Are they non-standard, or invalid (until if/when SegWit is activated)?

IIRC, amaclin had claimed to get BC.I to display a SegWit transaction that was "from" an address whose private key he did not control/have possession of.

I am fairly certain that is your phone's settings.

I would suggest that you use a fresh address for each trade that your facilitate. If you are dealing with two people, each sending you the same amount around the same time, then it will be difficult to know who sent the money to your escrow address, especially if they sent from an exchange. You also open yourself up to MITM attacks.

I would recommend that you either use this address or use your GPG key to sign a new address as part of each trade.

I have no idea how trustworthy he is, or if he is actually operating a large mining farm (although this should be fairly easy to verify), however I would say that dealing with him with no escrow will be very risky, especially if you are unable to independently verify some kind of reputation.

OP is likely a fraudster and faking trades.

It is likely not safe to trade with OP.

Sure you can. You make them tell you that they understand the specific risks, and ask them to repeat the risks that you just informed them about. Or you could require that the deal be structured in a way so that one party does not have excessive risks.

That picture was misleading, you cannot dispute that. There were a total of zero posts to clarify that the picture did not tell the whole story of the escrow setup. After it was determined that the dev of the ICO was a scammer, very few people appeared to understand the risks, and many people appeared to believe that the escrow was going to hold all of the funds.

 
You don't need people criticizing you either, which you stopped. There are plenty of threads in the altcoin section that people can use to spam and farm accounts.

You are saying "it is not our fault" and "I do not want to accept such a risk anymore"....these two statements are contradictory.

I have not seen evidence of this. I do know that Sebastian did botch an escrow deal in the past -- he very quickly made his customer whole, I don't think they even needed to ask (IIRC), so I have no reason to believe he would not do this again. The statements that the escrows were making in this case were that the funds that were held were all of the funds that were going to be used to repay investors, even though the escrows failed to secure additional funds.

No. I am pointing out an obvious lie.

As I mentioned, I force the party taking the risk to actively acknowledge the risks they are taking. I would also opine that the escrow agreement was not in a prominent location, it being displayed was clearly controlled solely by one party (resulting in it potentially being tampered with).

I also dispute that the "team" was disclosing the risks of using you as escrow when they responded to questions. One of the pictures describing the escrow process makes no mention that you were not going to be holding the funds immidiately. If anything the fact that funds were at risk was hidden.

Probably most importantly, the escrows were being heavily criticized in the original unmoderated thread, however such criticism was quickly halted once that thread was locked and a new, self-moderated thread was created.


If you think you were not in the wrong in acting as escrow in the way that the deal you botched was setup, then I don't see why would you way you will not engage in such setups again.

It is good that so many of your friends were so trusting that they were going to get paid by the devs with zero reputation. Or maybe it is good that your friends were so willing to work for free on this project

I think we may have a different opinion as to what constitutes being "well informed".

When one party is taking risks as part of a transaction that I cannot, as escrow, protect against, I will force the party taking said risk to acknowledge the risks to me before I agree to participate in the transaction. This will take up a lot of my time, and will frequently result in me not receiving my fee because the deal falls through once all the risks are very clear (and that it is clear that I am not guaranteeing against certain risks).

Some escrow agents will outright refuse to participate in certain high-risk transactions such as account sales and PayPal deals. They also lose out on their fee when they decline to act as escrow for these deals.

In your case, a disclosure was placed in what I would consider to be a non-obvious location (assuming there was actually a disclosure -- I am unable to independently verify this one way or another), participants to the transaction in question did not affirmatively acknowledge that they were not being protected. The potential for losses was not clearly defined by any measure. What I believe to be most importantly, both you and several of your friends were hired (and one can only reasonably assume to be paid for) to provide services by the party who was not taking the excessive risks -- this not only includes acting as escrow, but also those hired to manage the various advertising campaigns.

I am not sure how this can be enforced. If a buyer wishing to commit fraud were to purchase AGCs via stolen credit cards (or other fraudulent means) to be used with this transaction, then #7 would involve the seller being caught on camera picking up cash-like items that were effectively purchased via fraudulent means. The fake name used in #5 might lead Amazon and/or Law Enforcement to believe the seller intended to launder money via stolen credit cards (or other fraudulent means).

Although the transaction would likely be anonymous if the gift card was purchased via legitimate means, if a gift card purchased via fraudulent means is used in the transaction, then Law Enforcement might figure out who the seller is, and the transaction would likely be frowned upon (due to the gift cards being purchased via fraudulent means).


The Amazon merchant could ship a roll of quarters instead of gold coins. This would generally be unlikely, although if the buyer was conspiring with the merchant, then the seller would be at risk. Step 5 might make complaining to Amazon complicated, especially if they ask you to sign an affidavit that what was ordered was not what was received.

I believe that purse mitigates this risk by forcing the seller chose the exact items.

A buyer who wishes to commit fraud could potentially target a seller who is local to him.

A wish list on the part of the seller would probably resolve this issue, although I am not sure if wish lists are compatible with shipping to an Amazon locker. If you assume that Amazon lockers can be used with wish lists, then the seller would create a wish list, then the buyer would purchase items on the wish list; the buyer could prove that the item was delivered with the order history of his amazon account (I think).


I would be happy to buy BTC from a seller looking for privacy this way. Since I do not have an active need to buy BTC anonymously, I would want the seller to cover all of the overhead costs, and I would want to get to buy the BTC at a discount (based on the amount of cash I need to use to purchase the gift cards) to compensate me for my time. I believe that it would be likely that one party to each transaction would likely be in a similar situation. 

Investors were not informed of the risk. I know this because it was non-obvious when looking at the archive of the original ICO thread that this was the case.

This is relevant to this thread because Yahoo is accusing me of being LegalDiscussions to try to harm his reputation, and I was pointing out that I do not need to take any actions myself for his reputation to be negatively affected.

There is no "loophole" in the law, nor in the definition of extortion that says a specific amount needs to be requested.

If you seriously believe that Lauda did was not wrong, then you should have no problem consenting to other people making similar threats that Lauda made to Zeroaxl to you. If you are not willing to consent to others making these kinds of threats to you, then you know what Lauda did was wrong and are simply sticking up for him because he is your friend, because he is in power, or some other reason that has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

These two statements contradict each other.

When others are using your escrow service, your number one priority is to keep your customers' money safe, which includes not allowing one trading party to have possession of the other party's money/property until the terms of the trade are met. In your case, you (and Lauda, and minerjones) failed to ensure that funds were kept secure, and allowed one party to potentially steal money, which ended up happening. Then to make matters worse, it was publicly said (by one of the escrows) that your customers were not going to be made whole as a result of your error (to use your own words).

Well if you look at the archive that I saved of one of your other threads, then you will see that roughly 30 minutes after you created one of your prior threads, you edited the only post in your thread saying that you were able to complete a PPUSD deal, which was obviously not true considering you have zero trading history.

If anything, I would say that you are not new here, however I believe you likely are a criminal fraudster, probably one who has scammed others before.

You could probably ask acho101 to build a script that parses, say the middle 10 words of each post in a thread, and run a google search with those words. I would think it would make it a lot easier to search entire threads for copy/paste posts as the search results would show either multiple posts or news articles that match the post (nearly) exactly.

Ill believe it when everything is repaid. Although this will not change the fact that the deal was not severely botched by all three of the escrows.

The above does not resolve the extortion problem that lauda likes to extort people for money that is not owed to him/does not have any reasonable claim to.

Oh, I am glad that you believe negative trust should be used to silence critics.

I will remember this about you in the future.

---

Buddy, I am not legaldiscussions. I don't need to make multiple threads to discredit you, your inability to take criticism is going to do that yourself. Although being part of a deal that you are an escrow to in which money is lost/stolen will likely get you labeled as a scammer if you don't make the damaged party(IRS) while.

I checked the seclog and that account's password did not change between the time it posted the signed message attempting to get a loan and when it was enrolled in the signature campaign so you really can't claim that you sold the account.

I personally don't have an issue with you escrowing for yourself, however others may feel differently. Lying about things to cover up past behavior is also often frowned upon.

I would point out that I pointed out that the two accounts are alts that were both enrolled in the luckybit signature campaign (which was very strict about disallowing multiple accounts being enrolled in any campaign). Not long after that yahoo claimed something along the lines of that the two accounts are connected because he and his girlfriend shared an address that is used with a chatbot or something with luckybit. The campaign manager was mad about my report because it caused one of their most active gamblers got upset. I don't know if I buy this explanation or not..

Except for unlawfully attempting to extort money that was not owed to lauds from someone.

If you don't think this makes someone not trusted then your judgment is seriously lacking.

Edit: and now appearing to have royally messed up a deal he was acting as escrow for that appears with result in a loss of funds.

I didn't say that it is okay, not that zepher appears to be in the right here...

I just think it is funny to see someone who is clearly very two faced and trying so hard to get a lot of reputation to get upset so easily

Lol, I find it hilarious how easy it is for some people to troll zepher:D

I agree to remove my negative rating against him provided that he repays the OP the full amount he is owed or any other mutuality agreed upon amount that is stipulated is the full amount due.

The above is contingent on there being no other outstanding scam accusations with reasonable proof against him (unless they are repaid in a similar way).