Bitcoin Forum

I was one of the first people to consistently push for the use of escrow, even before default trust existed.

I view escrow as a trusted third party that can act as a mediator should the buyer and seller disagree. It also prevents the seller from running off the coins, or the buyer stealing intellectual property without paying for it.

An escrow can either be free, ask for tips, or charge a flat or sliding scale. 

If the person you are trading with is also the escrow, you have no protection from intentional fraud or accidental issues.

What do you think?

YES - Earn what you can, however you can.  Doesn't matter if a service is being purchased and not provided.
NO - An escrow should be a neutral third party.  The fee paid is considered like an insurance premium for protection

It is absolutely NOT ok to trick people into using escrow when it is really you hiding behind a alt account.

I will leave negative feedback for that regardless of the possibility of being punished by being removed off the DT.

I'd say an escrow MUST be a third-party because if you look it up in dictionary all state "third party".
if it isnt the escrower is a liar.

problems, when seller an escrow are the same person:

 - trust abusing in case they left a positive rating afterwards

 - if a fee is collected its effectively stealing

 - in case of a dispute its not possible to make a fair and emotional free decision

i voted no, using alt account to buy or sell something and use your another account to be the escrow is like buying trust specially if the escrow is asking for fees

And then they sell the alt account for a higher fee due to their trust.

The risks are exactly the same as if you do a direct trade. However if there is some kind of communication misunderstanding, and you did not clarify these details (as an escrow) then your reputation will be permanently damaged because you did not create a safe trading environment.

If you are doing a direct trade and there is a communication issue, then the answer is "sorry" and your reputation may or may not be affected based on your ability to weasel your way out of the situation.

...says the person who regularly uses himself as his own escrow for his alts...

Manipulating people into believing that they have paid an unbiased third party to protect them during their trade and it really being you is sketchy as FUCK.

I am just going to leave this here.....

https://i.imgur.com/QTgzfPu.png

I'm pretty sure 'No' is going to win. It's clear it's better for it to be a third party.
Probably we should include in the discussion how bad it is and whether it deserves negative trust.

Personally I'm convinced it's bad and would definitely not use an escrow known to have that behavior, but I wouldn't say he's a scammer and therefore I don't think a negative feedback is deserved [more (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12367073#msg12367073)].

Why is this even a question? An escrow should, by definition, be a neutral and trusted third party.

Using an alias pretending to be that is a scam because you're simply not providing escrow at all.

This seems very obvious to me,is this leading or do we actually have a issue with established accounts using alts as escrow?

yes its an issue.
QuickSeller does this regulary and some DefaultTrust Member thinks it ok and not scammy hence this poll

My vote for no. I would say the escrow has to be a trusted third party.
It has nothing to do with the escrow fees - Even if the escrow is free, I would say that escrow has to be a third party.


This poll is too insignificant for alts to get involved, but you can never be sure.  ;)

Do you think that is all that different from choosing someone you are close friends with as an escrow? Do you think that it might be difficult for an escrow to be 100% unbiased if you are close friends with the escrow? My understanding is that you are close with Salty, and I see that you suggested using him as escrow here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1121918.msg11874956#msg11874956).

It is also my understanding that you are close to MRKLYE, to the point that (if my memory serves me right) you left a negative rating against someone who was harassing him. However he is offering your escrow services here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1002401.0;all).

There is not a 1:1 comparison between these scenarios and escrowing your own deal, however they are very similar. Additionally, it is possible that the person you are trading with may not know you are close.

Hey, I'm a grower, not a shower.   :P

Escrow should be a 3rd party with no bias. Escrowing for yourself via an alt is wrong...no exceptions in my opinion.

It shouldn't be enforced, but it's incredibly dishonest to whoever pays for it.
I wish good faith was standard for DT list.

Currently there are 3 that voted for YES and 25 for NO, are those 3 came from a single user using his alt accounts to save his reputation here? LOL

someone is trying to live taking fees huehue

There have been 29 posts in basically as many minutes.

This is more then as many votes that another poll (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169243.0) got in roughly 5 days. ::)

The answer is obviously no,the very definition of escrow is this
https://i.imgur.com/ZNjGOJ6.png
Notice how it says Third party which means the following
https://i.imgur.com/GjWHAkY.png
Key words being, a person ASIDE the two primary involved in a situation

The idea of escrow is that it is a 3rd party.  It is completely meaningless to call it escrow when a trusted 3rd party is not present, and it is deceitful and wrong to hide that you are the person providing escrow for yourself if you are.

I absolutely trust Salty.  He's a fuck of a guy and I do not believe he would let our friendship get in between a business deal.  I honestly try to make his helping as easy as possible by documenting everything just as if he hates my guts.

KYLE is my sweet sweet bb.  When I do a escrow for him I only think of it as Party A and Party B.  There is no KYLE in my train of thought as far as business goes.  He fully understands that and respects my ability to make sure everyone is satisfied.  KYLE may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but he isn't dumb enough to try any funny shit with me as escrow because that shit would not fly!

I am not saying that Salty would side with you simply because of your friendship, and the same goes for you and KYLE, but I think the principle is the same. I am not going to try to scam by acting as escrow with one of my alts, just like Salty is not going to scam by colluding with you to steal from me when I want to buy some coins for charity. However the potential of conflict of interest is there.

Now this is obviously not actually the case in any of the relevant scenarios, but what if you are escrowing for someone who actually is your roommate/sister/has an even closer personal relationship? There would still be a potential conflict of interest, however it would still be two separate people.

No, IMO
Escrow means there will be 3 people minimal that involve on the process. If escrow just being made less than 3 , I think there will be some hidden purpose for doing that and mostly will be used for something bad. ( as far as I learn how life work )

NOT OK

those users (Tomatocage and Quickseller) that are in the hot seat are just abusing the system to make money

1. Sell/Buy something using their alt account
2. Use their main account as escrow
3. They take escrow fees
4. They give positive feedback for their alt account because of that abusive trade
5. They recieve positive feedback saying "used [name] as escrow, very trusted"
6. *Sell their alt account with much higher price because of the green trust
7. MONEY MONEY MONEY for the so-called scam busters of the forum

i believe those users dont deserve being in the default trust list, they are only abusing the system! IMHO


*possibly the buyer will initiate scam attempt using the account with green trust to scam people here

True they should get ban... Tomatocage abusing trust system too.

You were convinced it was wrong behavior, but as soon as you saw TC doing it you changed your opinion rather than neg him. Way to show a backbone.

not ban i think, but they should be removed from DT because of what they are doing

Definitely NOT okay.

Third party is the entire point of escrow. Without a middleman, it's not an escrow. You might as well trade straight up without the 1% fee or whatever.

We can twist this and turn this but it still comes out looking bad for the nameless parties. Least I wish to not mention them in my post because I have only seen one some what admit they do this practice.
For some one that is active in outing scammers I always expect that person to be held to a higher standard for those that are new or wanting to follow in the footsteps,to have something to follow. In this case we have some one duping one side of the party into escrow knowing that they are the escrow. This may make things smoother and faster for the accused but it is dirty for many reasons.
One being that the person is using escrow most of the time because they are uneasy. If they knew escrow was in fact accused,they would back out 9/10 times.
It looks suspect and it is pretty crooked to think that its going to fly. Its a con game simple and plain,you are using misdirection.
The other aspect and more important in my eye,not that the latter was less so,is this member is a person that is quite active in handing out neg rep.
This is fine but combined with the knowledge of using a alt account to make fake escrows,makes you question all the neg reps given by this person.
Are they doing it to shut out competition under the guise of finding cheats/scammers and such! It really pulls this member out of the shadows and questions their true intent.

Any way you cut this up,the optics are bad. I hope this practice is dealt with and we maybe find a way to make sure people are not using alts in the future.

My opinion,not looking for beef or hoping to cut down opposition. Its dirty and needs to be nipped.


edit: Missed the part about taking fees for escrow,this is really bad and that whole section needs more scrutiny obviously.

Clearly it's dishonest to pretend to offer an "escrow" for a trade when it's really you trading.  Any honest person would simply choose another escrow in that situation in order to follow an ethical principal.  I do have two replies for quickseller tho:


Here QS shows an inability to look at more than one side of the scenario.  As escrow/trader, he says "self-escrow is just like not having an escrow, I manage the extra risk and pocket the fee".  He seems to fail to see that the other party is paying for the service of a third party and isn't getting it.  He only considers scenarios in which he's right and knows all the pieces, so he can't seem to imagine that someone might have a valid dispute with him, he can't see the value of the third party for the other person because he knows he's always right.  I love how he characterizes a "communication issue" in terms of someone else's ability to weasel out of a situation.  It's impossible for him to consider scenarios in which the other party actually might have a point.



Here QS actualy has an interesting and valid point.  The poll asks us about self-escrow and we all cry "no! it needs to be a neutral, third party".  QS says, not all third parties are neutral, and he has a point.  To be fair to QS's point, I believe that ethical escrows probably ought to avoid escrowing for their friends, or at the very minimum, warn the other party about their connection to one of the parties beforehand.  If Salty is besties with BAC and will be escrowing his deal, in my opinion, Salty ought to tell BAC's trading partner, "btw, I have a long and tight friendship with BAC, I'll do my best to honor my duty as a third party here, but you should know about my connection to him".  That's merely full disclosure.  After such disclosure, the other party might say to BAC, let's use another escrow, or not, but at least they'd go into it with their eyes open.

To summarize, an escrow should be a third-party, that's a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for an ethical escrow.  In my opinion, an escrow should also be neutral and should disclose potential biases insofar as they can.  Just like a judge has to recuse themselves in a case in which they have a personal interest, escrows shouldn't be escrowing for their mother.

it's absolutely not okay.

it's not ethical and cheating in my opinion. anyone caught abusing it should never do escrow again.

but again, I really like bitrated.com's system. it requires less trust and less drama/forum

What could possibly be someones' reason to escrow for himself other than to benefit for himself only. Ofcourse it's not ok. Let's say he's a trusted member here but if someone wants an escrow then atleast provide a legitimate one for his assurance. Don't be selfish with others.

I'm definitely siding with the 'no side' on this on. The main reason for this is because it is a secret alt. This is not okay for most possible situations, however if both parties knew about this then and (probably) only then would it be okay (since both parties have to agree for this deal to go through).
If I had found out that the escrow and the buyer/seller are the same person, I would not deal with them again. Is that shady action worth a negative? I'm not sure.

If you let the other part think the escrow is not you, then at the very least you are lying and deceiving the other part, no matter the reasons one could have

Not sure if it deserves a neg trust, but this behavior should not be tolerated by default trust and escrow

When the word deceiving or deception is present, it's not OK.
You can't be stand as witness of your own crime

I voted No.Escrow is all about trust.Why do we need escrow? because we want our transaction to be smooth and safe.If one of the party use alt to act escrow,it is cheating and fraud.

I don't want to be repetitive, but I voted no. I hope that my explanation is slightly different than the others.

Why does one use escrow? Because they do not trust the other person enough to do the trade one-on-one. Then, they would use a person that they both trust to act as escrow between them.

But what if one doesn't trust the other, and uses an escrow that he thinks is trustworthy... but the escrow and the other trader are the same person? That complicates and ruins the whole idea of "escrow".

Friends don't go to great sketchy lengths to hide their friendships.  (I did refuse a picture at a conference one time, but only because I didn't want to break the ladies camera.)

If I'm recommending the escrow then of course the other party is going to know that I know them, but the people I prefer have a fucking rock solid background.  You probably don't know this and I don't want to get this thread off topic, but Salty did the escrow for MP painted as Hitler (http://trilema.com/2014/hitler-mp/).  MP is on the Web of Trust (https://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=mircea_popescu&sign=ANY&type=RECV).  WoT is a great way to cross reference trusts from here to "there".  Salt is also free... not to be a jew or anything.

Expecting disclosure from a scammer is only going to annoy the people who are honest.  People should be encouraged to do their own research, ask questions and try not to be a fuck face while you do it.   :)

It is definitely not Ok, as escrow is meant to be a neutral third party.
Why don't you trade directly with your escrow account? That implies guilefulness.

I am deeply disappointed as quickseller

Imagine e-bay.
It's basically an escrow service. Don't e-bay workers (even the financial department) use e-bay as a customer?

BUT

IF the escrow bend the rules for himself then it's a big issue. (Imagine e-bay worker sent broken stuff but got paid from customer, what happens to that worker? Will be fired of course).

This just proves you can't fully trust anybody on this forum. Ask yourself the question, if you were trying to buy or sell 100,000 bitcoins or a similar ridiculous amount would you trust anybody on this forum to escrow for you?

I'd rather do a face to face meet but carry a gun for protection :)

That is pretty obvious ::) I would only trust certain people here with up to maybe 50-60BTC. I really doubt anyone here escrows 100's of BTC without meeting up.

No. The entire notion of having an escrow is the fact that a trusted neutral third party is available to arbitrate the deal if anything ensures. The argument that some people here say they're 'self-escrowing' for some deals lies to the fact that the other party knows and fully trusts him/her to go through his part of the deal, and understands that there will be no  third party being involved here. It is utterly dishonest and downright cheating when the escrower and one of the party is colluding/the same person as the outcome/decisions made will not be fair to the other party at all.

;) I've did much more then that without meeting up, just fyi.

If things went bad because of the conflict of ebay workers using the ebay, the customers still can go to the court.

SInce this forum is anonimous, with people from all over the world and the forum itself won't take responsability, then your point is not valid

Is this forum anonymous? Don't you know about BFL case?
theymos gave the court lots of information about users who talked about BFL (including PM's).

I think it's OK because whenever  you ask the trader to use your alt account as an escrow, he first checks if your alt can really be trusted! If you have enough trust and good intentions, No problem at all.
But at the same time i think its like "You're the cop and you're the prisoner".

Of-course NO

Escrow means a third party that is trusted by both buyer and seller and in case if there is any problem they can take a fair decision without taking anyone's side

but if the seller/buyer is also using his alt account to escrow then how we can expect a fair decision in case any problem occurs

or if they want to trade without third party escrow for their alts then better they trade directly with their main account,

Well a year or 2 back that was fine, but these days not so much. I really have issues trusting most people here these days.

It's not escrow if there is no third party involved. I can't believe this is even a question...

The definition of escrow specifically says "kept in the custody of a third party".

No it is definetely not OK to use your alt as an escrow, beats the whole concept of an escrow.
IMO the 5 votes saying "yes" are probably from Wardrick, quickseller, ACCTseller , panther and his other alt(something to do with fun). Lets see how many alts can QS turn against this poll, I guess he's still got a lot of alts.

I voted NO and for that 5 who voted YES must be out of their mind.
If there's a need for a 3rd party then there should be a 3rd party, not same guy with a different hat

What ?! No. Just... how ?!

The risk is theoretically mitigated by using a known and "trusted" third party with funds.


Yes. It's different.

Cronyism much ?

If I would sell 100,000 BTC I would definetly do a face to face meet up! Good thing is that I have a cop as friend, would take him as helper.  ;D

Also, I voted for no.

NO - An escrow should be a neutral third party.

Defo a no. you cannot escrow your own trades otherwise it is not escrow.

Can you imagine localbitcoins where the buyer gets to decide when to hit the release coins button  ::)

There seems to be a lot of worming around the key issues by a certain individual who has recently been caught out.

Key points :

1) Escrow must be an impartial third party.
2) If 1 person in the trade uses an alt to fake Escrow then it is dishonest and a scam even if nothing was stolen.
3) Getting additional payments by faking an escrow service is theft.  You are deceiving an individual into paying for a service they have not received (this point still counts even if you spurt bullshit about the overall price you received for the goods would still be the same etc. )

Is voting here with known (or secret) alts ok? ;)

I know you made up your mind and I hope you are aware that the question is loaded.

IMHO an escrow should be a 3rd party, no matter what. Everything else should not be considered escrow. As BadBear said regarding moderation one should not moderate issues regarding oneself no matter how competent one is. Same goes for escrow, no matter the trustworthyness of your main account if you want to make a deal with another account get someone else to escrow. There are plenty people offering escrow and it should not be too difficult to find someone.

@QS if you agree with TF's argument that the proof provided by TSP regarding your alt is nil because of confirmation bias you should agree that an escrow that is not a 3rd party without any ties is also biased. The same can be true for someone very close, yes.


No rules have been broken, there will be no ban. This is a DefaultTrust issue and should not involve the staff.

I voted for "No". It's is not correct act as escrow using (your) secret alt, because as you said "An escrow should be a neutral third party".

Good job, people. We got the "No" votes to 100. :)

as long as defaulttrust contains members who think escrowing for himself its ok its kinda meaningless :/

It's not against the rules but it's definitely WRONG to do it no matter what's the reason behind it. If an escrow does it, he definitely is not trustworthy and nobody should trust him either.

which rules?
dictionary says third party? do we need a special dictionary for bitcointalk to redefine words?

Escrow means a third party. And escrowing for himself doesn't make it a third party. This statement is enough to give you an answer.

I'm talking about this forum rules. It can't earn any member a ban if they escrow for themselves.

forum doesnt even ban scammers...

but scammers shouldnt be on defaulttrust level 1
thats why i think everybody who thinks escrowing for himself is ok shouldnt be on defaulttrust.

Doesn't even fit the definition of escrow.

If you don't trust someone enough to trade without an escrow, don't trust them with an escrow either, and don't send first.

That's why I said it's WRONG and also unethical to do so. Escrows here are defining their own set of rules and what service needs to be used for the betterment of members and make them feel safe, the service is now looking shady itself. Hope other escrows learn from this and stop doing it.

Edit: I don't find a reason to have escrows on the DT list as they tend to leave a rating for those members who they have escrowed for.

I only want to say couple word about vod.
How you can talk about other guys? You abusing trust system, and u think u are god?
Quick dont scam nobody but this is what he is doing is not ok, but he is still better guy then VOD.
He should get ban... He give red trust without any reason fuck him .
https://i.gyazo.com/a45c09d3433c95d20be8b1946ead26ec.png

That looks like he negatively rated a bunch of 0-post alts which were doing nothing but abusing the trust system.

Why would you have a problem with that?

Becouse this is old accounts without any post or activity. Maybe someone create accout and forget about it? Why he should get red trust ?
I have problem with it, and it is abusing for me.

No, those are accounts that were created by the user symantec with the only purpose of leaving trust spam. Open the profile of a few of those accounts (1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=490061), 2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=490059), 3 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=490056), ...) and check the received and sent feedback. Probably the only problem with his feedback on those accounts is it's not descriptive enough.
Anyway you shouldn't discuss this on this thread. If you have problems with him either PM him or if that fails open a thread on Meta (if you didn't already).

Totally believable. Someone created multiple accounts, left negative feedback for multiple members and forgot about them. LOL.

Were those your alts / shills or are you just pissed you're also marked red?

Do you really believe someone made 20+ accounts all on the same day, left me negative feedback on each one, did nothing else with the accounts, then just forgot about them?

Is that what you want us to think?

If you really believe this, start a new thread in scam accusations and call me out!  I'm not above the community!

Nothing to do with this poll.   :-\

Please add me to that thread. I got negative feedback from those as well.

PS. Thanks Vod for marking those. Saved me the trouble of doing it myself...

I am sorry, but I am going to have to call you out on this one. Weren't you escrowing for a signature campaign that you had several alt accounts in?

@shorena - I will respond to your post in due time, however I am short on time currently and wish to put great effort into my response.

No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.

Of course, all this is difficult to prove in the online world.

Is it okay for me to posture using another account to "escrow" funds for a transaction I am doing with someone else.

Basically putting up an illusion of an actual escrow.

LOL pretty obvious answer is NO it isn't okay.

I'm not gonna go against QS, but this does seem unethical, and as the trust here is not moderated anyone is free to give his negative trust to anyone.
But coming to the point, because of QS being removed from default trust many scammer will be running free.As for the other members of default trust, I highly doubt they have seen how many people QS has negative repped for trying to scam. A solution to this would be going through QS's trust feedbacks and at least try to figure out who were rightly marked by QS for trying to scam.

How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example:

What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade.

It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time.

the answer to you post is right within your post as well


Actually you can also do your share if you think a transaction is about to turn to scam you can report to the ones in higher places
I'm not saying we don't need QS, I even commend QS for running after those scammers and would be scammers
But on this topic, not to single out QS or anyone in this forum, Escrow should a separate person.
So if there's a transaction between A & B escrow should be C not A/C or B/C

FTFY:


Another way to say it is:
If I want to sell a business, and make one of my employees or partner as an escrow to the trade, do you consider that a fair deal?

It gets worse when you find out that the business owner was the escrow!  :o
(^try doing this in RL ;D)

~ Escrowing for yourself using your alt accounts is like sucking your own two balls.  8)

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him.

As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?

Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here?

Well, we don't really want 117 negative trust feedbacks there... ;)




At 117 saying yes :5 saying no. You can pretty well claim everyone agrees that it is shady.
But not many thinks QS is a scammer, so no issues there. :)




Not leaving anything is inappropriate. Massively adding negative trusts is too. A couple of negative trusts and neutral ones is pretty reasonable whichever way you take it. :)

It says "Strong belief" not "solid proof". My feedback is left on that basis.

Two raings are more than enough as he hasn't scammed anyone. This is a punishment for lying and a lesson for other escrows as well to not have such shady trades. Emplying another escrow to complete the transaction won't be so expensive and don't be pennywise and pound foolish.

Well, it's almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.

I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.

Who care what u say? You are biggest jealous cunt on this forum! Fuck you abuser.

as long as TC and Blazr thinks its Ok and stay on DT i dont think it wont happen...
IMHO when QS come back in a few months he will be back on DT.

so i just think DT is fucked...

I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing.  It's simple fraud.

Even if they do think that it is okay, it should not matter. If two persons (on DT) opinions can overrule the majority then the system is not working properly. It's pretty clear that almost everyone thinks that escrowing for yourself is not okay. I guess it will be added to one of those 'unwritten' rules for trust. If you break it, you might get a negative.

---

---

Update: I was not trying to imply that you are trying to overrule anyone. I was just stating a example in which the system would be flawed.

Not a strange result. 7 votes for yes only. A escrow must be a third party or else it is not call escrow anymore.

the person who is escrowing for himself should be banned and should be punished as far as possible BEcausE ..

he gained trust and tried to scam ..so this is the worst case..

A negative trust rating isn't the end of the world and I'm sure not trying to overrule anyone.

I believe a number of people are a bit fearful of leaving negative trust for TC/QS for fear that they will be tagged back, removed from DT, hacked, trolled or worse.

There is no doubt in my mind that what they were doing was a totally dishonest and sketchy in more ways than one.  I've read TC private explanation to me over PM and I've tried to believe it, but I just don't.

It would be unfair to remove DT and tag QS, but not TC.  As far as I'm concerned they are both in the same line of business misrepresenting their services, farming accounts and god only knows what else.

I believe TC should be removed off the DT as well.  I will then consider changing my red to a neutral rating for both QS/TC.

QS/TC still have plenty of business history to continue forward with what they do for the forum, but will lose their ability to farm trust for sock puppets when they self escrow.

Obviously self escrow is a bad thing - no doubts. I am not sure however that it is really a scam and deserves negative trust. I would say shady/unethical, but I would also say with almost 100% certainty that he would never have ripped anyone off. I still think we were better off with QS on the DT than not on it though.

definitely no, because you are misleading the person on the other end of the deal.

No because you are essentially making the other person trust you, and if you like , you can scam that person anytime you like.
Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it  ;D

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

you say it WRONG ? then you say my personal opinion ??

dont know about them but you r trolling for sure. :o ;D

Calm down; stop calling everyone a troll if they don't agree with you.

I'm just saying "wrong" because I'm stating my personal opinion. Maybe that came across in a way that you didn't quite like, but you need to take a quick breath and calm down.

lets face it... majority may say "no! it's not ok" ang thats my answer here as well, but in the world of bitcointalk.org if you are planning to buy anything in the digital goods section and needs escrow, ofcourse we look for an escrow, thats what we have in mind and thats what we want to accomplish to be able to buy that item you want. So how in the world will you know if you are talking with the alt of the seller? No way right?
But again I voted for NO! Not OK

Why does this even need discussing? It unfurls its phallus and empties its bladder into the mouth of the whole concept of escrow.

I am pretty sure this is the strongest argument that I have seen proposed so far.

its ok ,i will calm down now..
i guess it was just to increase ur post  count.

Neither TC nor myself have left retaliation feedback against you, AFAIK no one has started trolling you, and I think I have acted professionally towards you. The real risk of getting trolled is if you were to leave a negative rating on a scammer who has gone to great lengths to hide the fact that they are a scammer, just look at the post history of tspacepilot over the past several months, he has gone to great lengths to troll me and slander my name. Other examples include turtlehurricane and CandyStripes (although he did this to BadBear, not me), both of which were exposed after being able to keep their scams hidden for a long time.

Regarding being removed from DT, I believe the forum policy is that inaccurate ratings will not be allowed to remain in the default trust network. I have posted to confirm that this policy is still in place and what is considered a "long" time however I have not heard back yet. I do wish to change your mind on the matter using factual arguments (as opposed to very generalized statements made by most people in this thread). It is my opinion that getting someone who has left an inaccurate rating to voluntarily remove a rating to be the best solution for everyone.

If you are concerned about charging a fee, then that is very little different from selling an altcoin at a 50%+ markup then what is available on an exchange, and from selling a domain you just registered for 6+ figures (both of which, if memory serves me correctly, you have listed for sale as much). Both involve an offer for something of value and the person you are dealing with willingly accepts that offer. Additionally, I do not think you would be willing to accept less money being sent to you for your domain just because the person you are dealing with does not want to trust you enough to send money first to you.

If you are concerned that the party involved is not neutral, then the argument is invalid because if you trust someone to escrow for you then logically you would trust that person with at least that much money in the event that you were trading directly with them. The reason for this is because there is the risk of the escrow running away with your money, just as with a direct trade, however when you trust someone to escrow for you (and the person you are dealing with is not the same as the escrow) then there is the possibility that the other party will try to scam you which would result in your money being tied up for some time while a dispute is resolved, having to incur a fee even though the trade did not go through and the potential for the person scamming you being able to fabricate sufficient evidence that the escrow provider should side with them (the last one is unlikely).

Lastly, I have added a disclosure on my escrow thread that I make no representation as to the party anyone using my escrow service is dealing with (including the possibility that they are trading with an alt of me). I would find it very difficult to argue against saying that someone should not be able to engage in a deal whose conditions may be controversial but they consent to.

Regarding TC, I am not certain what business he is involved in, however I am fairly certain he does not sell accounts. I believe that he has a policy of leaving trust under certain circumstances when he escrows deals (similar to how I have such a policy, however his is different then mine) and to hide the fact that someone is his alt he leaves trust. Afaik, none of his alts have ever been sold, not have they scammed.

What does the bolded part have to do with being a neutral party? Trusting an escrow with an amount of money is different than trusting an escrow will be fair in the event of a dispute between the buyer and seller.

Let me answer your question with another question.

If I were to trade you my Bitcoin for your litecoin, how would I be able to resolve a dispute if you had sent me your litecoin directly that I would not be able to do if I was acting as escrow for my alt?

What is the difference? In both cases there is the exact same potential bias

Is there a thread where I can read about everything people accuse QuickSeller of?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

not everything but enough for some hours of fun

I think they need a dedicated sub for this. It is pretty much mud slinging though.

One could argue that charging for an escrow service while actually being the counterparty that the purchaser is looking for protection from is scammy in its own right. It could be considered that the purchaser of the escrow has been ripped off for the amount of the escrow fee.

I would much rather see escrow providers make a clear statement that they will inform you whenever they are also the person you are trading with, rather than a wishy-washy statement like:

    "no representations are made as to the identity of the person you are trading with, this includes the possibility of trading with an alt of QS, as well as trading with someone other then you believe them to be".

I mean, why not just tell people that you are wearing two hats at the same time, and let them decide whether they want to take the associated risk or not? In fact why even set up 5 or more alts in the first place, if not for trust farming and abuse?

or just hide on to another DARK GREEN DT account when one account is exposed ...

like this here .... https://i.imgur.com/iq9g7yx.png

Thank you for proving my point. In a scenario where you secretly "self-escrow", you would have a bias similar to two parties trying to resolve a dispute in a trade without an escrow. As an escrow, hiding this bias from the other party is misleading and disingenuous.

No I am not. As I previously mentioned, there is no reason why someone would request the use of an escrow when trading with me directly if they would trust me with a similar amount as escrow. In both cases I could just run away with the money.

We seem to be discussing different things here. I am not talking about someone trusting an escrow with an amount of money, I am taking about trusting the escrow will be neutral and act with as little bias as possible if a dispute were to occur.

Lets look at two scenarios:

1) Alice and Bob conduct a trade with Charlie acting as escrow. All three parties are different people.
2) Alice and Bob conduct a trade with Daniel acting a escrow. Alice thinks Bob and Daniel are different people, but secretly Bob and Daniel are the same person.

If a dispute were to occur during the trade (for example, an honest misunderstanding), would you rather be Alice in scenario 1 or 2?

You are missing the point. If I trust someone with some amount of money then I will send first to them when trading with them, no escrow necessary. Any dispute would get resolved the exact same way if scenario 2 were to happen.

It is not necessary to use escrow in every trade you participate in assuming that one party is sufficiently trusted.

If I trusted Daniel enough to use him as escrow then there would be zero reason to ask to use escrow for a similar trade.

FYI: Since I am labeled as one of the "Big 5 Escrows" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855778.0) - I do not have any alt accounts and would never use myself to escrow a deal with myself.

In both scenarios Alice is expecting the escrow to resolve the dispute as a third party. Alice has no reason to suspect the escrow has any bias towards Alice or Bob.
In scenario 1, Charlie is able to act without bias because he is an independent party.
In scenario 2, Daniel is unable to act without bias because he is also acting as a party to the trade.

Scenario 1 will always be more favorable for Alice compared to scenario 2 since there is no bias. Also, by definition, Daniel is not an escrow to the trade since he is not a third party.

As I stated previously, it is misleading and disingenuous to act as if you were providing an escrow service when you really are not.

You have still failed to explain why that matters. If it was known that Daniel is the person you are trading with then you would have sent first to Daniel without escrow.

All these votes mean nothing to you Quickseller?

If you are acting escrow without the person knowing,you are acting in bad faith. It is a scam because you also charge a fee for a service people did not know was a joke.
When 3 people are involved in a deal and 2 of them are the same person,its a scam! You seem to be deflecting back on people instead of owning up to that fact.
The more irrational you get on this the more you look like some one people should not deal with in any way.

This is all I am going to say,because I do not want be written off as a alt for who knows whats agenda. Just sad to see some one with this much power in the community has a poor moral compass.

What if that one party used to be sufficiently trusted, but later on it came to light that he was tricking people into letting him escrow deals he himself was involved in? That might be enough to make you not want to deal with him in the future, no?

Fuck Daniel. I always knew he was up to no good.

Hi all, I've been thinking about a couple of different scenarios wondering what I would do if I was escrow. I keep coming up with 2 different answers. Would love to hear what all you guys would do.

SCENARIO
Escrow = John K2 (100% honest)
Seller = BlazedFarout (100% honest)
Buyer = BadDaddybear (100% honest)

- BadDaddybear has a love for a certain type of honey that BlazedFarout happens to sell.
- They negotiate a deal for 5BTC and ask John K2 to escrow.
- Escrow is funded appropriately.
- honey is posted well packaged, insured, and with full tracking with signature etc etc.
- Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear.
- Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted.
- Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package.
- BadDaddybear takes package inside and eagerly opens it only to find it empty. Poor BadDaddybear :(
- BadDaddybear informs the others of this and an insurance claim is made immediately.
- insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery.

?? What should escrow do ???

1. Refund BadDaddybear because he is known as honest and wouldn't lie about not getting the honey.
2. Pay BlazedFarout because he is known as honest and wouldn't lie about sending honey. And he has tracking and signed acceptance etc.
3. Split the BTC 50/50 - knowing that sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party. Naughtywolfs exist unfortunately.


Thanks all :)

I would start a new thread instead of going offopic.   ;)

Seems shady as f*ck and should not be done

I also voted "No".

I don't usually engage in many trades (in fact, I think I only ever did one trade so far around here, signature campaigns apart), but I imagine I would be pretty unhappy if I caught someone doing that to me - not only would that be an abuse of the trust I had placed in that user, but it would also expose me to unnecessary risk, in case things went wrong (because, as pointed out several times so far, there would effectively be no escrow).

That would not affect any trades that were taking place at the time of the escrowed deal.

You are poising a loaded question, just as the question in the OP is loaded as the question in the OP implies that almost every deal done without escrow is going to result in fraud and/or other issues.

I do not know how many deals you have escrowed for, however the deals that I have acted as escrow for have ~99% of the time (the overwhelming majority by far) have been without any issues. In the ~1% of cases when there was an issue, the majority of those cases involved some kind of clear malicious intent (eg a scam attempt), and in the remaining issues, any disputes can almost always be resolved by asking clear and concise questions about both sides of the story, what each side thinks is fair, and helping them reach a middle ground voluntarily.

To directly answer your question, if someone was no longer sufficiently trusted for someone else to send first to that person, then they would also be unable for either party to trust him to act as escrow.

Most of the people in this thread are engaging in groupthink, and I have really not seen any solid arguments as to why escrowing your own deal is any different then having the other person sending first to you, and why anyone would ever want to use a particular person as escrow when they would not be willing to send first for a similar deal.

There are also a large number of obvious sock-puppet accounts in this thread that are pretty clearly just agreeing with each-other, which is also concerning.

Lol...its on-topic.
Just didn't get Scenario2 in yet.

These scenarios being used to decide how to vote on this topic.

SCENARIO2
Escrow = Big John (100% honest)
Seller = Sam  (honesty not 100% known - Alt of Big John)
Buyer = Bill (honesty not 100% known)

Same circumstances as scenario above.

?? What should escrow do ???

1. Refund Bill because he says he wouldn't lie about not getting the honey.
2. Pay Sam because he has tracking and signed acceptance etc.
3. Split the BTC 50/50 - knowing that sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party. Naughtywolfs exist unfortunately.


Despite the same circumstances in the background - I come up with a different answer for both scenarios. As such, I do not believe you can unbiasedly escrow for yourself - so no, it is not ok.

Thanks again.
:)

And to modify your scenario a little, what if:

Escrow = QuickCellar (100% honest)
Seller = SpeedyBasement (100% honest except that he sometimes likes to escrow his own deals using a pseudonym)

Keep everything else the same.

Now will the Escrow side with the Buyer or the Seller?

It seems very unlikely in this situation that BadDaddybear is getting any refund, since the escrow knows for a fact that the seller sent the honey. BadDaddybear would be lucky not to end up with red trust from the escrow's 4 alt accounts.

Yep agree. See Scenario2 Doog :)

That is not how postal insurance works. Just because a package is signed for, it does not mean that an insurance claim would be denied for a damaged parcel (which would apply in your scenario).

I really have not heard this kind of scenario actually ever happening. It would also be unlikely that the mail carrier only steal the contents of a single parcel, so the insurance company would likely have multiple reports of thefts/damage from a common mail carrier.

The sending party is generally going to be the insured party.

Again, this is a loaded question.

You have failed to describe how this would be any different then if this was a direct trade.

That all may be case.^
The point I was trying to make was.."sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party".

If both parties have a history of acting honestly, then there is a good chance they can work things out without involving the escrow or without having to make the escrow make a decision for them.

Remember that there are very rarely disputes when escrowing deals. If something is stolen by the buyers mailman (as in your example), then this would most likely not be the first nor last time something like this happens, and the buyer would agree to release the entire escrow amount to the seller. In an opposite example, if the seller has had problems with the mail in similar ways, then the seller should voluntarily release the entire amount of escrow back to the buyer.

It isn't, and that is the point.

* The buyer is paying because he wants it to be different than a direct trade.
* He is paying for an impartial escrow agent.
* He is getting an escrow agent who is secretly also the seller.
* So he isn't getting what he paid for.
* That is why it isn't fair.

Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

We've seen this before from QS,  something about valuing relationships in currency seems to be a kind of foundation of his philosophy. Remember, dooglus, when he wrote that paragraph about exactly how much btc I should or shouldn't be trusted with?  Again and again in this thread he seems to fail to understand that everyone comes with biases, that his own opinion of what is just is inherently skewed in his own favor (as everyone's),  and that the point of a neutral party isn't only how much money you trust them with, but whether they're actually neutral.

QS, can you actually look at dooglus' five lines and say where you disagree or where you think it's not relevant or important?   It's simple and succinctly captures one side of the debate so if you could address it I honestly think it might help to elucidate the competing philosophies here.

You quoted my questions but didn't answer either of them.

WTF?

I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned (http://0x532DD290F0BEB516) YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question:
Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3-escrow (https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/escrow) agent), but in reality there were only 2?

YES or NO?

seriously, i cant stop myself laughing when i read QS personal message under his avatar

"Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q"

ROFLMAO

You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.

You have pointed out how this would be different then doing a direct trade, but you fail to document why someone would not be willing to engage in a direct trade with someone when they are willing to trust them to act as an escrow agent.

The very definition of escrow implies a third party.  You are paying a premium for protection against scammers.  When you are both the escrow and buyer/seller you provide no protection at all, so you are not entitled to any fee at all.  You are taking fees under false pretenses, and it really bothers me that you don't see that.

This is just Canadian insurance law - not sure about the other countries, but I'm sure they are similar.

Mind blowing I agree...

So you are telling me that you are willing to pay a higher price for an item solely because neither party trusts eachother sufficiently to send first to the other party?

In other words:
-You believe a widget is worth $100
-If you trust the person enough to pay first without escrow, then you would not pay $101 for the widget
-If you trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then you would be willing to pay $100 for the widget
-If you do not trust the person enough to pay them first without escrow, then the total amount you will be willing to pay is $101

If this is your argument, then why are you willing to pay more for the widget if you are using escrow? ???

The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.

if i sell you an item and say it is new and original packaged and the item you received is used and not original packaged wouldnt you call me a scammer?
even when i tell you that i treated that item well and it is as good as new and there is no difference if original packaged or not... thats your argument regarding escrow.

you redefine the word "escrow" to fit your needs. look it up in a dictionary!

If people weren't paying for a neutral third party, why did you offer to refund the escrow fee when it became clear that you weren't a neutral third party?


They may be willing to trade directly with you, but you didn't give them enough information to select that option.

There are two points that no one has even attempted to address:

• Why would someone be not willing to send first to a person when conducting a trade, if they would trust them enough to use them as escrow?
• Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?

The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.

It is not unheard of for businesses to offer refunds (or partial refunds) if there is some level of controversy in order to quell any claim of unfair practices. This is an example of this.

I do not think any rational person would be willing to pay a price that is more then it's worth just for the privilege of using escrow.   
Why would someone ever be not be willing to trade directly with the escrow agent?

This protection is already there if you trust the person you are dealing with to send first to them.

The risk of the other person running away with the coins is exactly the same if you are sending first or if they are acting as an escrow agent.[/list]

1. I don't think anyone is claiming that is the case.

2. Escrow agents typically charge a fee. That fee increases the total cost of the deal. In exchange, both parties are more confident of a positive outcome.

Then why would you involve a third party, charge a fee for that that party, and provide no service for the fee?  (fraud/theft/scam/whatever)

Face it - you fucked up and you got caught.  Instead of apologizing and realizing how 95% of the forum feels about what you did, you continue to try and BS your way out of your mess.

And you continue to advertise escrow services as if you did nothing wrong...

1. I think this is the primary argument being used, as people are saying there is not a neutral third party to resolve any disputes.

2. There are a number of fees/costs that needs to be taken into consideration when pricing an item. Besides the escrow fee, tx fees, shipping costs and import tariffs need to be considered by each party who is bearing these costs.

If the import tariffs are too high for an item that is being considered to be purchased then the buyer cannot (they can, but it will hold very little credence) argue that they should be able to pay a lower price for such item. If the 10% (or whatever) import tariff makes such item has no price that would not be too expensive for the buyer to want to buy it, and is high enough for it to make sense for the seller to sell the item, then there will simply be no trade.

---

Furthermore, a point that I made upthread, that you appear to have agreed with, that also appears to have gotten buried upthread, is that if the potential for the escrow agent to also be acting as a party to a trade is disclosed, then there is really no reason why two parties cannot consent to enter into a trade if everyone is aware of the potential for one of the trading partners to also be the escrow agent.

1. To protect my RL identity. If I put up a [WTB] thread looking to purchase a physical item, how quickly do you think someone like TheGambler, or Candystripes (or someone else who I prevented from being able to steal money, when they believed they would be able to steal additional money) would be either creating a new account, or buying a new account to respond to that offer for the sole purpose of getting my name/address?

2. The same reason why many people are afraid to leave negative trust in many cases as scammers would be trolling on [WTB] and [WTS] threads that QS creates because they are upset that I stopped them from being able to steal money from others. These trolls would not make anyone any less willing to trust me, but it would make others who might be interested in trading with me more hesitant to post questions, ect.

I think there's too much hostility, arguing & negativity on this forum at the moment between certain parties. Can't we just agree that Quickseller isn't a scammer. Yes he participated in perhaps shady activity using an alt to escrow but let's face it escrow fees are minimal. He shouldn't have done it & it was deceptive but he's not a scammer.

Likewise TSP is not a scammer, perhaps he bent the rules with the bot he used but he's not a scammer plus how can anybody trust the exact details involved in that situation when it was TF involved.

I really think this whole scenario would go away if everybody just agreed that TSP & QS are not scammers, everybody remove negative trust from each others profiles & get back to chasing/tracking down/punishing the real scammers in this place because there are plenty of them about.

Please guys just think about it, let's all move on.

You are in the 5% of people who believe this (if we ignore QS alts).  95% believe otherwise.

Not only did he intentionally scam people into using his escrow -  when TSP started closing in, he actually faked a three day ban, to throw attention off.  ("Hmmm, QS is banned but panther is still chatting... they can't be the same person")

Only when an admin stepped in did his house of cards fall.  He made ZERO attempts to right things until he was caught.

Nope. My personal text that was implying that I was banned was up for ~2 days prior to tspacepilot creating the scam accusation.

so what u lied after gaining trust ...
that is what TF did ??? am i wrong ?
he was lucky enough to get thousands of coins and u r not ,thats it

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

So you are still paying an amount that you feel is equal to or less then the value you feel it is worth....

There is a difference
- value it is worth to the buyer.
- value it is worth to the seller.

The transaction price will be in between the two. I can claim that (as a rational buyer), I would have gotten a better deal if I had known the escrow and the seller were the same person.

I don't think even 95% do consider him a scammer. He's a liar and that definitely makes him untrustworthy (which doesn't imply he's a scammer). Also, he doesn't deserve to be an escrow anymore but he's just a regular member with a negative reputation.

@OP: I guess you can lock the scam accusation thread as almost everyone must have read it by now and the conclusion has already been obtained.

They can also claim that a day is 25 hours long. That doesn't make it true though.

If someone thinks a widget is worth $110, and offers $100 for it and is willing to pay $101 with the escrow few or offer $100 with him doing a direct trade then there is no reason why he would decline a counter offer of $101 from the party he is willing to send first to.

At worse it would be a negotiation tactic.   

If in my opinion, $100 (or something below that) is the best price that the seller can get elsewhere, I would decline the counter-offer of $101.

Like I said, this would, at worse work out to be a negotiation tactic.

What if the seller were to say that they would accept a $101 offer but they would pay the escrow fee? The buyer wouldn't  be paying the escrow fee in that case, but the buyer would still be paying the higher price.

I really do not think that this is fair to the tradee.

It is really shady and deceptive. I vote no.

All this does is to show how flawed escrow services are.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Current model of escrow is the norm in bitcoin world because everything is relatively new.

Scammers evolve and will soon learn how to exploit this even further.

This is just the beginning...  >:(

Man, what is this even?

Conflicts of interest can cause problems, I think that's clear. That's why it's important to be transparent about your personal connections if you're offering escrow services. Offering to escrow for your own trade using a secret alt is the exact opposite of transparency, and also does not offer your counterparty any of the protection escrow should offer.


If you think you're offering a decent service by escrowing for yourself with secret alts, why hide it? Is this actually what's happening? I find it hard to credit this is even being discussed.

And its like you are asking a bonus from your trade partner as your escrow fee? Isnt that like stealing extra bucks?

Tacitly, no response.

1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts.

Its pretty unsensible Its no different then holding a ICO and buying all the coins yourself.

Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used.

[1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is:
Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled

[2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).

So basically, Quickseller, what you're saying is, you engaged in trades where you required escrow to be used, and did not explicitly state the escrow agent used was you, yourself?

You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer.

"or as some like to say "escrow""
You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text:
 "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q"

But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman.


You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person.



You are not simultaneously yourself and an individual person other than yourself.


The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you.

STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE.

This should be pretty clear based on my trust...is it not?

Exactly! The buyer would be paying a higher price because he didn't know that the seller and the escrow are the same person.

But is still a price he is willing to pay.
uy
At the end of the day, whose pocket the escrow fee goes into really does not make any difference to the buyer (in this example). All that really matters is that the buyer is, in one way or another going to have to pay it. Even though you say it is not the case, it is really true regardless if escrow is used or not.

Because he scammed people and is a proven liar.  Isn't that enough for you?

You want someone who lies to hold onto your money?

What exactly did I lie about? Please quote the exact statement that I said that was a lie, and provide the proof that it was a lie.

Additionally you specifically said that I scammed someone, so please advise who exactly I stole money from, what amount of money I stole, and evidence of this theft.

If you feel that I have scammed someone, then I would suggest that you file a proper report -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0

Also please be advised that your statement is libel and as a result will potentially expose your to a lawsuit for libel

Quickseller on his profile  -
"I've been banned for 3 days"

You weren't banned.  Hence the lie.  Unless Badbear was lying when he said you were not banned?

Now shut up with all the dramatics.  You are a proven liar.   :)

Please point to the post where I made that exact statement.

How?  You removed it from your profile.

Quickseller:

It seems you abused the trust system to a big point where half the forum looked down upon you. You use trust to make yourself make feel better, rather than using it for what it is.

What you did was wrong, and you're being childish and not admitting anything. Maybe if you made a thread explaining the situation and apologizing, people would feel sympathy and understand. Instead you're choosing the wrong path...

Did my profile say that I was banned for three days? To be clear, is that what you were claiming that I said?

Also lying about being banned is not stealing from anyone, so your statement would still qualify as libel.

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Good job Vod, glad to have you back on the forums :)

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I honestly don't think Quickseller views his lying and escrow scamming as wrong.  It's very possible he grew up in a household that encouraged such behavior.  

I can tell. His perceptions are completely incorrect. How many stories have you heard of Quickseller adding trust for a very bad/stupid reason? Too many.

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

LMFAO +1 +1 +1 +1 ^^^^^^^^^

so fuckin true! fuck you quickseller you're an idiot!

I am still waiting for an answer to my previous questions.....

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

Sure, prove that you have 10 BTC

You created an account called QS banned (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167) (Archive (https://archive.is/JbjNm)]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

i don't want to say anything bad for anyone because everyone has a different point of view and that person is right from his view..but i just want to say that i am using escrow only for my safty i don't want to be my funds got stolen or someone scammed me (maybe that can be situation when i need to transact that money and it can be very important for me)..i hate scammers specially at those situations and escrowers help me to transact or complete the deals safely

I'll sell all my possessions to buy and send you 10 BTC if what you claim is true.

Implies is the key word in that sentence my friend. You also archived the incorrect link LMAO

I forgot about that!  

Look what Quickseller posted under that account:


Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned.  :-\

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

Sorry. I am not going to make that bet if I cannot be assured that I will receive payment immediately after the conditions of my winning such bet would be met (and I would obviously need you to put such funds in escrow ahead of time).

Give up. Arguing will get you nowhere.

I told you, make a new thread explaining yourself and admitting/apologizing your mistakes. Clearly you did some wrongs, and there's no way out of it. About time you grow some balls to finally admit you did something wrong?

Now I'm no police, but you're making too much of a scene on this forum because you continue to fight back against something you'll never win. You could argue with me, Vod, tspacepilot, and everybody else, or just apologize. You got caught already with more than enough proof....

If you want to make the bet, I can gather 10 BTC :). Let me know if you want to do the bet.

Is there a rule about being able to post only in certain sections/threads while someone is banned? Is the scam accusations section mentioned in that rule?

Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say "I am not allowed to post here..." if I was banned?

QS is so delusional he would make a great case study for a psychologist interested in studying GREED and multiple-personality (deceptions, or disorders?? lmfao).  ;D

Keep doubling-down , doubling down .. You only look more and more ridiculous to the majority of the forum. Please do us all a favor and TRULY leave, already?  ::)

Finally, someone else thinking the same way.

If this doesn't make Quickseller leave, what will?

ATTENTION


That was in PM. Please find his alts and mark them so people know its Quickseller, a liar and dishonest man.

It will just further anger him. He has no self-control, that's clearly evident as we watch his utter downfall and destruction of trust in real-time.

Even though it is implied, the implied part can still be used against you (and will be used against you)

I did archive the right link, the link to your profile, in case somehow you convince one of the admins to actually delete the account. No need to archive your post, ndnhc quoted it already. And just for good measure, I will quote it here:

When you build a structure using Q-Tips and paper towel, its only so much time until it falls down all the way down.

And yeah, it's gonna be fun to watch of course. Quite a fun show so far watching Quickseller pathetically try and get his trust back.

@Quickseller Adding me trust calling me marco? That's the reason you lost your trust. If you can prove I am anybody you even know, I'll give you 0.5 BTC for your time :)

I don't know who are trying to convince, us or yourself.  

Trades come with risk and escrow mitigates the risk.  And you always pay a bit extra for less risk
whether you're talking insurance, investing, gambling, trading, business, whatever.  

If the price plus escrow fees is greater than the value threshold, and someone is unwilling to pay
the premium, then they shouldn't take the trade.  But it's their choice.  

While it is true that sending first is the same risk as sending to the same person who says they are an escrow, that doesn't change the fact that you aren't a neutral party, that you used deception, and the other party didn't truly get the risk mitigation they thought they were getting.  I'm shocked you're even still arguing about this.
 

I guess this is what Vod is referring to. You claimed that you had been forced to take a 3 day break from the forum, while at the same time you were posting from other alt accounts. So in what sense were you forced to take the break? That's the lie I think:

From google's cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r5ivPoKhCosJ:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D977370.0%3Ball+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca):

"This is Google's cache of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977370.0;all. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 3 Sep 2015 23:43:00 GMT"

https://i.imgur.com/TVyUKhE.png

Why don't you point out exactly where that says I am banned. Please and thank you.

Right here idiot.  The alt you made up.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167

Please show where exactly, I explicitly said that I was banned. If you are referring to the handle, then I would ask if you believe that every other handle is a description of that person. Do you truly believe that BadBear is actually a bear that is bad? 

It's the combination of you calling yourself banned in your username, and saying you were forced away from the forum for 3 days.

We get it.  You are type of person that will type "I will scam you" then completely deny that you typed "I'll scam you".   You slowly and methodically make little white lies that no one can hold you to.  I'm ashamed I ever called you a scam buster.

Scammers like you are the very reason lawyers exist.   :-\

If you are going to call me a scammer then please confirm who exactly I scammed and for how much. I will most then gladly repay anyone who can document that I stole from, however I am confident this is not the case.

If this is not the case then kindly retract your statement as your are liable for libel as you are directly damaging my reputation because you are making a statement that you are aware is untrue, and you are aware that such statement is detrimental to my reputation.

I have no idea how many people you scammed, for you didn't keep public records of who you escrowed for. 

You are a scammer and you are a liar.   What damage could I possibly do to your reputation?

Let me ask another way.....Who is claiming they have had money stolen from me and how much do they think they had stolen? Or who exactly was I attempting to steal from? Or where was I generally attempting to steal from someone in general....

No more than we believe anything from you that may be a pathological lie, obfuscation, or equivocation, at this point.

P.S. tl;dr... did any staff tie https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 to Quickseller and confirm that Quickseller wasn't actively banned at the time https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 was created?

So you are calling me a scammer, yet you have zero evidence that I actually scammed someone? That is kind of reckless don't you think? Maybe in the future you should ensure that you have actual evidence that someone has actually stolen money from someone before claiming something that is detrimental to their reputation.

lol... are we to go back and forward all night?  You admitted to pulling the escrow scam many times.  When a person pleads guilty in court, there is no need for further evidence.

you should first put the 10btc to a trusted escrow (Quickseller) since you are dealing with QS ROFLMAO

QS Banned posted a PGP signed message.
Badbear confirmed that QS wasn't banned.

I wonder if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing is the term most apropos.


B-but...

So another escape route is set.

LOL


BAHAHAHAHA

What are you talking about? Wha escrow scam did I "pull"? An "escrow scam" is where one party receives money into "escrow" (while being the escrow) and then fails to deliver the agreed upon goods. Is there someone that is claiming this happened to?

Been discussed a couple times already in this thread and your scam accusation thread.  You scammed multiple times.  Proof has been presented.

In case anyone is wondering, the term for a person like QS who ignores social norms and believes he is always in the right is "psychopath".

If proof has been presented then you should have no issue pointing to the person who I have stolen from, nor advising the amount I have stolen.

If you are unable to present this evidence then kindly provide an address where you can accept service so I have you served with a libel suit if I choose to do so.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12404224#msg12404224

There you go.  You scammed, you got caught, you returned the money.  And we know there are many more out there that aren't aware you scammed them and they are entitled to a refund.

Do you think if you robbed a bank, got caught and returned the money, they would let you go?

(Proof has been presented yet again to QS.  But I'll take bets that QS will ask for proof yet again...)   :D

Quickseller you are full of shit and the constant worming around and twisting of words is doing you no favors at all, I think you have lost more respect on the forum by doing this than just holding your hands up and admitting it was an error in judgment as you never intended to scam anyone and just did it to speed things up.


When someone doing a trade with you asked to use escrow were you -

a) Open and honest that you were Escrowing your own trade.

or

b) Deceptive, leading the person to believe that a 3rd party was acting as escrow and charged them extra for the privilege.

It's been my unfortunate reality that I've had to experience this very closely over the past 5 or 6 months.  I think you can see this again and again if you look at how his reasoning works and his behavior.  Even now, he seems to think that the only way I could have discovered his alt is through some secret tip from an unknown newbie account---I have no idea how he's convinced himself of this.  I find it very strange how little he seems to be able to put himself into anyone else's shoes.  Why didn't he realize how obvious it would be to bring in a sockpuppet account into a thread and repeat the exact same things as the Quickseler account?  You'll note that he continues to suggest that nothing was wrong with his escrow scam because in the "<1% of the cases" where there was a dispute he just "handled it fairly".  He seems unable to comprehend that it's impossible to claim that you're being fair if you're both the judge and the appelant.  

I think he's also making it apparant just how unstable he is.  He goes from chest-thumping (I have other accounts on DT, I will have you removed if you cross me; I'll sue you for libel), to distractions (but tsp is not cool; Vod is an horse's arse), to these incomprehensible justifications (I did nothing wrong, I will never do anything wrong), and then repeats.  These are the same strategies he used in his "argumentation" against me why I asked him to justify his abusive behavior.  The only difference is that he seems to have finally stopped pulling in the sockpuppets (ostensibly).  Obviously these kinds of behaviors are disturbing, and I certainly think that the community here is better off for having seen them first hand, but I actually think there's a bigger lesson to be learned here.

QS made a meal-and-a-half out of quick neg-reps, snap-decisions, and never looking back.  He did this to my account.  I definitely saw him do this to at least a couple of other people.  In each case, because QS was respected, people either wouldn't our couldn't cross him.  He'd follow up with posts about how he's doing a great job and that's why he's right, and in the echo-chamber of an internet forum, it because a kind of self-fulfiling prophecy.  QS' reputation continued to be built on the backs of the accounts he neg-repped.  I know that after I had seen him extrapolate wildly about my own case into a kind of stupor about what he "knows without taking any word from TF", I started to look twice at those untrusted negative feedbacks in his trust page: people that pointed out that he was abusing them, people who called him out for over-obsessing about blockchain "evidence" which could be explained otherwise, people who said he didn't know anything about the situation but had somehow appointed himself judge and left neg reptuation on one or the other party.  Quickseller's inability to put himself into other people's shoes makes him a particularly poor judge, but the real question to me is why so many people blithely followed his self-aggrandizing manouvers.  Why was it the case that you had to actually get falsely neg-repped by Quickseller in order to take a close look at his way of being?

1) I think the lesson to be learned here is twofold: when a reasonable explanation exists for some behavior, people should be given the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think this guilty-until-proven-innocent M.O of QS and alts is helpful.  I think it creates a stifling culture of fear.

2) I think people need to take a close look at mob-mentalities and to check into facts for themselves.  So many people around here traffic in reputations, but reputations are merely histories.  Each new case has facts, and facts can be examined and each person needs to do this for themself, not to rely on the pronouncments from the mighty Quickseller or the Almighty dooglus, or the Great Vod, or the God Theymos or any other such figure.

I also have argued in the past for more decentralization of the trust network, I think it would do a great deal to alleviate the kinds of reputation trafficking abuses that we see Quickseller epitomizing.  I think talking about that too much here would afield of the main topic.  But I hope that people will think a bit about what the Quickseller lesson teaches us about what kind of culture we should seek to establish on this forum.  And what kind of culture leads to toxic schemes and nastiness.

Just my 2 (or 3) satoshis.

--TSP

Why don't you explain how exactly that is me scamming? Both of the people who I refunded explicitly said that they did not feel that I was scamming.

I demand that you retract your statements or else you will be liable for libel.

You are a troll and a coward. You are afraid to stand behind what you say (or else you would have provided an address that I can serve you). You are afraid to make similar statements about tomatocage because you are afraid of him. This is despite the fact that he has engaged in the exact same activity.

You pick on those who you think are not able to counter any of your generalized arguments. You ignore any factual arguments yet instead rely on buzzwords to try to make a point. You consistently take the easy way out. Why do you think it is that you have huge amounts of negative trust when viewed from depth 3 or 4? It is because you were able to troll others hard enough for them to appear to be a scammer, but have no way of fighting back and left you retaliatory negative trust and eventually abandoned their accounts.

You are against people making informed decisions for themselves, you are against free markets, you are a disgrace to bitcoin, and most importantly, you are a disgrace to this community.   

I give that threat the same credibility I give the rest of your posts - you are a dishonest thief and your words mean nothing.

Since you have so generously offered to refund the escrow fees of the people you scammed, I have created a ledger to keep track:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179179.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

to censor/intimidate/silence critics of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing

by

OWNGRAVEDIGGER Quickseller

 :-\

Why would a potential trading partner care whose pocket an escrow fee ends up in? Out of spite? If you were somehow forced to utilize an escrow service, then the price you would be willing to pay for the item would decrease by the amount of the escrow fee, this is regardless of who is "paying" for the fee.

Maybe if the escrow has split personality disorder, and each of his personalities has his own account, this would then be plausible as ok.
I wouldn't say how that's scamming tho, but no doubt it's not ok to do.

How would you go about doing this? I think it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Many people before have left negative feedback for shady behaver without any evidence. yet when its quickseller one of the biggest members on the forum and possible future staff member the majority defend the shady behavior even though they admit its shady and very scammy. especially since hes collecting fees for it too

Well he made this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.20 and he is going to try to sue him in court. Although if he does, the identity he has been hiding for so long will be known.

No one believes for one second that he would actually try to sue him.

Yeah, imagine him explaining in court: "Well, it was true I was escrowing my own deals but that doesn't make me a scammer."

I would imagine that all internet musings and trollings
fall apart instantly when you're in a real, actual courtroom environment.

This is because he has not yet scammed anyone. Many DT members have left him a negative rating due to this accusation but still don't believe he is a scammer as he has never attempted a scam. However, I don't trust him anymore and most others here don't trust him as well as his actions seem to be that of a scammer.

Quickseller is not scammer. Vod is just really jealous guy. And he love to stick his nose in not his buisness.

You can debate labels, but he did use a secret alt to escrow for himself to get fees.

Seems that at least on a micro level , that was a scam.

No?

It was not legit so it can be considered as a scam (in my opinion). The other part didn't know that Quickseller was using an alt during the escrow.

Anyone wanting legitimate information on Quickseller's true identity can simply PM me. I see some people have been offering extraordinary sums of bitcoin for information on QS. Talk to me and show me you're serious and maybe I will give you her info for a price.  ;D

Jumping back here a little to poke holes in this argument. The above is like saying a ponzi scheme is only a scam once it stops paying out. That's nonsense. Leading trade partners to believe their investment is insured by a third party (the definition of escrow, after all) while posing as that third party is a scam. Charging fees for escrow when not providing the security of escrow is definitely a scam. If no-one got badly burnt yet by having the escrow provider unjustly settle a dispute in favour of himself, that's just because it didn't happen yet. Just like with a ponzi scheme.

A scam is a scam all along, it doesn't just turn into one when people find out about it.

LOL... Ummm.. No?

Those of us looking for her info probably have a lot of it already, so I'm certainly not going to pay random guy on this forum, with such shitty trust for the info, which you cannot even prove you have without divulging it...  ::)

Post it up or shut up, eh?  ;D

Edit - Who exactly is offering extraordinary amounts of coin again? I missed that post.  ::)

... says the individual escrowing for themselves.

Quickseller is a girl?

Do you look in the mirror when you throw out accusations like this?

A. As a new accouunt I can see who Vod is,but fail to see who you are outside this forum and yet he is the one that is scared to stand behind what he says! This is very rich.

B. Can you claim victim well goading another member into a fight?

C. At first I thought you outed members for scams for the good of the community,but I noticed a trend. That being it usually was some one that you disliked for one reason or another or saw them as competition. Its a pretty good ploy but you took it to far and now have to many enemies to fight at the same time. The more you post the more I see
how important it is to you to be right at all costs,which makes me wonder about all the neg reps you ever made.

I doubt you respond to this post either,still wondering why you post for PistolPete as well.

Wow, just read that whole thread, ;D had to unignore QS to do it.

 QS i salute you.
 That was the biggest heap of tendentious hyperbole i've encountered on this site so far,my dear.
 You sure have got your panties in a twist with your obfuscation and avoidance tactics.
 Is that your picture in your profile? I always imagine an indignant teenage feminists voice raging against "whatever" when i read your posts.
 
 Your avoidance of answering a straight question has made me want to label you a scammer but ,fortunately for you, i'm not petty enough to do that   without any proof,unlike some "holier" than thou types that infest this site. I however do not trust you and if asked my opinion about you by anyone i will tell them to avoid you like the plague.

 I would like to know, QS, if you see a conflict of interest by escrowing for yourself using a secret alt? A straight yes or no answer will do.

 

 


 

pretty sure quickseller isn't a girl. that's just a meme

See these videos for some background:

    http://youtu.be/Yh0AhrY9GjA

    http://youtu.be/KAVmF-dYv4U

I get the same feeling though. The profile picture was well chosen.

Of course its not, that's "overly attached girlfriend" meme, AKA Laina Morris IRL. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/overly-attached-girlfriend

Nooo. Please take down that dox :(

why did you dox quickseller??

Quickseller is indeed a girl and she lives in Canada. I have a full name & address for her, however I'm not quite sure if the address is current, but I know it was 14 months ago.

but isn't Laina Morris from Texas ???

If she lives in Canada, then I am going to hold her financially responsible for calling me a liar/libeler.  If she is a minor her parents will be responsible.

She is indeed from Canada and she is not a minor.

Laina Morris isn't Quickseller  ::), wake up !

How is this even a question?  It's the same as asking, 'Is scamming someone ok?'

I had a nice laugh from this, thanks never actually saw the meme video.

PO BOX 33153, Charlotte, NC 28233

That is QS PO box. It is registered under a US citizen with a US address. Stop trying to protect him QS doesn't live in Canada. Use SE to figure out more info! Pretending to be a lawyer helps! My dox will be up tonight or tomorrow. Just waiting on some info on who lives at the address on QS ID

Good to see you taking a stand against deceptive people.

"To refrain from imitation is the best revenge"  -- Marcus Aurelius

I never said anything about that. I hate Quickseller is what I have said.

I'm all for being the bad guy, you just better not pretend to be the good guy.


Also wondering why you edited Quicksellers address out of your quote. That was worth the extra effort? Same as coming over into my thread? AND SENDING ME PRIVATE MESSAGES?

I don't know how it could have been more clear.

Don't bother debating.  I tried that. 

If a person wants to avoid logic, facts, rationality, and honesty,
there's no way to force them into it.

Using the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of words Quickseller has used, there is no such thing as:
"escrowing for yourself"
"self-escrow"
"middlemanning for yourself"
"self-middlemanning"

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/escrow
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/custody
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/trustee
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/middleman

Proper changes to the OP title could be:
"self-dealing" http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/self-dealing.asp
"masquerading as a third-party to fraudulently benefit from escrow fees"

  I wish i hadn't watched them dooglus.  ;D  I'm feeling too old for this site tonight.  ;D
  I'm now going back into my bubble of meme-ignorance , please don't burst it again.  ;D

 

Everyone knows he has alternate accounts selling them.

is this true quickseller?

Good luck trying to get straight answers out of someone as cunning and deceptive as QuickSeller. They only choose to answer when they can twist their words.

Those videos are creepy man. :o

Pretty much everything about him is creepy....

To be honest, I can't stare at her eyes over 5 second  :-[ even she's just on video  :'(

and i think i am nuts... i like her ;)

I like her too on her other account.

QS said he doesn't sell accounts anymore some time ago, and more than once

Up to you believe him or not

I don't agree that Escrowing for ourselver using other secret account is NOT ok...The purpose of escrow is not this...If we use our own other account as escrow then we already cheated with the other person..The escrow should be someone old respected trustworthy member of the forum :)

He still sells accounts as last month only I guess he had mentioned it on the forum that he sold a DT account. May be after this incident he'll stop or may continue via his alt/s account/s.

Since we are in a mostly unregulated grey zone, there are obviously none or very little options to bring a case forward to the courts by any legal means. So the entire "escrow business" is a business of common trust. By definition - and this has been mentioned earlier a couple of times, escrow is a third party and a third party only. In this sense I would consider self escrow as highly immoral and unethical, even if it can't be deemed as illegal or criminal, due to the unregulated state of Bitcoin.

Wait.. why isn't anyone suspecting whether theymos is my alt or not?



Edit: No self-escrow. legit. Not against any rules.

if it's about QS than a BIG NO.  :P

Why is selling account bad? What if you get one as a loan collateral?

I don't lend any money nor do I care about receiving any accounts as collateral. It's an unethical thing to do IMO and people scam using bought accounts. Hence I consider it bad but the forum allows it.

I wouldn't call it unethical. Otherwise every pawnshop owner in the country, who is lets say, taking in a $20,000 Rolex watch for $5,000 and sell it if you default to pay back for $12,000 would act unethical as well. A collateral for a loan is a collateral that can and should be used in case a loan is on default.

I think the unethical part is if you sell an account with 'trust' intact. The new owner receives an account with positive ratings and may as a result be trusted by people thinking he actually earned those ratings rather than simply having bought them.

Instead of pawning Rolexes, think of pawning diplomas. The new owner looks as if he has worked for something whereas in fact he only bought a piece of paper.

True DAT.And if the account has a dark green trust than its price doubles up!
I hope theymos will take care about all this in his new forum.

Not even a winky-face?

Poll Auto Closed

Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.

That is overwhelming community agreement.  

Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.

Not people, accounts, which might be controlled by the same person, but still argued by indefensible bullshitters to be third-parties. ::)

This poll was really useless. It was obvious that was going to be the result. A simple Yes or No didn't really help. Now we need to know how bad the community thinks it is. We still don't know if most people thinks it deserves a negative feedback or when exactly it does: whenever fees are charged, even if no fees are charged, only when problems arise, only when malicious collusion happens, etc. The poll doesn't mean any similar action deserves a negative feedback (it neither says it doesn't of course).

Personally I really dislike this practice as I've already said but I consider a deeper analysis could be required on every case before leaving a negative.

There were 30 "no" votes in the first 30 minutes of the poll, the identities of those who voted and how are not being disclosed making it difficult to look into how many potential sockpuppet accounts had voted on each side (even with this disclosure, it would be difficult to tell one way or another), and the few people who were in support of the idea were pretty much laughed out of the various threads

makes sense.

the idea that's it ok to pretend to be a neutral ambassador to a trade when you're actually one of the trade participants is pretty much laughable.

Still, 95% of accounts said what you did was wrong.  When we consider your alts, there were probably only 3-4 actual people that said what you did was ok.

3-4 out of this entire community...

Right, so instead of listening to the logic of those who have a different viewpoint that you do, you make a mockery out of them. 

4 people out of 200 (2%) think pedophilia is OK.   The same number that thinking escrowing for yourself is OK.

Are we supposed to listen to their logic as well?  Understand their viewpoint?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28526106

Nope. 93.5% of the accounts agreed with the question that there was a clear bias towards your viewpoint.

You claim that only 3-4 people in the entire community oppose your viewpoint is speculation because 1) the identities of those who voted and how are not public, and as a result, there is zero basis for such speculation and 2) only around 200 accounts voted, this is out of over 1,600 that are online now, and many times that are a part of the community.

If you seriously want an accurate representation of the stance of the community on this issue, then you would need to draft a neutrally leaning question that is without preexisting bias as your question is, and then randomly select a number of members of the community to get their viewpoint and then not publish any of the results until all of the votes are tallied.

I am not sure why you posted that link if you are going to make the claim of that statistic being accurate. Your article said that the pope estimated that approximately 2% of catholic clergy are pedos, and that (the upper bound estimate of) the general population are pedos. I don't think all pedos think that what they do is "right" or "okay" and I do not think that everyone that is not a pedo thinks the pedophilia is not okay, so the article and your claimed statistic have pretty much zero basis.

If someone were to engage in a discussion on the subject of pedophilia being "okay" then yes someone's opinion that it is okay should be listened to and their viewpoint should be attempted to be understood. Otherwise then you are just bashing whoever does not agree with you. With that being said, is my personal viewpoint that pedophilia is wrong going to change after engaging in a discussion on the matter? I can say that the chances of this changing are as close to zero as they get. 

If you do not listen to their logic and attempt to understand their viewpoint, then they will not take your opinions into consideration, and no matter how strong your argument is against pedophilia, their stance will most likely not change. If however you do respect their opinion, and make a strong enough argument to convince them to change their mind, then maybe they will hold an opposite viewpoint then what they did at the beginning of the discussion. And maybe, just maybe, this will prevent at least one additional person from falling victim of a pedo.

No thanks.

I listened to your logic.

I found it to be unconvincing rationalizations.

The crowd may not always be right, but it's not always wrong, and I think you
might have an easier and more fun time being on the side of reality.
Then bad things don't happen like getting removed from DT.
Or do you think this is some big injustice?

So you would rather bash someone who thinks pedophilia is okay, then potentially prevent additional child (or possibly more then one) from being victim of rape?

Like I said - no thanks - I don't find pre-pubescent children to be sexually attractive.

And you will never convince me otherwise, you pervert.   >:(

I apologize for locking this topic so quickly last night and disappearing.  It was a last ditch effort to stop me from losing my cool.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/remains-of-missing-alberta-girl-found-suspect-in-custody-1.2563540

I've been following this since the Amber Alert was first issued - happened close to where I lived.  I'm very upset about it.  I took part in a rally from 8am-9am yesterday morning.

This 2 year old girl was kidnapped, assaulted and killed.

If I caught someone in the act of raping a child, I would probably come close to killing them.  Quickseller would invite them for a coffee to discuss their point of view.

This thread has run it's course.  The community has overwhelmingly voted that Quickscammer is a fraud and not to be trusted.