Please show where exactly, I explicitly said that I was banned. If you are referring to the handle, then I would ask if you believe that every other handle is a description of that person. Do you truly believe that BadBear is actually a bear that is bad? No more than we believe anything from you that may be a pathological lie, obfuscation, or equivocation, at this point. P.S. tl;dr... did any staff tie https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 to Quickseller and confirm that Quickseller wasn't actively banned at the time https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=552167 was created? |
|
|
|
Quoting my posts from the now-locked poll topic... 1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts.
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used. [1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is: [MASS NOUN] The state of being kept in custody or trust until a specified condition has been fulfilled: Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer. "or as some like to say "escrow"" You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text: "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q" But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman. A person who arranges business or political deals between other people. You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person. The protective care or guardianship of someone or something: the property was placed in the custody of a trustee Law An individual person or member of a board given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer it solely for the purposes specified: pension fund trustees You are not simultaneously yourself and individual person other than yourself. [2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).
The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you. STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. |
|
|
|
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used. [1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is: [MASS NOUN] The state of being kept in custody or trust until a specified condition has been fulfilled: Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer. "or as some like to say "escrow"" You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text: "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q" But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman. A person who arranges business or political deals between other people. You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person. The protective care or guardianship of someone or something: the property was placed in the custody of a trustee Law An individual person or member of a board given control or powers of administration of property in trust with a legal obligation to administer it solely for the purposes specified: pension fund trustees You are not simultaneously yourself and an individual person other than yourself. [2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).
The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you. STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. |
|
|
|
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? Tacitly, no response. 1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts. |
|
|
|
WTF? I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question: Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3- escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2? YES or NO? |
|
|
|
SCAMMER!! Purchased an tracker invite from him and since the payment (one week ago) he never sent me anything. Never replied to my pm's after the payment as well.
Why did you not put anything in your risked BTC amount part of your rating? |
|
|
|
hello everybody, i recently found a website which is now giving 1 bitcoin for free if you use paypal to pay them.
is here anybody in this forum who has successfully exchanged from them?
i did a little research about this website and found they really provide 24 hours service.
have anyone got this offer from them? please reply asap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB-wRxSNU7o |
|
|
|
|
>72 hours from topic posted, no donut.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't even fit the definition of escrow.
If you don't trust someone enough to trade without an escrow, don't trust them with an escrow either, and don't send first.
|
|
|
|
|
Due to relativity and people aging at different rates, I'd say we need Stargates.
|
|
|
|
There have been a number of situations in which negative trust was left because of some personal issue (someone posting in a thread about prices of competitors being lower, someone posting in threads joking that someone works for silk road, ect.) and when this happens they are quickly removed from DT.
IIRC, some of that number of negative ratings were while the negative rating criteria wasn't equal to or similar to "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and the criteria was left open to pure distrust and quasi-tortious interference, et cetera ad infinitum, neg ratings. And the DT removal came ex post facto the change to that criteria. |
|
|
|
Fighting ovwr 1 dollar, lol. He probabl just downloaded for free from the link i posted.
Then he should update instead of abandoning this topic. ETA: I sold the code I generated to someone else due to OP abandonment. /sets notifications off |
|
|
|
I can get it for you.
Wait your turn. Aleator, did you get my PMs? I have your code right here. /sets notification on for this topic due to apparent abandonment |
|
|
|
|
TBZ1
I think PrimeDice was the first BTC gambling/game of chance site I heard of, and I joined because of one of these giveaways, since I only ever gamble with OPM (other people's money).
|
|
|
|
If it isn't theirs, I wonder if they were planning to dropship the eBay one if they win the auction with a snipe bid under the highest bid over here. LOL |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
