IIRC, wohiper_-_'s version of the story is that he and seller negotiated some terms, sent them an escrow request to QS, who agreed, but then sent different terms back, once W saw QS's terms were different from the ones he agreed to with seller, he decided not to go, and cancelled. Sending back your own terms is implicit DISagreement with, and refusal to escrow under, the original set of idiotic terms you were sent. Jeopardy only attaches once both counterparties agree to the escrow agent's ToS. If I got sent idiotic terms from both counterparties treating me like an idiot, I wouldn't respond with my own terms (assuming the counterparties could have known from my public ToS that sending their own was verboten), I would respond with something like, " Screw the money, I HAVE RULES! Find another escrow!" @TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior).
He can, but he hasn't. I await my punishment. LOL |
|
|
|
Let's say all existing smartphones magically had these chips added to them. Would it be the highest th/s mining pool?  10GH/s * 100Million (smartphones) = 1Million TH/s Current network hashing speed = 352,247.23 TH/s Ok, then what is the current cost to the providers to serve those 100M smartphones (before subscriber fees)? Would making them a 1M TH/s pool enable all their service to be provided for free, with the providers having the mining proceeds take the place of subscriber fees? |
|
|
|
|
Nope, qualified immunity (effectively indistinguishable from "absolute power" which corrupts absolutely) influences them to harm others. Crooks, on the other hand, feel invincible when the government disarms all their mentally-sound, sober, law-abiding victims for them.
|
|
|
|
Let's say all existing smartphones magically had these chips added to them. Would it be the highest th/s mining pool? |
|
|
|
|
Alcohol can influence oneself to harm others.
Guns cannot.
|
|
|
|
He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.
A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted. People are allowed to back out of deals. You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow. The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him. To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after... ...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves. By hiring Quickseller as your escrow, you agree that you are bound by these terms." If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted for depriving you of your escrow fee (time=money). If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is. If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all. I thought the escow agent gets the fee regardless. Not in a voluntary society. Escrow agents should not be forced to accept idiotic buyer/seller terms, but escrow agents should also make it clear as crystal to buyers/sellers looking through escrow ads, that "my escrow terms are law, and if you buyers/sellers don't like that, don't hire me as an escrow." It's a quasi-conflict of interest to use your own escrow service as neg trust bait because you deliberately left your terms wide open for buyers/sellers to attempt to set their own idiotic terms, then foist them upon you. And what Vod said above this post. |
|
|
|
He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.
A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted. People are allowed to back out of deals. You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow. The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him. To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after... ...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves. By hiring Quickseller as your escrow, you agree that you are bound by these terms." If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted for depriving you of your escrow fee (time=money). If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is. If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all. |
|
|
|
$30 =  Please add to your OP so I can delete, and do not excessively bump to thank me for this. |
|
|
|
Do you have latest animes?Like naruto,death note,bleach?
Nope, everything I have is listed.
How many times do I have to say that? |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin helped some Australians be able to exercise their infringed human right to self-defense? WAH! Imprison them all!
|
|
|
|
So what does everyone think of bitcoin being mentioned on CSI Cyber?
A quote from the show: "It's the preferred currency of the deep web. It's used to fund drug deals, hitmen, and human trafficking."Looks like they did their research. lol  LOL, if it was in any significant amount, BTC would be hitting a new ATH daily instead of being a shadow of its former self. Also, IIRC academic research was done and found that illegal uses of bitcoin were in the single digit percentage range overall. ETA: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10728809/One-in-twenty-have-bought-illegal-drugs-with-Bitcoin.html wasn't it, but it says: 22% online games 19% clothes 17% electrical items 5% illegal drugs |
|
|
|
Don't make threads or posts solely for putting up referral links, that's what signatures are for. Your current job is to use a referral link. That's one step removed* from putting a referral link right here in your Bitcointalk thread. WTF. *which IIRC will also get you shitcanned |
|
|
|
Vod hasn't similarly had to convert his negs on libelers to neutrals to stay in DT.
I, TECSHARE got libeled. I left negative trust on a libeler, using basically the same reasoning as Vod. I was removed from DT (T2?) for that despite Vod not being removed for the same thing.
I petition for myself, and all who leave negative trust on libelers, to receive equal consideration and treatment as Vod.
TBZ - I understand you no have no way of knowing this, so I won't blame you for it. On at least one occasion, I have personally contact by Theymos and told a couple negative ratings left unfair is his opinion. I changed them to neutral. Had I not, I may very well have been removed from DT.  Badbear removed me from his trust list because he didn't agree with my ratings. I've been given at least one warning from TomatoCage about my ratings. It's obvious (at least to me) that I am not protected by anyone, nor do I receive special treatment here. BTW TBZ - you are on default trust, trusted under Badbear. Ok. So you changed some to neutral, but not 100% of your neg trusts of libelers. And you didn't mention if dooglus had warned you or not. So, BadBear removed you. Theymos might have removed you. You're yellow-carded (sorry, football reference) by TomatoCage, so even if Tomato removed you (RED CARD!), you'd still be on DT via dooglus, assuming nothing changed on his/her end. |
|
|
|
$20 =  Please add to your OP so I can delete, and do not excessively bump to thank me for this. |
|
|
|
Every Facebook Like to your entry link will be counted as 1 vote. Can we use fake fb accounts or buy "likes" ? I am sure your answer will be "no, you can't ". Then, how do you know all "likes" came from genuine accounts? Good point. IIRC, one of the Fairlay bets was won by one of those Facebook like bombers. Not sure how you anti-sybil internet polls like this with BTC on the line. |
|
|
|
The trust system is not for trading, it is to determine how trustworthy someone is.
Indeed. He'd proven himself worthy of distrust by aggressive libel, but as he could have reinforced his negative trust by welching on his bounty just because I was the one who claimed it, and he didn't welch, I downgraded it to neutral. |
|
|
|
IMO the only reason they removed him in the first place is because they had just removed me from the default trust list for basically the same situation and they didn't want to look like even bigger hypocrites. This is why they are letting him back on because it was just a show to make it look like that actually enforce the rules for everyone.
TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel. In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.
So as we can see here, Vod's general reasoning on libel and neg trust is functionally indistinguishable from mine. TECSHARE: If your case is truly what I bolded, then copy and paste the following* to make it absolutely clear that you've received unequal treatment: Vod says he got libeled. Vod leaves negative trust on libelers. Vod wasn't removed from default trust (DT) for that. TheButterZone says he got libeled. TheButterZone left 1 negative trust on 1 libeler using, unknowingly at the time, basically the same reasoning as Vod. He was removed from DT T2 for that, and restored only after downgrading it to a neutral. Vod hasn't similarly had to convert his negs on libelers to neutrals to stay in DT. I, TECSHARE got libeled. I left negative trust on a libeler, using basically the same reasoning as Vod. I was removed from DT (T2?) for that despite Vod not being removed for the same thing. I petition for myself, and all who leave negative trust on libelers, to receive equal consideration and treatment as Vod.
ETA: T1s dooglus and tomatocage appear to be Vod's T2 sponsors, so that's who I would petition first. It only appears that Vod is allowed to neg trust libelers ad infinitum without costing his T2, because of them. |
|
|
|
|
Are police going to be targeting government activities that disarm only sober law-abiding mentally-sound victims, which categorically undermine the security of Canada?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
