I removed my signature on the 31st December, though I don't particularly mind what date is put into the formula. I'd be just happy to get paid at this point.

You're an idiot if you think that doing that would change anything.

monbux is the first person that comes to my mind.

From what it seems, dooglus has a negative trust due to a feedback left by BayAreaCoins due to a personal dispute (something that BayAreaCoins seems to do, and should stop doing). If you read the feedback posted, it does not actually list anything negative towards him. Myself, I think that the feedback should be removed, though I am not involved in the matter so I no doubt know all of the information.

So, following this master-P drama it is obvious that the current implementation of Escrow in this community does not work. With previous trusted escrows (master-P, defcon23, Tomatocage, Quickseller) either scamming or performing shady acts, I don't believe that a one-man escrow act is viable on this forum anymore.

What do we do about this? As has been mentioned in the Scam Accusation thread for master-P, I personally see the only way to move forward and reduce scamming is by using Multi-sig addresses with escrow. This way, the parties involved in the transaction don't have to worry about one of them running with the goods/coin without the risk of the escrow pulling an exit-scam and clearing out with the held funds. However, this brings up other questions about the implementation of multi-sig escrow. I've been reading some ideas of the community which I will list, in addition to an idea of my own.

1. 2 of 3 addresses with the buyer, escrow and seller.
An advantage of this implementation does not require all parties to confirm the sending of funds, meaning that one person pulling out and not confirming does not halt the transaction.
However, this implementation basically makes the escrow it's self useless. All that the escrow would do in this would be create an address and only step in if one party refuses to confirm the address, as the other two parties (buyer and seller) can simply confirm the transaction themselves. In this case, one of the parties involved in the transaction could simply create a 2 of 2 multi-sig address which each of them could confirm during the transaction. Obviously, it would still be useful to have a middle-man in the case of the escrow going rogue, however when between two 'trusted' members (that term really doesn't mean much now, huh?) using an escrow could simply prolong the transaction for longer than necessary.

2. 3 of 3 address with the same parties.
I'm not going to list an advantage of this, because personally I do not see one. I am only listing it due to seeing it discussed previously. The disadvantage with this implementation is that one party pulling out would stop the transaction going through, rendering the escrow completely useless.

With the previous two implementations mentioned there are also several problems. The first is that both the buyer and seller would have to be knowledgeable in how the multi-sig process works as they will need to confirm the address themselves, in addition to the escrow. This will put off less technically inclined users from using this service, perhaps jeopardizing larger transactions. In addition to this, these methods do not stop practices such as escrowing for alt accounts, and the funds can easily be released if the buyer or seller were in cahoots with the escrow. This puts these methods at a risk for use.

3. x of y address with several escrows, the buyer and seller.
Personally, I see this as the best implementation (though this may be a bias due to this being the idea aforementioned). What is meant by this, is that several trusted users in the community combine their services into one central escrow service. For every transaction using this implementation, several members would need to confirm the address in order to get the funds released. This would still allow trusted escrows to continue their jobs without rendering them somewhat useless (as the first implementation did) whilst minimizing the possibility of the escrow disappearing with the money or a single party disrupting the transaction. In addition, in some cases it would make forum escrow's jobs significantly easier as they will not need to be around due to others being there to back them up; possibly speeding up the process of the escrow slightly.
Where I can imagine this implementation going wrong is by several of the escrow's partnering with others in order to prolong or disrupt the transaction. Also the escrow's judgement could be clouded by personal view, though that is a problem with every possible implementation. I don't see these as very large problems, as with a large amount of members working together (hence x and y in the title, as the number of escrows/confirmations are variable) these problems could likely be diminished without much hassle. This implementation does not require any technical knowledge from those involved in the transaction (buyer and seller) as the trade could be completed solely by escrows, making it the best available to the less tech-savvy users.

I would appreciate the communities feedback on these, as well as other possible implementations. This is an important matter which could hinder transactions on this forum significantly if wrongly done.

Also, this thread is for discussing the practice of escrow only. Unless making a point, please refrain from discussing incidents with previous members, doing so in their respective threads or through other means.

Thank you. I don't get how people don't understand this.

That proves absolutely nothing. Everything was transferred in the sale, meaning that the escrow could have been completed seamlessly.

I don't understand why doog left him some negative trust, yet didn't ~ him on his trust list.

No one knew about the account sale, therefore no one could remove him.

Once again, this is not relevant here. Make a thread in Meta or stop talking about it.

Apparently this is the TX id of part of the transaction, though it does seem a bit strange that it only has half of the supposed amount, and later than the supposed selling date. If anyone did a trade with him on Namecheap previous to August then we could perhaps compare the accounts for that, though that may have been included in the trade.

I'm biding my time before I try to get any of it. As I said previously, I'm waiting until Wednesday to try and get any of the info in order to give him time to pay the money himself.

I don't understand why he would want that though, if there is a quoted, signed and verified message pointing towards the account being sold on the previous pages.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306301.msg13378838#msg13378838
A signed message from an old, quoted address saying that he sold the account. There's the proof.

The more information we have the better, so I can't see using my method being a particularly bad thing.

Does it matter? A scam is a scam.

Legal action perhaps?
Even if we don't have a dox, I'm sure that combined with proof the information we have on master-P would be enough to get some identifiable information on him. For example, I recently sold master-P the domain bitads.co. While this domain has whois protection, I made sure to not transfer any of my information over with the domain (meaning that it is now his, with his information on the whois). If we can gather proof, we can perhaps contact the whois protection agency used to remove the protection and give us the information from the whois. This could give us things such as his name, address and telephone number.

If this entire thing that you are saying is true and the new owner of the account turns out to scam, you should feel extremely bad about it. Due to your selfishness you may have cost several forum members almost $7k at current prices, just so you could get off with $800. Your financial status in these times is irrelevant. There are many other places that you could have acquired this money than enabling the scamming of several other members.

That being said, I do not believe we should jump the gun. Personally, I would give him until Wednesday to repay the Bitcoin. If this doesn't happen, I would suggest we come together with any information we have and proceed with action against him, whether it be the previous or new owner of the account.

No it wasn't. It was about 50 pages of people with sig ads saying "yeah there's spam but don't ban my sig campaign please", which is exactly what will happen if the OP doesn't follow CIYAM's advice.

I've discussed this with hilariousandco previously, the verdict is that it would be too difficult to maintain and enforce this sort of thing. That, and the sig spammers would simply more to another subforum. To quote him directly:

As previously said the mods cannot decide anything without theymos' permission, though I am in good faith that they do remove any extremely low quality posts from general forums (Not including Off Topic, since that place is a self-proclaimed cesspool). The problem comes in that post quality is subjective. Someone like CIYAM, who has good knowledge of Bitcoin and the way that it works, may find a post describing very basic matters low quality as they may see it as useless. In comparison, someone with a very basic knowledge of Bitcoin may find said post very useful.
Personally, I don't see this being fixed completely. Yes banning signature campaigns would help greatly (probably removing over 90% of the shit posts people make), though you are either kidding yourself or under great ignorance if you believe it would fix everything. I believe that in order to stop this problem signature campaign managers (and staff) should be harder on the shitty posts people here make and/or new rules should be implemented to clearly define the sort of posts allowed and disallowed to try and make the term 'low-quality post' less broad.

Though I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a signature campaign, right guys?

I believe that TF still owns glados.cc. There is contact information on that site.

So, you're saying that people would rather wait several hours to have someone post an answer which has already been posted rather than waiting 50 seconds to get the same answer? Nice excuse, at least you tried.

If a kid is knowledgeable enough about the internet to understand and use Bitcoin, they have almost certainly seen porn whilst aquiring that knowledge

If parents don't want their kids looking at NSFW things on the internet, they should do their job and monitor what their kid looks at. The internet isn't anyones parent; it won't do their job.

All I can say is, good luck creating a forum on an anonymous currency where you need more information than Paypal in order to create an account. Lauda pretty much says everything else I could want to.

The forum doesn't know that what you input is real, and there would be no authority for making people put in the correct name. What would happen if I put in the name John Doe? It's of course not my real name, though how would the forum know? Also, take a look at services such as fakena.me. What would stop people using services such as those to generate a fake name, details and SSN? Also, a lot of people don't own a credit card. Until very recently I didn't even own a bank account, and I have no intentions to get a credit card any time soon. Would that make me invalid and unavailable for registering to this site?

To continue with this bit, as I'm sure a lot of people here know, the forum's security isn't perfect. There have been several hacks which have resulted in accounts being compromised and information being stolen. Could you imagine if this happened with people's actual, private information?

I have nothing to hide whatsoever. That doesn't mean that I want to give out my personal information to everyone. I value my privacy, which is part of the reason I use VPNs and Bitcoin so much.

As I'm sure has already been said, ban evasion isn't ever going to stop. No matter what we put in the way to try and stop it, people will find a way around. That's human nature. The best we can do is just flag alts when we see them and continue on with the regular.

FaucetBox is mainly just micro-payments platform; they provide a basic script for owners to set up and easily use their service. Anyone that wants a fancier script should have it built by someone else, as FaucetBox is only used for payment.