something that is subjective and requires the use of judgment. However backing out of escrow is almost always going to be considered to be scammy behavior. Backing out of escrow while stomping your feet is always going to be scammy behavior.

At this point you are wasting your time and are just trolling.

How am I trolling? You're the one mixing personal bias with actual definitions in the English language. That's why you're unprofesional. :)

Like you do on dogies scam thread you mean?

I think you might be dogie in disguise tbh. Are you Alan Allcock?

Who knows really, this guy has sold and bought so many accounts. 'Quickseller' is probably his main but he probably does business from one of his other alts by now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034655.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035687.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0

Well at least I'm not the only one. Quickseller seems to have really taken the role of the 'retarded policeman' up to himself. I hope that it's not going to be long before people in the default trust realise that he's acting so immaturely and take back their ratings.

Unless of course your name is Vod, then you are free to make up things about people and leave negative ratings for whatever you feel like. I never made an exchange with him or been suspected of shady behavior either and he claims I lied about him  (since when is that an acceptable use of default trust?). He is still very much on the default trust list still abusing away at it playing rent a cop.

I find it amazing how much shit you guys are giving Quickseller when Vod does this kind of thing several times a month.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

He is seriously acting immaturely, He has this stupid attitude that he is always right, and if you start of by being angry towards him , which obviously everyone will be, after seeing the negative rep, then he will never remove your trust.
 
I am not saying that he doesn't spots scams or stuff, but when he does , people blindly are agreeing to him, and when someone tries to justify, he doesn't care.

Well at least with Quickseller we have the chance to have a look at the beginning. If you were to take a look at his trust ratings from trusted members, very few of them were from amounts or trades wothy enough to put him in default trust. At least not if you put him in perspective with other members. One could even say that he was purposely putting  down such trades to earn that trust. Funny thing is that he goes after users bullying them that they're trying to 'buy trust' while he himself is probably the most shady person in the default trust.

He has supposedly stopped dealing accounts, but no one can actually guarantee that he's also stopped doing that from his alts. :P

What are you talking about? A large amount of the trust that I have received is from people I have not even traded with at all, but rather was received because of the contribution to the community by busting scams. The majority of the rest of the transactions of which I have received positive trust from people on default trust were either from people who had risked funds when trading with me (e.g. they either used me as escrow or they sent first) or were for transactions in excess of 1 BTC. If you seriously think that I am engaging in farming trust then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Scambusting itself is becoming a form of trust farming (not just by Quickseller). Steamroll over a bunch of people, pretend you stopped a bunch of scammers, collect positive ratings, and abuse trusted position even more. This is one of the main reasons I have argued so heavily against "scambusting" in general. People who are wronged will bring it to light, we don't need internet precrime police running around everywhere interfering with what would otherwise be voluntary transactions in most cases.

So are you telling there must not be any scambusters in this forum?

There would definitely be much fewer posts on meta complaining about trust abuse so of course it would be positive. The only problem is there would be so much more threads on scam accusations  ::)

He believes it won't happen and he is firm with it just to remove DefaultTrust.

That's a hypothesis, I think it might be time to put it to the test.  If it really were the case, it wouldn't be that hard to reinstate the trust-rangers.

It doesn't work like that. What happens is the scammer calls you a scammer with his sockpuppets/friends and keeps it up until you stop negging their accounts or they stop scamming.

You've probably reversed the roles there. I'm not handling several bitcointalk accounts, Quickseller is more likely to have sockpuppets any way. Also, I haven't scamed anyone nor could have had through using his services. Please stay on topic, hasty generalisations have no reason to be posted in a meta post discussion Quickseller's degeneracy.  ::)

Five quickseller posts in the first meta page. :P

Can't be helped, I haven't gone through all the threads, but the one where he gave a negative due to someone not agreeing to the final escrow did seem his arrogancy where he wasn't paid a dollar for his escrow fees. Maybe you should have given him the dollar to avoid the negative trust.

So you mean trying to bribe him to avoid/have removed the negative feedback? Sure that would work  ::)

That would get him a negative trust if Quickseller was to do that. I doubt he would .

Well, I didn't do any such thing, but I see profiles of some scammers who did, and Quickseller removed the negative trust from the accounts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11203884#msg11203884
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.msg11203952#msg11203952
probably many more.

You know what would work tho? Buying a trusted account from Quickseller.
Problem solved! :)

I doubt if even that would work. I would expect him to be the sort of person, who would keep reporting his own sold accounts so they would come back to him to buy more accounts.

I don't understand the logic here. If accounts sold by a person are reported as sold frequently, why do people come to buy more accounts from same person?

I meant, that I assume Quickseller to be a person who would sell an account "A" , which would have probably been bought for a signature campaign. Then he would repeatedly report the posts which aren't much constructive, leading to a ban , and the account buyer would resort back to buying another account from Quickseller now. Thats just what I assume him to be like, from the messages we have exchanged.

Haven't thought of that, excellent business strategy! He already neg reps to create demand, if he neg repped the accounts he sold, he has a sort of  perpetuum mobile - an inexorable, closed-loop demand! Brilliant!
Perhaps I was to quick to discount his business acumen :D

Do you really believe that a handful of virtual mallcops are going to stop the tsunami of fraud on the internet? Doubtful. People who are wronged tend to seek justice and bring offenders to light. Preventative precrime type scambusting is inefficient, it also harms reputable users because people want to play private investigator and pump up their trust ratings by harassing people and negative rate them over the flimsiest of pretenses. They get entertained, they look like they are doing something to help, they collect positive trust, then use that trust to abuse their position even more.

Instead of trying to stop the ocean from flooding in why don't you teach some people how to make a boat? We should be focusing on teaching people how to protect themselves, not going on crusades looking for people to crucify to satiate the boredom of a handful of asshats at the expense of the entire community.

Nope. I believe a handful of virtual persons can stop or atleast reduce tsunami of fraud in Bitcointalk. We can't stop all fraud in Internet and I don't think we need to do it just like the staff here doesn't need to moderate other forums.* We can atleast reduce the amount by doing what we can.

* Exceptions apply.

Of course having a default trust list won't eliminate all the scams, unfortunately there's no way to do so. However it certainly reduces the number of occurrences. I'm completely sure a lot of scams have been prevented that way and while there are several negative point it's absolutely worth having it until we come up with a better option.

Teaching newbies and everyone how to be safe would help too of course but those two ideas are not incompatible with each other.

And just an advice: to be considered more seriously start speaking directly without generalizing, without trying to put words on other people's mouth and with far less metaphors.

the link in your sig doesn't work for me, check it?
BTW, just got neg repped -
http://s29.postimg.org/4192qia5z/Capture.png
Will state it's not true, whatever that's worth :D

Accusations with no proof. Way to silence people...  :-X

Why don't you bother to stop spamming useless posts and read the reference and maybe you will see that the feedback was not something intended to silence him, but rather was given information that I feel is credible that suggests that he is in fact an alt of supa

Post it, faggot :)
BTW, if I can prove to Theymos that I'm not Supa, will you remove yourself from the trust list?

This is what the ref link points to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

Personal attacks again? Fine, I'll still take you seriously and respond to your question.

The reason I posted this was because you gave him a negative rating just after he started posting in threads that were against you. Besides that, linking to a post SaltySpitoon made speculating that he could be an alt isn't appropriate proof. Salty is not an admin, he doesn't have access to IP data. Only BadBead and theymos can detect alt accounts with credibility and I'm sure you know that already as you've been dealing with account sales (and probably farming too) for a long time.

I know where he got it, though I'm yet to get either a reply or a neg rating from Salty.

Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa. When BadBear gives a negative trust for being an alt of a scammer, it is because he thinks that is the case. The fact that Salty doesn't have IP data (or other identifying data) does not mean that he is wrong about someone being an alt.

I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago). Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced recently (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.0;all), trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.

You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.


Thinks=no proof=speculation

Meanwhile...


But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.


Why? Because they spoke against you and it attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?

What's more interesting is Salty, who claims to have evidence on me being Supa, not leaving me a neg rating, even after being reminded to do so by me.
Is Salty being negligent in his duties as a mod?
Why not tag known scammers?

The description of the negative trust button says "strongly believe", not proven beyond any shred of doubt. His statement was strong enough for me to believe that Salty's statement was more then just speculation.
No. If someone is a scammer, or has scammed in the past, but for whatever reason does not have negative trust then it would be appropriate to leave such negative trust.
It is not up to me what other people do with their trust. I have pissed off enough scammers in the last few months that it is safe to say with a good amount of certainty someone speaking out against me is either a scammer or an alt of a scammer (the correlation is nearly 100% on this).

You neg repped him because you don't agree with him. That is clear as day. Your default trust is a joke imo.

Then why not give a negative trust rating to every single person that has ever scammed in this forum? The truth is that you can't and you won't because you'll  only search for a reason to and give them out with ease to the people that have spoken against you thereby attracting your attention.

If I come across, or am otherwise made aware of someone who has scammed then they will get negative trust from me.

If you are implying that I should go searching every single thread for scams, then that is ridiculous as I obviously have a limited amount of time/resources and doing so would not be logically feasible.

crossposting this here, since it is relevant.


Eh, ok this will be my last reply as you are entitled to some explanation. If I told someone that I think Bitcoins are going to increase in value and they lose money because they bought Bitcoins on my opinion and it goes down, is it my fault? I didn't tell Quickseller to negative rep you, I would have done it myself if I was certain. I still think you are Supa, and if you are, I dont want to tell you how to fix your mistakes next alt you make. I also said that I dont have any better verification methods than you have, so I no way made a statement that could be taken as fact.

I just said that you said something that caught my attention that made me think that you were Supa, nothing more.



I took your next reply as confirmation to what I had said



Full context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

If I was on DT* and had limited time, I would probably subscribe to the RSS feeds or new topic email notifications for most subforums, so I could have a quick reference to new scams being posted for immediate reporting and/or neg trusting... rather than spending my limited time defending myself for even a single second, let alone minutes or hours daily?

*Which I'm not because I can't abide aggressive repeat libelers trying to get away with it by claiming they were joking.

Why post any kind of evidence if you can just fling accusations around and achieve the same effect? People used to respect the standards of the trust system, now the ones in charge of it abuse it so much the standard for leaving a rating now has dropped to the point people find it acceptable to negative rate people because they disagree with something they said. This is Vod's favorite game: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0

How much should I have paid him off?  He was after me and and spent a day or two digging until he ended up using the word of a known scammer as "evidence" that I was a scammer.  Maybe I should still pay some kind of ransom (he hasn't removed his negative---and it's doubtful he will until badbear comes back and talks to him about it), how much should I offer him?

Fun fact: douche in question took away my neg trust.
He and Mr. Spittoon were so sure... :-\

Try 10 cents to start with, if it doesn't work offer him a dollar for all his trouble. He seems to have a poor life anyways, looking at how he spends his life and all day on the forum.

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me.  He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?).  His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy.  He says "avoid interacting with me at all".  Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction?  Seems like immature trolling to me.

Holy shit! Just looked at your ratings, did that idiot give you negative trust for something you did two years ago? How objective of you Quickseller, it's not like you targeted because you hate him, not at all. He really deserved a negative trust rating 2 years after no one else had complained about what he did.

No wonder that you think accts seller is his alt, he necroposted on your scam accusation from 2013 2 years afterwards just to target you from what is seems. Way to abuse his position in default trust.

It's well known at this point.  He actually admitted that acctseller is his alt in another thread just after this abuse.  Your characterization of what he's doing to me couldn't be more accurate.  I'm sure that Badbear is going to be cleaning it up in a few days though, don't worry.  I've been around here for too long and creating 0 problems for anyone.  Dude isn't going to be allowed to go on trolling smear crusades while on default trust.  There are issues with default trust for sure, but this kind of behavior is typically cleaned up pretty fast---the only issue here is that badbear is the one who has quickseller on default trust and he's out of town until 1 May.

Quickseller had given negative rating to girlbtc.com which he removed while trying to become escrow.


Previously, Quickseller had become escrow of a scam site which allowed them to run a signature campaign. The account already had negative rating from BadBear and they wouldn't have got any participants without Quickseller's help.

All (trusted) negative rating was removed to neutral because they didn't deserve it as they have resolved accusations just like kashish948.


True. IMHO he should have denied it.

I gave him the negative after the escrow deal had already been made. I remember seeing the sig campaign posts and hoping someone was escrowing it.

Do you seriously think that I would sell trust for the $1 in escrow fees that I 'make'? If you cannot honestly think that someone in a first world country would seriously do that then you need to stop bringing up this fact.

The dropping of the girlbtc.com negative had nothing to do with I escrowing for them.

---

BTW, the owner of the site that you are critical of me escrowing the signature campaign for has known addresses with huge amounts of taint with the gambling site you are advertising, had lost over 7 BTC on the site you are advertising (he has posted this just before the forum went down IIRC) and the owner of the site you are advertising had declined to provide withdrawal addresses he had withdrawn to, citing privacy for his customers.

So if you are going to be critical of anyone who "helps" moreia, then I would suggest removing your signature and criticizing the owner of the site you are advertising for

That clears it.


If you could've cleared it earlier like BadBear did I wouldn't have to keep bringing it up.


Here comes the famed personal attack from Quickseller.


If they receive negatives from those within my trust network I will leave. My issue with the escrow I mentioned was that the account already had negative trust from one of the most trustworthy members.

How is that a personal attack? I am merely pointing out that the site you are advertising for is by your own definition is "aiding and embedding" a scammer by failing to disclose a scammer's withdrawal addresses.

Make a scam thread. If dogedice receives valid negatives I will leave.

"aiding and embedding"? Some joke I am not understanding?

It is not scamming. It is doing essentially the same thing I did for them. You are being hypocritical

So BadBear is returned and nothing has changed? That's a shame...

The case that he dug into a persons posts to give him a negative rating for something he did 2 years prior got already buried with irrelevant posts.


People that have Quickseller in their trust lists should seriously reconsider their choice, his abuse is getting out of hand.

Has anybody ever stopped to consider that this is why he is in their trust list? The one's negging him are the same ones that think the people don't know that Quickseller is doing all these mean and nasty things to them, but the ones that has put him in their trust list, LIVE ON HERE. They know exactly what Quickseller does on here. He makes no attempt to be nonshalant. They are not gonna remove him.

It's not that Quickseller is leaving a negative trust for personal reasons but his ratings are mostly based on assumptions and extreme cases which may not be true (although they can be a possibility) and hence one cannot trust his ratings. If he negates an account for scamming there are 50% chances of it being true and 50% untrue. Unless there is a solid evidence or the person attempts scamming, it's not right to make assumptions.

The people who trust him may blindly trust his ratings but they need to even read the reasons which is not the case always. I too find many people suspicious here but I can't claim anyone to be a scammer without having any proof.

He won't be removed from the trust list for these reasons.

Proof is not always publicly provided because providing such evidence would allow scammers to evade detection in the future, however evidence is retained and validated prior to calling someone out as a scammer.

I have been wrong in the past and when this happens I do remove such negative feedback, although I tend to gather sufficient evidence to make sure I am correct prior to leaving a negative and as a result I do not often need to remove negatives.

In my case, there wasn't any proof.  Never has been and never will be (because the accusations were false and they weren't even from you and they didn't even have anything to do with you).


Quiickseller, can you give one (1) example of a time when you removed negative trust?

Try to stop with this public masterbation.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  When you conclude every other post with "and that's why I'm so cool" it just looks ridiculous.

You can look at the top of this thread for one example.

Look asshole, stop with the smear campaign against me. I know that you did the same thing to TF when he gave you negative trust, and you are doing the same thing to me.

There has not been one person to disagree that you scammed TF/CoinChat, although the question remains as to how much. As soon as people start disagreeing with you, the thread simply gets locked.

At the end of the day you are not getting your negative trust removed, you are a scammer, a troll, and a spammer.

I edited the rating to remove the statement that "an agreement was reach" despite that I still believe that fact to be true.

I don't think you have disputed any of the facts in my adjusted rating.

Seems there are multiple campaigns, or maybe all the accusations are true.

I have pissed off a lot of people and cost them a lot of money they were hoping to steal.

Note: Quickseller has switched to calling me asshole.  He used to always call me idiot.

With respect to the top of this thread, it looks to me like you're unrelenting on worshiper_-_ (I still see your rating when I click on his trust list) so it's not clear what you're talking about.

Here's the thing man, I'm not on any smear campaign against you.  It's funny that you should use that phrase because it's exactly what you are doing to me.  You know well and good that you don't like it when people disagree with you.  I did so publically on two or three threads and then you you went after me.  You went trolling through my past using two accounts looking for something to try to use against me and the only thing you could turn up was some unsubstantiated claims from a known scammer.

What on earth do you mean "I did the same thing to TF"?  That is silly and clearly untrue.  I did nothing to TF when he gave me negative trust except to ask why and for what and ask the community if there was any recourse.  There was no recourse so I left him alone and he left me alone and eventually he was revealed to be the person he is while I never had any problems with anyone until you came along.

Here you are, a guy on default trust, calling people idiots, calling people asshole, for why?  Because they disagree with you?  Because thedy don't like it when you use many accounts to smear them and slander them?  You and I never had a single trade or interaction aother than me not aggreing with you in public and you going of and caling me an idiot.  


The thing is that there is not one person who knows anything about it other than me and TF.  I know what happened and he knows what happened and everyone else merely listened and said "huh".  Again, if there was some evidence against me, don't you think saltyspitoon or other respected forum members on that thread that you necrobumped with your alt would have put some feedback?  Here's the difference between them and you, they were objectively observing and you were on a vendetta.


This is fine.  I'm surprised you can't think of any other bad words to use here recklessly. In fact I have scammed no one (but I have done a fair share of voluneering and helping on the forums) I have spammed no one (I'm actually involved in several anti-spam campaigns across the internet), if I have trolled anyone it may be you but then again, you started this shitstorm when you couldn't control your ego enough to allow someone to disagree with you without flying off the handle and using multiple accounts to attack them.

I know you're not removing your negative trust against me.  You're like a captain on a sinking ship, you're going to be clinging to that thing as it goes down.

No.

Here we go, in denial again.

Who are these innocent people? To many troll posts / threads against quickseller to go through lol

FWIW, that comment from newbiew "quickerseller" isn't helping anything either.  The main thing to do at this point is to wait until badbear gets back and take things up with him.  QS doesn't talk to anyone who doesn't suck his dick publically.  You basically have to tell him he's the man and that we all owe him a debt of gratitude to even get him to engage.  It's really pointless and it's why I locked the thread that I had started about his abuse of me.

I noticed that you had your negative trust removed and then Quickseller added it again today. What happened?

If he had removed it, that would explain what he said to me about checking the top of this thread for an example of a time when he removed unwarranted negative trust.  However, it'd be weird that he'd put it back right afterwards....

Badbear has made multiple comments in the past hour. I do not think your request is going to be what you wanted.

If badbear is back that's great. If badbear stands behind qs' crazy trolling madness on me that'd certainly be surprising but I'm going to wait for him to speak for himself.

Why are you leaving positive trust for yourself using your alt account? It seems that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=117142 is your alt as the signature implies the same.

Badbear has stated he is away until the first.

While he may be able to post messages, it's possible he doesn't have access to all his regular investigative tools until the first.

BadBear outed a number of alts of  dznuts85 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379122) who scammed girlbtc.com out of .3 BTC just yesterday.

---

---

---

I had noticed that the OP was changed requesting that the text of my negative trust be updated to something more accurate, so I edited it (deleted and reposted) to something that reflects facts that are undisputed. Unsurprisingly the OP has continued trolling and has not stated this is resolved.

Gotta admit, I didn't notice that. We don't get a notification for trust ratings you know. :P Plust this thread has 5k views and 11 post pages till now. I didn't notice this reply, sorry.

Anyway, now that I noticed... I'll admit that the current rating is a bit more accurate. However, I didn't request you to make this change with my latest change in the OP. It was there since the original post from April 13 and you changed the rating today.

Another thing, I'm not trolling. I don't appreciate most of your posts as well but I don't devalue them by saying that you're trolling, please avoid that in the future.

And also, I don't find your rating completely innacurate as I already admited. But still not 100% accurate so this is not resolved for me.

---

I know that we've been over this many times, but what you consider a scammy action (me exiting the escrow) was in fact a result of my anger towards you (and this anger still holds slightly, maybe that's why you think I'm trolling you). And what would I have scammed someone out of? Actually nothing, you claim that I would have the name of the account revealed to me and therefore try to ruin the accounts reputation. Why on earth would I do that?

Which still seems unreasonable to me because I didn't specifically ask you to change the account's pass before I funded your address but you claimed that I did multiple times here which is ridiculus.

And you saying that my conditions were met, is partly true. But this wasn't thanks to you. The other party did hand you the account before I sent you the funds although that didn't came in agreement with your terms. BUT This wasn't something I was expecting since I had contacted you prior to that informing you that I would be exiting the deal if you didn't change the terms and you replied saying that you won't change the terms (also before receiving the account).

And even though this happened in a way you described as unsecure. Did I take the chance to bring on my scammy plans? I never did because I didn't plan on scamming someone in the first place, but you still gave me a negative rating (probably because you were also angry at me or something) which is undertandable.

---

^^ you also missed the point of it saying to change your rating to a personal comment (neutral rating). Your latest rating is a bit more accurate but in my opinion not 100% fair.

After all the backlash in this thread you reviewed the rating, that's good. But I still don't consider this resolved.

Lastly, thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic. Please try to always be accurate and objective with your ratings.

Posting for future reference. Also, I'll try to address what's in the rating.


https://i.imgur.com/ctWci0t.png?1


I wouldn't describe it as the middle of the transaction but my description has little to do. The first interaction we ever had was me telling you that you changed the terms and I'm likely to exit the deal.


The conditions were met after I wanrned you about exiting the deal and you denied to accept the oroginal terms. The conditions were only met because of the unexpected godwillingness of the other party after my warning about exiting the deal.

Right, this is your description of my terms. You've claimed here that I asked you to change the password of the account before receiving funds from me. Nowhere in the messages I sent you did I say that specifically. I even gave you a way to verify that the account did fit the seller's description without even getting access to the account but this was ignored. AND EVEN THOUGH my otherwise scammy conditions were met, did I end uo scamming anyone? No, I didn't. Because I couldn't and didn't even want to.


Very well! Since you personally wouldn't do business with me you're welcome to leave a neutral rating. Many prominent members that looked at the case have pointed out that this would be the most appropriate thing to do.

I don't know how to prove it to you, but I can assert to you that r3wt is not my alt.  From my experience with him, it seems he also has some issue with with quickseller or just with default trust.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I don't really check my own feedback unless someone draws my attention to it.

I must agree that Quickseller is a bit harsh, he gave me negative trust (not without reason) as soon as i became active, but he mantained his word and took it down, i never interacted with him in any other way but i followed a bit his moves and i dont think he does bad, he supports the forum in a pretty good way, no one is perfect so mistakes are always on the table. Eitherway i think taking it easier with the newbies could be better for the forum, newbies are treated pretty unfair (by anyone) just cuz of the fact of newbie, its good against scammers but any new user to the bitcoin coummunity may fly away because of that.

r3wt was known for running an exchange, (wasn't he?). I don't think that tspacepilot has showcased technical knowledge appropriate for running an exchange.

Good to know that someone actually has had their negative removed by him.  In my case, I'm far from a newbie and my reputation of years of talking on here with no trading and no issues *should* speak for itself about how quickseller is behaving towards me (if, for some reason, you decided to ignore his using of alts to troll me and his (failed) vengance campaign to get me kicked out of my signature ad campaign).  Ie, his reasons for neg-repping me were personal and vindictive and in no way associated with any sort of issues I was causing on the forum for anyone.  From what I can tell, the guy has a very fragile ego and you have to really suck up to him in order to have a pleasant interaction.  If you in any way cross him and he sees you as an inferior, you're basically going down.  As I've said in the past, I'm confident this really won't last for too long, it's a temporary, if unfortunate, state of affairs.


I can write some code but I certainly can't (and wouldn't want to) run an exchange.  I think that r3wt's signature looks like the one I used for a short time when I was out of my signature ad campaign because he felt something similar had been done to him and he was trying to draw attention to it.  I have to admit, I don't know the details of r3wt's case.

Quickselled has yet to reply here. He was pretty outraged that I didn't notice his 'update' of my trust rating though. Hypocrisy continues(?)  :(

I am not further responding to this thread. The feedback is valid and you are trolling.

Good luck with your smear campaign. It is not going to work though.  

I'd recommend dropping it because you are trolling at this point and all you have been posting on is quickseller threads recently and adding nothing of value to any conversations. The trolling is most likely going to get you banned eventually.

How the hell am I trolling? Do you realise how imature you are right not? You're essentially trying to avoid everything I say by devaluing me and calling me a troll.

You asked me to adress your lattest rating and so I did... For fucks sake quickseller, I'm not trolling anyone here, perhaps you've emen mistaken the definition of the word.

He learned the word "smear campaign" from me when I called him out for doing exactly that against me.   In some sense, worhiper_-_, he's right that this thread isn't going to get him to back down.  I think there's not a single example of a time when he backed down or admitted he was wrong.  When someone crosses him, they immediately get called "idiot" "dumbass" etc (it's easy to see this, just search through his posts).  When someone calls him out or asks why he goes into inspector clausier mode and starts saying "where were you on the night of the 5th?"  "do you deny having not denied having admitted that I denied that I was not the man you thought I was?" etc.

Essentially, this is the kind of person that only shows respect to people he sees as powerful so the only real recourse here is to wait until badbear takes him back off his trust list.  This is the way trust works, at the moment, badbear has shown trust in QS and Theymos shows trust in BadBear.  Once badbear sees the way QS uses this new authority to abuse and shout at those with less authority, that will start to go back on Badbear unless he fixes his own trust list.  Since he is away, we can't expect him to act on this until he has a chance to get back and look over things.

The reign of terror is a real but (I believe) temporary state-of-affairs around here.

Incase you guys didn't notice https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1043592.0

He gave another account on the basis of it being an alt of worshipper.

I find that really misuse of trust. Even though someone like worshipper didn't deserve it for just backing out of an escrow, it really didn't make him a scammer. But giving it to his alt and other accounts seems foolish and quickseller just trying to take revenge right now.

He took revenge on me for simply calling him out for his hot temper.   I think it's his primary MO (modus operandi).

When they claim some one like me does this one time, it is an unacceptable abuse of the default trust and multiple people must be contacted directly by staff to ask for my removal from default trust. When people like Quickseller or Vod do it over and over during a period of months, it is perfectly acceptable to people like Tomatocage and Badbear (two people responsible for these users still being on the default trust list) pretend like they had a serious talk with the user and give them a "2nd chance" dozens of times. Badbear is doing the same with Quickseller.

Overall I respect the way Tomatocage conducts himself, but the #1 reason I am losing respect for him is because he continues to protect Vod in spite of his repeated pattern of abusive behavior. When individuals of authority here want to enforce the rules, they do so as an "individual" not staff or moderators, when they want to let their buddies slide they "don't moderate the trust". It is amazing how versatile things are when you don't have any public rules that everyone has to follow to hold you back from a hard day of selective enforcement.

FINALLY I'm not alone! 

That is not an accomplishment.


I will assume you are talking to me since you didn't bother quoting. What I hope to accomplish is to make it evident to as many people as possible how little the rules mean around here to those in charge when they don't like the implications of enforcing them, while at the same time they scream at the top of their lungs how important the rules are to keeping the forum running well. What do you hope to accomplish by asking such a pointless question? (P.S., nice sock puppet)

No, he's not. He's doing what he said he's doing in his second sentence that you quoted and ignored. Except it seems that his actual intended audience, "as many people as possible", gives zero fucks as well, or at least has no way to show giving a fuck.

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink.

I see people are still posting here. I'm desperately busy with finals in my uni atm, I'll join you in a couple of weeks time.  ;)

I'm not sure what happened between you and Vod, TECSHARE, but I observe two differences between Quickseller and Vod:

1) While Vod is out to get people who sell microsoft keys, he makes no bones about this.  It's his stated motivation and it's easy enough to remove him from your list if you're not worried about microsoft stuff
2) Vod seems to admit that sometimes he's wrong or hasty, he even has a link offering people to remove the negative trust he gave them if they stop selling the keys.  I've never seen quickseller back down on a single point or admit he was wrong, ever.

To me, those differences are substantial.

Vod you have way more credibility and moral fabric than Quickseller. I trust your ratings infinitely more than I trust anything QS does.

Thanks, but it's still nice to have another name thrown into the BS lies.  Makes me feel less "singled out".  :)

I care.

I just want to see who supports whom and that gives me a much better idea who Adam Allcock aka Dogie is tied to on the default trust list. As for the VOD TECSHARE hatred I am sure reasonable people could find a solution if they would be reasonable. Guessing they both hate scammers and the trust issue is just conflated pissing in the wind contest. I am more interested in the scummy hidden scammers or those who just do enough to game the forums for their benefit without any ethics whatsoever. Hiding in plain site right under the scam busters noses. There is a putrid stench that permeates these forums and Vod and Tecshare battling is a distraction.

Since this thread is actually about what Quickseller has done to worhipper_-_ (neg repping him for not going through with a trade when all parties weren't agreed on terms), do you have any opinion on QS behavior on these forums?

I think QS is a piece of shit shill paid to promote and prop up Adam Allcock. Or could likely be Adam Allcock given the same types of posting patterns.

Either way he is an ANONYMOUS entity that no one in their right minds should be giving money in escrow to. I posted  my trust rating on him go see.

If you actually care to know one of the many reasons I take issue with Vods behavior, there is more than you care to bother to read here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0;all

In short I criticized him openly for being abusive of his position of the default trust, and he proved he was not abusive by leaving me a negative rating claiming I lied about him. It just started out as me talking about him but then he took the offensive by harming my trust rating because he did not agree with my opinions. Rather than debating it on the forum like an adult he decided he would rather swing his weight around as usual and again abuse his position to attempt to intimidate me into silence.

I believe Quickseller is guilty of the same type of behavior, and in fact I have seen Quickseller change his ratings and admit he was wrong more than once (not that it excuses it). On the other hand Vod usually just blocks people whom he negative rates, and refuses to talk to them for over a month even if he does. I Wouldn't describe that as tolerance. I certainly have only seen him change his ratings a handful of times, a very small percentage of the negative ratings he spews out endlessly.

In the end both of these users engage in "scambusting" as a method of pumping up their own trust ratings which then gives them even more power to abuse users. This is nothing more than another method of trust farming only at the expense of other random users getting caught in the mad dash to collect trust ratings.

Obviously you are just lying/making assumptions, unless you have a number of scammer accounts that I have negative rated and then blocked as proof?  Or do you accept scammer's words as fact when they tell you anything anti-Vod?

In any case, we now have an enemy scammer in common - Armis.  I suggest we become best friends to tackle the bigger issue.  :)

That would be good.

How about having a long look at Adam Allcock aka Dogie's VAT and Mail Fraud while you are at it or Loshia who fed Technobit's fraud or how about Thomas S. who help feed the Minersource fraud by Bobsag3 aka Matt Carson a good pal of Dogie, Loshia and Quickseller.

I see people complaining about you blocking them and refusing to discuss your ratings all the time. I am sure it is easy to forget about with how often it happens. I was not your enemy until you negative rated me, up until that point I simply had things to say about your behavior that annoyed you. If you don't want to be my enemy then I think you know what actions you need to take. Otherwise take your pretender act elsewhere.

Well, thanks for the links, TECSHARE, I may try to look into that further when I get a chance.  In the meantime, I just want to remind everyone that the best thing we can do for now about people on default trust who are causing issues is to remove them from our trust lists.  As I understand it, all it takes is
two people to put
into their trust lists and the problem (with him at least) will be temporarily solved.  Vod, do you trust Quickseller?

PFT:


I'll not bump the other Quickseller/dogie complaint threads - just making a point  ;)

By copy and pasting the same oped post by a shill account in 3 places?

Quickseller posts shit in dogie threads. Dogie posts the same shit in Quickseller threads. Who are you to talk?

Besides, cathoderay is not only right, but it's relevent to the threads - why shouldn't he quote/copy/paste? You do it all the time, only your efforts ain't relevent & are mostly BS. There's a difference  ::)

He actually done you both a favour by not posting in all of both your trust abuse threads as he stated, otherwise the first ten threads in meta would all be Quickseller/dogie complaint/trust abuse threads - you should both thank him, if you're both actually two different people, which is debatable  :D

Says the shill account, referring to another shill account ::)


Says the shill account, referring to another shill account ::). And neither of us have to hide behind other accounts. What is your main account called?

Quickseller used ACCTSeller to troll me and, dig up dirt by talking to tradefortress, etc, before "discovering" the work of ACCTSeller when he logged in as Quickseller.  I think that's a lot like hidng behind another account.  I don't know what the deal is with you or why people are saying you and quickseller are alike/in each other's threads, etc.  I thought you were a reviewer of mining hardware, that's all I know about you.  Back to the OP, do you think it was cool for quickseller to give worhipper_-_ negative trust for refusing to do business with him?

Are you talking about my negative trust that claims you are constantly lying about me to get me removed from default trust?

Well, you still are lying about me to get me removed from negative trust.  I am not protected by anyone, and I am not above the rules here.

Don't be naive and think just because we have a common enemy I will turn a blind eye to your constant lies.   :-\

I think you know what actions you need to take before we can become best friends.

Seems like the discussion between Vod and TECSHARE has strayed quite far from the issue of quickseller's neg-repping worhipper_-_ for not wanting to trade with him.  That seems like a shame because as far as anyone has pointed out, worhipper_-_ did no wrong and yet is suffering a reputation cost.

It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?

In the past many users have been removed from the default trust for such actions, and doing so ONCE. Quickseller and Vod however seem to get a pass on this behavior over and over and over. Worshiper didn't do anything wrong backing out of a deal, and I didn't do anything wrong criticizing Vods behavior in threads. These are both instances of users on the default trust list abusing their position of authority to punish or silence people over personal issues that have absolutely nothing to do with trading or trust.

The fact is that staff are willing to mobilize to remove some people but not others from the default trust list. They SAY it is because these rules they arbitrarily apply are important to maintaining the integrity of the default trust list, but suddenly these standards are not important when it is a friend of theirs. When they want to enforce the rules they tell you about the integrity of the default trust, when they don't they tell you about how they don't moderate trust.

I think a few users in the defaultTrust list are doing this thing, but only "few users". The phrase is always, trust systems is not moderated, but we should understand what does it mean "moderated". The personal issues should "stay" away from the trust system, in some cases (almost always).

But redsn0w, I think the thing is that a few users is a few too many.  I think it'll feel a little differently when you're the one who gets dinged because someone decides they didn't like you.  I have to admit, I was quite, quite shocked to see that nothing was done about it when QS went after me the way he did.  I also admit that I don't really know the scope of the problem, I've definitely seen it for myself in Quickseller and I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it.  Thankfully, for the moment, QS's plan failed because the folks I was advertising for saw what he was trying to do to me and decided it wasn't right.  However, who knows what future partners will say. As long as this stands, I'm going to be sending everyone I want to work for to this silly thread where QS acts like an amateur detective with a chip on his shoulder, rehashing the lies of a known scammer in order to make me look bad.

Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I think you'll feel it much more personally when you end up being the victim.

Well said. It is not like the default trust list is that big to begin with, "A few" could easily mean half of the default trust list because they treat it so exclusively. Then when they get tired of denying that the system is corrupt they turn on you and claim it is just an overreaction over having your reputation damaged, not because you feel the system is corrupt, and you should stop talking about it because no one cares. The no one cares part is true, unfortunately no one cares... until it happens to them, then suddenly they care, and then if they speak up about it, they end up being marginalized like the rest. People often ask me why I suddenly cared only AFTER I was removed from the default trust, but considering there are no rules posted anywhere, observing how others used it, and the fact that I didn't bother reading every meta thread regarding default trust, I am not sure how exactly I could have known about this issue until it happened to me personally. A lot of people here have no idea how big of a problem this issue is until individuals such as you and I speak up about it. Unfortunately speaking up about it puts us under further risk of harassment and retribution from those that have interest in the current state of affairs staying the way they are.

But I still don't understand why he leaves also a negative trust from his alt account? And especially why two negative trust from his 'main' account? I think one negative trust "would be" more appropriate in 'this circumstance'.

---

You can't do nothing, maybe try to wait some couple of months and he will remove the negative trust or change it to a neutral.

Redsnow, you are using quotes far too often and in grammatically incorrect ways. Please stop before I gouge my eyes out.

redsn0w , with the r lowercase.

However sorry, but I think you are not obliged to read my post (ignore me, it is not a problem)... I am always use the quote function (it is a habit now) and I do not know why I should stop.

Redsn0w can you get the fuck out of here? You made 80 FUCKING POSTS yesterday alone. I wonder how you're not banned yet. Since you can't contribute to the discussion here in any way, please show yourself out. Fuck fuck's sake, this is not the place to spam your signature.

I "didn't" say the "quote" function, I said "quotes", because "you" use "quotes" entirely too "often", and in "grammatically" incorrect ways.

? what is going here now this thread is still open?

close it man unless you like the damn drama, no need for this.  ::)

I can think of one reason the thread was left open, Quickseller's reputation attack on him is still standing.  As far as I can tell, the issue is far from closed from the perspective of worhiper_-_.

The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.

Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.

This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?

I do. You are completely correct. Not only that, but the similarites between QC & Adam Allcock are staggering, yet they both seem to be untouchable by admins. Why?

Imho Quickseller and Acctseller are one of the mods / admins under a hidden name who put them on the default trust themselves. Personally I believe them to be Badbear.

https://i.imgur.com/WffLIxp.jpg

Say no more  ;)

Cool? Nah, it doesn't fit the criteria for negative feedback.

Is it abuse? No, her reasons for leaving him negative feedback is reasonable.

There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list.

Why don't you do something about it?  Threaten to break his legs or something?   ::)

How do you know they "are mostly scammers"?  From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped?  How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof".  It's patently ridiculous.  My complaint is also valid.  MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you.


How is this in any way constructive, Vod?  You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP?

Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens...


He said to kill Vod or something. I think it is something related to that comment.

Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive?  Is this somehow "invalid"?  Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases.  How many cases have to be built up before something will be done?
I must have missed that.  Still, I wish Vod would comment on the situation in the OP.  He's here and reading the thread but I haven't found anything where he supports or complains about QS's actions against worhiper_-_.  Maybe there's an unspoken thing where people on default trust don't complain about each other publically, IDK.

No, I didn't said "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them". I said ypu and worhiper have an exception in people who I referred in "mostly".

Adds a small humor break to a tense thread?  Everyone needs a break now and then.

 What is the difference?  Above you seemed to be saying, "no QS is doing the right thing, people complaining are scammers.  The criticisms are not valid".  Then I say, wait, wait, my criticism is valid and worhiper_-_ seems to have a valid complaint, too.  And you say, ok, you guys are exceptions.  Now you say we are exceptions but we are not abused?  I'm not following you at all.  I know it must be nerve wracking because if you criticize QS and you are not on default trust, you risk his coming down on you and smearing you.

@Vod, okay thanks for the humor.  What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_?

Having only glanced at it quickly, it looks like worhiper_-_ backed out of a deal - nothing wrong with that.

If someone was scammed out of coins, a negative trust is warranted, and should be backed with a reference.

If no one lost anything and a deal went sour in due diligence (or whenever), everyone should just walk away.  In this case, a neutral would be more appropriate, warning others not to waste their time. 

He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.

Why anybody would deal with a permashady individual such as yourself is well beyond me.

A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted.  People are allowed to back out of deals.  You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow.

The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him.

The note in my rating does give facts that would make a reasonable person believe he was trying to avoid escrow.

IMO once escrow is setup for a deal it should be pretty much set in stone. As if you are selling something the seller may send what is being sold right away assuming that the escrow is going to be funded (this has happened a number of times if you look at various escrowers' sent negative ratings). The only real reason to back out of a deal once escrow is setup is because of some significant change in circumstances, for example didn't receive money you were expecting, and canceling a deal should be mutually agreed to, meaning both parties agree.

that negative that you removed from KoS was 100% BS. There is actual substance behind the negative I left the OP.

To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after...
...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves. By hiring Quickseller as your escrow, you agree that you are bound by these terms."

If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted for depriving you of your escrow fee (time=money). If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is.

If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all.

the point of escrow is to ensure that all parties are protected in a transaction. As well to ensure that the transaction proceeds as agreed. The OP had agreed that a certain amount of money would be sent to the seller via myself and the OP deprived the seller his money that he was due.

@bold: If that's the case, then probably I wouldn't use you as an escrow. If I am not comfortable with the attitude of the buyer/seller or the attitude of the escrow, I am free to cancel the transaction. Also, if I find another buyer who doesn't want to use an escrow and is willing to go first, paying me a higher amount which can earn me profit and I will pay him after his payment is received, why should I use an escrow and pay his fees? Why shouldn't I go for a deal that would save me from paying the escrow fee? I can also choose another person as an escrow. It's my wish and I don't get your logic.

Set as stone is as if I/any other member is obliged to completing a deal with you no matter if he is happy with your terms or not. You are talking as if you are the boss and the buyer/seller are your slaves and have to listen to you. I have cancelled real deals as well where I needed to rent an apartment and after setting the terms with the broker, I cancelled it as the buyer was a nuisance. Doesn't mean I wanted to scam him.

Today my one deal got cancelled after setting up an escrow and the other party backed out. That dint make me feel to leave him a negative feedback. He just wasn't happy with the terms. Fortunately, my other deal went through with an escrow. Any deal can be cancelled any time but that doesn't mean that it was cancelled due to the buyer/seller wanting to scam a person. A person uses an escrow to protect himself from being scammed and not to be gifted with a negative feedback if he doesn't use the escrow services after agreeing to the terms.

All of worhiper_-_'s terms and conditions of the trade were met. He wanted me to confirm the details of the account which is something that I did even though doing so fell outside of the escrow agreement.

Additionally, the purpose of escrow is to protect all parties involved. If there are terms that would put one party at significant risk (as was the case with the seller) then terms need to be adjusted to ensure that all parties are protected. If there was a condition when it would be impossible to tell if it was met or not if one party was lying then that condition is obviously not acceptable. For example if someone was buying BTC for cash in the mail, it would obviously make zero sense for a condition to be that no insurance be purchased if escrow is being used as it would be impossible to make any kind of determination as to who is lying if one party were to claim the envelope was empty/didn't contain all the cash that it should.

I'm confused at the bold part myself.  As the escrow, you didn't hand over the seller's goods or efforts before receiving payment, did you?  How was the seller deprived of money he was due?  The deal was never finalized.  



I agree Quickseller - you should put in your terms that once you start negotiation for your services as escrow, you will receive negative trust if you back out.  This would be ethical, since you are on DT and your trust means more than other escrow providers.

This is why I don't escrow.   :-\

Not in a voluntary society.

Escrow agents should not be forced to accept idiotic buyer/seller terms, but escrow agents should also make it clear as crystal to buyers/sellers looking through escrow ads, that "my escrow terms are law, and if you buyers/sellers don't like that, don't hire me as an escrow."

It's a quasi-conflict of interest to use your own escrow service as neg trust bait because you deliberately left your terms wide open for buyers/sellers to attempt to set their own idiotic terms, then foist them upon you.

And what Vod said above this post.

I appreciate the sarcasm. That's the only way people like me learn.

IIRC, wohiper_-_'s version of the story is that he and seller negotiated some terms,  sent them an escrow request to QS, who agreed, but then sent different terms back, once W saw QS's terms were different from the ones he agreed to with seller, he decided not to go, and cancelled.  QS's argument is that anyone who doesn't accept my God-given perfect terms is obviously a scammer and therefore deserving of my wrath.

@TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior).

Sending back your own terms is implicit DISagreement with, and refusal to escrow under, the original set of idiotic terms you were sent. Jeopardy only attaches once both counterparties agree to the escrow agent's ToS. If I got sent idiotic terms from both counterparties treating me like an idiot, I wouldn't respond with my own terms (assuming the counterparties could have known from my public ToS that sending their own was verboten), I would respond with something like, "Screw the money, I HAVE RULES! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xZFeh4kHeY&feature=youtu.be&t=195) Find another escrow!"


He can, but he hasn't. I await my punishment. LOL

If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration  being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed.

worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following:

• full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
• an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address

The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end.

When you negotiate a price for a good/service, you are negotiating a bargain for you. If you enter into a contract to sell something and the other party does not follow though (and does not take delivery) then you will not have the sales price worth of money and would have an extra of whatever you were selling that you should not have. As a result of worhiper_-_ backing out of the trade, the seller is out .1 BTC, regardless of the fact that he still has other property that could be valued at a similar price.

Of course I did not give the OP the goods being traded. See my above explanation as to why it is not okay to back out of a contract/deal.

Backing out after escrow is setup is not exclusive to when I am acting as escrow. If I am made aware of similar behavior and I can find proof of such behavior then a similar negative feedback would be left. I am not the only person who engages in this policy.
LOL, yes you do. This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305908.0), this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621598.msg6913907#msg6913907), and this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1004709.msg10945145#msg10945145) are three examples I could quickly find of you offering and/or accepting an offer to serve as escrow.

Because you already agreed to a deal with someone else under terms negotiated. I don't see any reason why anyone would ever want to do business with you if you will backout simply because you get a better offer. I cannot count how many times I have had to turn down better offers for things I was selling on here because I had previously come to agreements with traders for something I was buying/selling. I have seen similar activity of the most reputable traders on here.

Also see my above comments about what it means to enter into a contract/deal.
It sounds like you are just looking for loopholes for ways to back out of deals.
You should have been sued for this. This is not only something that will open you up to liability to the buyer, but is also most likely against fair housing regulations. Another reason not to trade with you.

I am also curious to know what your main account is. I know that you are posting from a purchased account and that you purchased it in or around February of this year.

For clarification, this is not the terms of me acting as escrow, however I will obviously not adhere to scammy terms as were requested in the OP. I have since made it a point to further point out that I will not adhere to such scammy terms and suggest alternatives so all parties can be protected on an equal basis, and decline to escrow when such terms cannot be agreed to. However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met.

Oh, so you disagree with me now? Negative trust left. LOL, just kidding, you are not a scammer haha.

I am fairly certain that you were somewhat disagreeing with my actions when I added you to my trust list (prior to BadBear adding you back into his). Although I have hopefully addressed all of your concerns in this post, as of now you are publicly disagreeing with me, yet your name still remains in my trust list (because I still respect your trust opinions enough for you to remain there). I do not anticipate removing, nor excluding you from my trust list in the near future. You can make your own conclusion about this.

I consider myself a reasonable person (and according to SB5 IQ, "gifted"), and conclude what worhiper_-_ sent and meren verified (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1023038.msg11071286#msg11071286) was void for vagueness. IMO a contract should be unenforceable if it is too vague for the average person to understand, let alone the mentally incompetent. Now you've had the learning experience; when you see a counterparty like worhiper_-_ writing a vague blank check like that (to cover idiotic terms), and the counterparty at risk verifying that check...


Good.


And that was the quasi- or perhaps actual conflict of interest: hunt scammers for free AND try to get paid as an escrow agent trying your damnedest not to get bound up with idiocy/scamming prima facie indistinguishable from each other. Rather than dropping your clearsign, you could have legitimately said "I'm not the escrow for you" and (void for vagueness aside) their contract definitely wouldn't have been bound, until they found an escrow who agreed to do the second bullet point under the idiotic terms the blank check covered.


Ok!

Love how, as usual, QS talks as if he and only he has access to absolute and final information on who is/is not a scammer.  However, the real explanation for his unusal deference and jolliness comes in the next paragraph.
Yup, QS recognizes that TBZ is at or above his own power level.  Those above or equal to him, he uses the phrase "LOL, just kidding" in a jolly and fun way.   Offers strangely deferential language when referrring to his boss' trust of someone.  To others who disagree with him, those who aren't in his power-list, disagreeing brings out his signature phrase 'you are an idiot', and if you continue to do anthing other than bow down, you get neg-repped (potentially from multiple accounts).  Turns out, TBZ, you're in the immune class.  I didn't know it when I wrote above to watch out for the neg-rep.

Another example of Quickseller's blatant abuse of his default trust... ::)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105136.msg11169188#msg11169188

@bold: Are you talking to me? This is my account and I dislike account sales. Don't play the assume game with me. Give me proof as I already own this account and have my proof. BTC address posted on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=259765.msg2820123#msg2820123 and my address posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.0. Because my account is older to yours, you found it worthy of a feedback.



@green: LOL! My mom is a lawyer and she sued the other party as he put the check in the bank without confirming the deal. You got to check the law before talking this as you seem to be unaware of how deals work. The owner wanted to scam my mother of $300 and if she had not complained we would be down by $1000. You probably wanted me to get cheated.  :( I'm sorry but I am not that rich that I can afford to get cheated and it's sad to see you supporting the owner who was a cheat.


I am free to walk out of a deal if the buyer or escrow doesn't respond on time. No rule states that if I back out, I am a scammer.  

And regarding the neutral feedback you found my deserving of with regards to this paragraph:


If I am not comfortable with the attitude of the buyer/seller or the attitude of the escrow, I am free to cancel the transaction. Also, if I find another buyer who doesn't want to use an escrow and is willing to go first, paying me a higher amount which can earn me profit and I will pay him after his payment is received, why should I use an escrow and pay his fees? Why shouldn't I go for a deal that would save me from paying the escrow fee? I can also choose another person as an escrow. It's my wish and I don't get your logic.


@bold: This statement means that if the buyer/escrow start misbehaving or/and abuse me, according to you I should continue with the deal. Thanks.


@red: This is another example not related to the bold statement. If I get 1 buyer who wants an escrow and a second person who doesn't want an escrow, I will definitely choose the latter. It doesn't mean that I will back out of a deal I committed to. I will backout when I haven't committed to my deal. I don't backout when I have given my word. That's your assumption about me which is definitely wrong. I stand by my words even if I lose money by not choosing another person who will give me a profitable deal.


Your statement "I cannot count how many times I have had to turn down better offers for things I was selling on here because I had previously come to agreements with traders for something I was buying/selling." This has happened with me as well where I did not respond a person who was offering me $16.5 via Perfect Money for $15 BTC and another person offered $15 via Perfect Money for $15 BTC. I chose the latter as he responded fast and I told the former person that I'm sorry as I have committed to another person. I don't accept 2 deals at a time. I probably don't respond to the other person if I cannot commit to him.

FYI: Quickseller has been removed from BadBear's trust list, hence, default trust list.

That list keeps getting smaller and smaller. I just had to double check my personal list and noticed it was gone  :o  Not sure how I keep deleting my peeps......

Badbear removed quickseller from his trust list, Quickseller is no loger part of default trust depth 2.

His rating in my profile still remains, I believe that this still keeps this thread relevant so I won't be locking it. I haven't invited anyone to post here, it's done voluntarily by individuals that are looking to voice their opinion (some are probably doing it for signature campaign payouts but that's another thing). There's certainly no such thing as a 'organised Quickseller hate group'.

Now I know that I have no control on what you post here but as a kind reminder and for being the original poster: I'd advise people to tone down off topic discussion. You're free to create a new topic if you'd like to discuss things not belonging in this topic.

You are still a scammer and the negative will remain.

Won't mean anything. Sorry bro your scambusting days are over. Find a better hobby to do with your life.

I think that all of worhiper's terms were met. What may have been vague was the fact that he did not clarify when the account details would be verified, however the details were verified prior to him funding escrow so he received the maximum benefit from that vague term that he could have received.


Honestly acting as escrow is not worth the tiny amounts of fees/tips I receive. Granted I could have rejected being escrow, and hindsight is 20/20, however the fact remains that worhiper did most likely try to scam in this case as he was trying to put both the escrow and seller at risk.

Thank you for your efforts at least one TRUST TYRANT is gone. Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

It only means that for Quickseller... the user  worhiper_-_ is a scammer (most probably he is not a scamm. But this is only my personal opinion). But since he (QS) he is not more in the depth 2 of DefaultTrus list his negative trust is not important anymore (under a point of view of the trust system).

A lot of people still have me in their trust list and even more have me in their trust network. My feedback is far from worthless.

I dont say that Quickseller is a trust abuser .. He is a nice guy always help users and keeps the forum clean and neat. but sometimes as you know we are humans we can do mistake, quickseller gave me negative feedback on my Ume account .. without knowing the truth  ignoring messages . but i accepted . and never returned to that account he gave me negative feedback saying alt of tacoman lol i dont know who is him but still i said theres no way .. i explained him twice thrice times but he dont reply .. i only want one proof that tacoman is an alt of ume and want a proof if i ever scammed anybody ?. Though He is a nice guy just a little mistake in a buxy day.

Yes of course, but the newbie users etc have only the DefaultTrust list (depth 2). Is this a problem for you? However I think the purpose of this thread is ended ... Because the negative trust is not under the trusted section (so , worhiper_-_ who cares?) anymore (default trust).

I would have to take a look at the Ume account, however off the top of my head I believe that you were faking loans to your alts and then there was later blockchain evidence that you were an alt of tacoman.

From what I see, QS was added back to default trust from Tomatocage but briefly removed. After that, all the drama was magically gone. I'll lock and archive this thread after this one reply to honor the time that went by without drama related to Quickseller.