QS has been under fire for escrowing for a secret alt, but no one has really been pointing TC out for doing the same thing for his alt. In fact, TC even added positive trust to his alt while QS didn't.

I have had a strong impression that both escrowing for yourself and adding positive feedback for your alts are both extremely frowned upon; the latter especially because TC is on DT.

So what's up? Why isn't TC being pointed out? I didn't read through every single page of the 31-paged thread, so forgive me if the answer is somewhere there.

It should be on the bottom left. There should be something of this sort:

move topic | lock topic

Press move topic, and move it to Digital Goods.

Can you specifically name what kind of jewelry you have? Depending on the value of it, we can give you a loan.

There is absolutely no need to bring that issue with QS onto this thread. Go back to the Scam Accusations thread to discuss it.

And QS: it's just that something tells me that josephdd's loans are reputation loans, solely for the intention of making people trust him and ask for bigger loans. I really see no real need for him to be asking loans this regularly. Regardless of how much loan reputation you have, the collateral should ALWAYS be greater value than the loan.

You should move this thread to "Digital Goods". The Goods section is for physical items for sale, not digital/virtual items.

I've been on the fence on this issue for quite a while now, but I have to say that I'm towards QS now. If the buyer decides that he trusts the seller's alt as the escrow, then I (personally) don't see any problem with that trade. I may be wrong. But that's how I see it.

TF's words also made me start to lean towards QS.

I'll raise my bid to 0.016BTC for views.pw.

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.

Report the posts, and that's that. Nothing more you can do with that. If you're reporting them but nothing is happening to them, it means that the moderators don't think that the replies need to be deleted.

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.

I think I should mention that allcoin.com isn't working for me as of right now; maybe the owners just ran off with the funds.

Exactly. Why would TC need to worry about a negative feedback to that ol' account when he has this beauty of an account?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

I always knew it, but the jig's officially up now.

I know that many traffic exchanges allow you to edit the referrer (in this case, the search engine). If that is how the OP is driving visitors then none of them will give a peep about what you have to say on your website.

He did scam an absolute ton of bitcoin. Enough to retire (according to his trust ratings) at his young age; if he's smart, then he'd stay clean and live life well.

I do feel sorry for his future family.

I would appreciate it if you could address the question of your account being hacked. Please sign a message from the bitcoin address I specified.

10BTC, huh? Personally, I would now think that you are an alt of Swisswatcher. The trust feedback is pretty fishy IMO.

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".

0.012

I'm pretty sure that that explanation meant that TC did escrow for himself. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

That address only has ~~0.008BTC which means that you can only bid for cost.pw. Do you have another address that contains more than 0.01BTC for views.pw?

@minifrij, increase my bid to 0.012BTC for views.pw if Jones verifies an address with over 0.01BTC in it and decides to bid for view.pw.