^^^This is clearly off-topic in this thread about whether new feedback should override old feedback and the cute little feedback war that Wardick seems to be perpetrating.

@QS: I think you're looking for this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174567.0

Mods: can we get some help in here?

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.

Right, especially when you're the escrow service that the other person is blithely paying into.  I think I can see how your philosophy works and I'm pretty sure it explains a lot about your character traits we've observed.

In addition to the clear betrayal of the buyer's confidence that secret escrow commits, there's also the fact that using this kind of bogus escrow allows the person to build up trust falsely.  QS has posted a lot about these sort of "reputation schemes" where one person is seeking to build up trust by trading with their alts.  It's hard to see how this is very different from that.  And it explains why QS was so interested in the topic elsewhere.

You seem to have the missed the point---or you have it bass-ackwards.

If you're escrowing your own deal you're offering hidden risk to the other party.  You've done yourself a favor, not a disadvantage.  As Ecua correctly says, the point of a third party is to negotiate any issues from a neutral point of view.  He correctly emphasizes that misunderstandings can arise even if everyone is operating in good faith.  If you escrow your own deal and your trading partner doesn't know you're doing this, then when you sort out a misunderstanding in your own favor, you've pulled the wool over your trading partner's eyes and gotten paid to do it.

@Quickseller/Panther52:  Sockpuppetry is far less effective on the same thread where your alts are outed!

ooh, ooh, pick me.  I know this one.

It's that when you pay an escrow, you're paying for a neutral, third party.  When it turns out that the "escrow" was secretly the same person as the one you wanted a third party to protect you from, you just paid for a service you didn't receive!

Note: I cheated on this answer and looked upthread.

This seems to make sense to me.  If the guy just wants to cash in all this free money then clearly he has to avoid driving the price to 0 early in the game.  Making it obvious just how long he can keep going might be a strategy to keep people buying.

Okay!  Given some other things you've said about me, I'm going to take this as a step in the right direction!

Learning to doubt yourself is huge.  There's no way to realize when you're wrong if you never stop to consider it.

But there are open-source ways (at least on linux) which are quite normal for doing Input Methods which aren't fishy at all.  I tend to use several keyboard layouts because of the languages/scripts I have to use.  @RealBitcoin: once there's a unicode codepoint, you definitely should be able to map one of your keys to it.

Yah, I haven't been able to run a full node on any of my computers for over a year now, mainly because I don't have an extra 50GB of harddrive to dedicate. I would happily dedicate 10GB or so, but I don't see the point if the pruning nodes aren't really helping the network.  Hopefully the future pruning will be such that I can run a node again in order to help with network decentralization/robustness.

Scripts are in the OP, along with overview style instructions.  If you have trouble running them, let me know.


Oh, wait, okay.  Nevermind then.

I'll take your word for it.  It seems relevant that the only things that have happened since you've been back have been at least obliquely linked to him.

Maybe your position is one of truth-bending omniscience.  I was there at the time of these alleged coinchat incidents and I don't have any evidence that the accusations are true.  In fact, since I was there, I have some really strong evidence in the form of my own personal experience that they aren't true.

It seems to me like we have a fork in the road:

1) You're TF, or his close friend, or something like that.
2) You're not TF.

In the case of (1), we at least know where your motivation is and what the nature of your legacy is.  I guess in that case you and I can go back to where we left things 2.5 years ago before your were completely discredited.  Also in that case, it seems like you would get removed from default trust as presumably default trust doesn't want an alt of TF any more than they want TF himself.

In the case of (2), we have to ask you what evidence that you have to accuse me with?  TF's word isn't so credible anymore.  QS's clear personal vendetta against me is, in theory, irrelevant.  What's your case?  If you don't have one beyond the unsupported gripes of TF and the ravings of Quicktemper, that doesn't look so strong to me.

I don't know how credible or relevant this is, but on the Wardrick appearace topic (which is actually related to the topic of this thread):

The other thing wardrick has done since relogging in besides picking up the tradefortress-->quickseller mantle seems to be talking shop about pedophiles or something or another in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169069.msg12364388#msg12364388

Upthread in there someone in there suggests that he's actually Tradefortress.


I have no idea about this sythe forum or what it has to do with Tradefortress, but if Tradefortress is Wardick, it would explain his interest in this matter.  We could make it Tradefortress-->Quickseller-->Tradefortress.  Who knows?

Good job, QS, you've discovered the fun of the world-wide-web!  I hope you enjoy yourself out there!

In case you consider that it might be relevant, I'll point out that the information that TC has been self-escrowing has come to my attention in the last hour.  Feel free to open up a scam-accusation thread against him.  I wish you luck.

EDIT:

Ooooo!  I get it.  You think I was saying double-standard as in "if it's okay for TC it should be okay for QS".  That explains your cute poster.  Let me clarify: I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be okay for QS or for TC.  I hope that helps!

That's a very interesting find, koshgel.  It certainly explains why he said upthread that escrowing for yourself isn't a big deal.  It seems slightly less malevolent than the QS scheme because it appears that each time he was the one to pay escrow fees.  That said, I think you're right to ask about double standards here.

EDIT:
I think the fact that Quickseller finally fully demonstrated the volitility of his modus operandi to the observers in this thread probably also has a lot to do with his fate.  For a long time, QS' unrepentant ire was only fully unleashed on newbie accounts and those with no trading history.  Those who he saw as "above" him in some way were always treated with reverence.  As QS seemed to fully explode and unleash the bile on Vod just upthread, the calling of "asshole" and stating how he's above the rules and risks that others have to abide by, I think a lot of people who weren't really involved in his treatment of newbie accounts got to see the kind of personality we're dealing with here.

It would be nice if you guys could discuss Quickseller's self-escrow scheme over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

And leave this thread for QS and Wardrick (and others?) to work on explaining their motivations in using the trust system to damage my reputation.  QS has made his personal animus quite clear using several accounts now (see the post histories of ACCTSeller, Panthers52, FunFunnyFan and of course QS).  It's unclear what Wardrick's motivation is here.  So far he's just shouted a bit about how he thinks I'm an unscientific guy.  Okay.  But is everyone who thinks I'm "unscientific" supposted to leave me a negative rating in the spirit of TradeFortress?  Or is there something more here than just more bullies vs. tspacepilot on bitcointalk?

Since it looks like it's having a problem opening the database, I would start there.  Can you check that the bitcoin.conf file is pointing to the right datadir?

Also, it's not exactly clear the timeline of events.  Is it that you downloaded the blockchain and all seems to be working fine untill you try to import your keys?  Are you sure the blockchain is done syncing?

Invalid rescan also points to the idea that you don't have a good database.  I think if I were you I'd try to troubleshoot that database.

Maybe if you could write back with a detailed step-by-step of your error you can get better help.

Cheers!

Back when the BTC price was above 1000$, people were saying 10K$ next.  I have to admit though, this is the first prediction I've seen for 18K!

Very interesting!  Thanks for the link.  I also noticed this in the doc:


So it's good to know that in the future pruning nodes can still help to strengthen the network by distributing new blocks, and very interesting that for the moment, I guess running pruning mode is just leeching.