Quickseller, trust abuse, innacurate negative ratings, unprofesional escrow...

[SebastianJu]

Taking control of the account first is a risk that should be avoided, any good escrow will know this.

Um... why is that? At the end it would be the most secure way to do it.

An escrow could simply let buyer and seller make their rules and point out risks. If the seller is fine with showing the account to the buyer then its up to them. The escrow only gives additional security if wished.

If the buyer wants to be more sure then the seller could give the link to the profile and put some text in it so the escrow knows he controls it. That would prevent giving some fake profile link.

Though the most secure way would to give the login details and change it to temporary ones. Of course the escrow then needs to check if there are ways to gain access again. For example through email. This has to be changed too of course.

If the seller fears he can find out if the pass is changed then the escrow only changes the password after the coins came in. Though those things have to be cleared beforehand. Trade starts only after buyer, seller and escrow agree on terms. Which means terms have to be on the table first.

At the end the escrow holds both items and he KNOWS that the trade will be secure.

May I ask why you didn't want to fund the escrow first? It was impossible for the seller to get your coins if the account wasn't real, you would have safely received the BTC back.

Because I don't know quickseller's policies and how he handles such situations. I wouldn't want my money stuck with him for too long. It's happened before with other trusted escrowers. And to be honest, as we speak a large chunk of my bitcoins is sitting with an escrower of this forum because a seller hasn't been online for some days.

Um... is that your reason you stopped? Because you suddenly feared that your coins might be stuck too long? If true then this sounds very weak for an explaination.

And as long as you dont speak with escrow and seller that you need everything be done fast, you will have waiting times with practically every escrow. Thats part of the deal for getting security or you speak about that point beforehand. But not when everything is already running. That doesnt sound like a valid reason to be honest.

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them.

Um... im happy you are no judge as profession. I mean the defendant doesnt want to speak... he must be guilty. I really dont think it makes sense to leave the trust system for people that decide someone might scam. Who are they to judge before anything happened? If i would have done so i would have marked many persons red and i dont know of anyone who actually scammed later.

Trust system protects against scammers who clearly offer things everyone can see are scam attempts. But going out of a deal is not enough to justify knowing he is a scammer. Quickseller not even claimed that. But the red color says he is now. I think only a handful would check where the red actually came from.

Even if someone has negative trust, it doesn't mean that people will pay attention to it. I made the mistake of giving every ponzi negative trust during the last ponzi craze and as a result the ponzi operators were able to distract questions about why they should be trusted with others' money (in large amounts) which resulted in the ponzi operators being able to scam for more.

I disagree. Seeing a red trust lets me leave fast since im very sure that established members checked things and found he is not trustworthy. Thats something i cant see for worhipper.

And you negrepped ponzi persons and they found more persons to be scammed because of that? I cant believe that and everyone who invested then deserves being scammed.

[1713487024]

1713487024

[1713487024]

1713487024

[1713487024]

1713487024

[1713487024]

1713487024

[1713487024]

1713487024

[Quickseller]

If you take control of an account prior to receiving payment then the identity of the account will leak to the buyer then the buyer could publish the identity of the account which would cause damage to the seller. It would also be that there could be a large amount of time that the escrow is in control of the account and it the account was immediately previously involved in something malicious then it may look like the escrow was behind the malicious activity.

Another risk to the escrow would be that the account could get banned while in possession of the escrow and there would be a question of if the escrow did something to get the account banned or if it was the behavior of the seller.

A third risk to the escrow is what happens when the buyer takes a long time to pay. If the escrow is taking possession of the account first then there is an argument to pay the seller directly so there could be a delay in payment then the account would eventually get returned to the seller. If the buyer does not receive notification that the account is returned to the seller then the seller could end up with both payment and the account   

If the buyer were to pay first then funds would be safe for the buyer in the event that the seller is unable to deliver. The escrow would be in control of the private key associated with the escrow address so he can refund the buyer in the event the seller cannot deliver.


I am saying that ponzis were able to more easily deflect questions about their ability to be trusted and let them say that everyone that's runs a ponzi has negative trust and is not a reflection on them specifically. 

[EcuaMobi]

The trust system's main function is to prevent scams from happening, not to punish them.

Um... im happy you are no judge as profession. I mean the defendant doesnt want to speak... he must be guilty. I really dont think it makes sense to leave the trust system for people that decide someone might scam. Who are they to judge before anything happened? If i would have done so i would have marked many persons red and i dont know of anyone who actually scammed later.

Trust system protects against scammers who clearly offer things everyone can see are scam attempts. But going out of a deal is not enough to justify knowing he is a scammer. Quickseller not even claimed that. But the red color says he is now. I think only a handful would check where the red actually came from.

I see you totally missed the point of what I said:
First, it's not the same sending someone to jail than leaving a negative ratings, so comparing a forum to a court and a user to a judge makes no sense whatsoever. Besides a negative trust can easily be removed. I've left negative feedback when I have more than 50% certainty someone is a scammer and I keep watching. Most the times I confirm his intentions but of course more than once I've removed it a few minutes or hours later.
Second, I said the user must have fishy or shady behavior that makes him suspicious in order for him to receive a negative trust. Of course him not wanting "to speak" is not enough (not sure why you even wrote this).
The whole point of what I posted and you quoted is that the trust system must rely on a certain level of assumption. If someone clearly shows a scammy behavior then it's natural for him to receive a negative feedback, but not without any reason at all.

Here I'm not saying OP deserves a negative trust (or doesn't). I'm just saying a certain degree of assumption is required for the trust system to work. If fact if you had read the other posts of this thread you would have read my other post where I say I think a negative feedback is too harsh. But definitely OP's behavior was somewhat shady.

[Twipple]

It would also be that there could be a large amount of time that the escrow is in control of the account and it the account was immediately previously involved in something malicious then it may look like the escrow was behind the malicious activity.

Another risk to the escrow would be that the account could get banned while in possession of the escrow and there would be a question of if the escrow did something to get the account banned or if it was the behavior of the seller. 

Its good to question these things and the fact that there can be so many risks to the escrow.
May I ask why you left the risk exist for an account pagalwana , which you recently escrowed ?
and risked the buyer getting a negative feedback(which he did now) ?

From what I saw , this scam accusation was started https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1005463.0
I saw, You then left a negative Reputation to pagalwana. But a few days later, you removed the negative rating, and escrowed the account for a selling deal, without probably(or maybe) informing the buyer about the risk of getting the negative rep again(which he now did).

Also, I don't see the reason why would you leave a negative rating on this account ?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152819   . Didn't the trust rating system change recently ? And shouldn't that be a neutral trust rating, rather than a negative rating ?
If that user didn't want to use an escrow its his wish, and its the buyers risk to not trade with him . But just doing that doesn't make him a scammer to deserve a negative rating.

Don't consider this post a get back to you for the negative trust you gave me . Just that I provided more than convincing evidence to prove I bought this account. Even then you did not even care to reply half the times, and refused to remove the rating, despite the fact that I started a scam accusation against the person who sold me this account before your rating came into place. And now I see you go ahead and remove a negative trust from another similar instance and account, and you even went ahead to agree to escrow to sell it.

[Quickseller]

It would also be that there could be a large amount of time that the escrow is in control of the account and it the account was immediately previously involved in something malicious then it may look like the escrow was behind the malicious activity.

Another risk to the escrow would be that the account could get banned while in possession of the escrow and there would be a question of if the escrow did something to get the account banned or if it was the behavior of the seller.  

Its good to question these things and the fact that there can be so many risks to the escrow.
May I ask why you left the risk exist for an account pagalwana , which you recently escrowed ?
and risked the buyer getting a negative feedback(which he did now) ?

From what I saw , this scam accusation was started https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1005463.0
I saw, You then left a negative Reputation to pagalwana. But a few days later, you removed the negative rating, and escrowed the account for a selling deal, without probably(or maybe) informing the buyer about the risk of getting the negative rep again(which he now did).

There is always the possibility that a purchased account will receive negative trust. The fact that there is a scam accusation against him does not change that fact. I removed the negative because I verified with the lender that he had taken the account as collateral.

The buyer of that account should message the person who left the negative trust to try to explain the situation. I have PM'ed TC to let him know that the account is most likely no longer an alt of SuperSTARS777.

Also, I don't see the reason why would you leave a negative rating on this account ?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152819   . Didn't the trust rating system change recently ? And shouldn't that be a neutral trust rating, rather than a negative rating ?
If that user didn't want to use an escrow its his wish, and its the buyers risk to not trade with him . But just doing that doesn't make him a scammer to deserve a negative rating.

No. He was publicly offering escrow then was trying to weasel his way out of escrow. That is scammy behavior

[Twipple]

There is always the possibility that a purchased account will receive negative trust. The fact that there is a scam accusation against him does not change that fact. I removed the negative because I verified with the lender that he had taken the account as collateral.

The buyer of that account should message the person who left the negative trust to try to explain the situation. I have PM'ed TC to let him know that the account is most likely no longer an alt of SuperSTARS777.

Ok, But I provided you the same proof. I even started a scam accusation against the seller , and his alt accounts for trying to scam and giving fake trust ratings to himself, all this before you gave me a negative trust rating after 2 months.
I even provided you the messages, and the transactions. I am also open to the admins doing an IP check and what not , to make sure of it. What other proof did you need for it then ?  I don't even see you open to conversation about the trust rating and the scam accusation on the other guy.

Also, I don't see the reason why would you leave a negative rating on this account ?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=152819   . Didn't the trust rating system change recently ? And shouldn't that be a neutral trust rating, rather than a negative rating ?
If that user didn't want to use an escrow its his wish, and its the buyers risk to not trade with him . But just doing that doesn't make him a scammer to deserve a negative rating.

No. He was publicly offering escrow then was trying to weasel his way out of escrow. That is scammy behavior

But it still doesn't really make him a scammer. I still feel in these cases you should warn them, or leave a neutral trust rating as long as they didn't scam anyone. By giving them a negative rating, you completely remove them from the forum, as they are no longer able to participate in anything, and lose their reputation. The forum isn't a quicksell buy, place where everyone just buys new accounts to post and start a business if their previous account has been given a negative trust.

[worhiper_-_]

It's pretty funny how quickseller can get away with such lies just because he's in the default trust.

[nor9865]

I'm sure that he only did add -trust because he did feel that something was wrong with the transaction. I don't blame him either. If this was something that could have put him at risk of having to pay for something that he was just trying to help with, its completely understandable. I like Quickseller and thinks that he does a outstanding job zeroing out the scammers and potential scammers on the forum, I don't think that the rating should be changed, but shouldn't be added to by others either. I've seen tons of people just post on others trust because someone else did. While that's fine too, I think the circumstances surrounding this case feedback should only be left by Quickseller, and not by anybody else and Quicksellers notation in the trust should be this thread where it shows all the evidence of the case and let the person use their own judgement with dealing with this user. If I was the OP I would just give it some time and show people on the forum that you wasn't trying to scam anybody, that you made a small mistake in judgement and apologize. Then ask Quickseller to either remove it or rate it as neutral.

[TheButterZone]

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Code:

Registered: 2012
Feedback: Neutral
Activity: 135+
Posts:135+
Feedback: Neutral
Trust: 0: -0 / +0(0)

Without logging in an account.

I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak?

P.S. Account trading =

[Quickseller]

@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.

Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways.

Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides.

And you CAN verify this:

Code:

Registered: 2012
Feedback: Neutral
Activity: 135+
Posts:135+
Feedback: Neutral
Trust: 0: -0 / +0(0)

Without logging in an account.

I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak?

You have no way of knowing if the account named by the seller is actually owned by the seller, or even if it is, you have no way of knowing that the seller will actually provide the password to the account once escrow is funded. That method puts the escrow at risk.

[TheButterZone]

<snip>

I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak?

You have no way of knowing if the account named by the seller is actually owned by the seller, or even if it is, you have no way of knowing that the seller will actually provide the password to the account once escrow is funded. That method puts the escrow at risk.

So how can you ever know that you're not dealing with a middleman scammer if you've never met them in person and had a chance to sign their PGP keyring, for later encrypting an OTP to them to place in a custom field of the account for sale, as you watch them on Skype webcam+screen sharing decrypt your PGP message, write it on a piece of paper held up to the webcam, then logout of their main account, login to the account for sale, place the OTP, and finally you hit refresh on the profile on your own computer?

[Quickseller]

<snip>

I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak?

You have no way of knowing if the account named by the seller is actually owned by the seller, or even if it is, you have no way of knowing that the seller will actually provide the password to the account once escrow is funded. That method puts the escrow at risk.

So how can you ever know that you're not dealing with a middleman scammer if you've never met them in person and had a chance to sign their PGP keyring, for later encrypting an OTP to them to place in a custom field of the account for sale, as you watch them on Skype webcam+screen sharing decrypt your PGP message, write it on a piece of paper held up to the webcam, then logout of their main account, login to the account for sale, place the OTP, and finally you hit refresh on the profile on your own computer?

You don't however the fact that you are using a certain person for escrow means that you can assume that each party trusts the escrow service, if the parties do not trust the escrow then they should not be using them as escrow. The opposite is true for each respective trading party as well. The fact that each trading party is using escrow means that there is not mutual trust.

When you are using escrow it generally means two things:

• Both parties trust the escrow
• Both parties are not able to trust eachother

[TheButterZone]

I don't see a way for an escrow agent to ever be riskless in an account trade without meatspace contact. I would not be an escrow agent if there was no way for me to trust AND verify both sides.

One hopes in 2025 when the new forum is ready, this BS practice will be put to bed.

[r3wt]

I don't see a way for an escrow agent to ever be riskless in an account trade without meatspace contact. I would not be an escrow agent if there was no way for me to trust AND verify both sides.

One hopes in 2025 when the new forum is ready, this BS practice will be put to bed.

Didn't you hear? they've pushed it back to 2030.

[Quickseller]

I don't see a way for an escrow agent to ever be riskless in an account trade without meatspace contact. I would not be an escrow agent if there was no way for me to trust AND verify both sides.

The way you can mitigate risk to be low enough for it to be NPV positive over the long run is to get the buyer and seller to agree on specific details that the account being traded will meet (e.g. created date, min number of posts, min number of activity, trust, quality of posts, being able to sign a message from an old BTC/GPG key posted with the account). Once that is agreed to then the buyer should send funds to the escrow, and once funds are confirmed by the escrow the seller should provide the account name and password to the escrow only, the escrow should change the password/email/ect. and confirm the account being traded matches the description that both parties agreed upon. Once the account details have been verified, then the escrow should provide the changed password and name to the buyer only who has an opportunity to further inspect the account and authorize the release of escrow funds. If the buyer disputes something about the account then he can remain in possession of the account while a dispute is being mediated (and remain responsible for any malice), however unless the escrow makes a mistake, any dispute should be very cut and dry. In the event that the seller either provides an account that does not match the agreed upon description then the escrow would change the password back to what the seller provided and reject the account.

This would avoid the escrow from ever needing to potentially make a false statement they would be held accountable for, and would equally protect the buyer and seller. It would also result in the escrow being in control of the account for as little time as possible and would minimize the time that more then one party knows the password to the account which would minimize the chance that there could be a question as to if the escrow did something malicious while he was in control of the account.

One hopes in 2025 when the new forum is ready, this BS practice will be put to bed.

lol.

[worhiper_-_]

I like how several people post here telling you how you would have verified that the seller actually owned such an account, which is what I asked by the way... Yet you ignore it and pretend that you would have logged into the account and changed the password, like I ever asked that.


Turns out quickseller is one of the most pretendious persons in this forum. Pretty sad people like him own a place in the default trust.

[Bicknellski]

I like how several people post here telling you how you would have verified that the seller actually owned such an account, which is what I asked by the way... Yet you ignore it and pretend that you would have logged into the account and changed the password, like I ever asked that.


Turns out quickseller is one of the most pretendious persons in this forum. Pretty sad people like him own a place in the default trust.

Ask the person who has him on their list to remove him problem solved.

Guys a nuisance and should not be on a trust list of anyone if this is how he behaves.

[worhiper_-_]

He's already out of my trust list. 

http://gfycat.com/FlatBogusDeermouse

[redsn0w]

He's already out of my trust list. 

http://gfycat.com/FlatBogusDeermouse

It is impossible, try again to put "~Quickseller" and after clear your browser cache, I am sure you will see his negative trust in the "untrusted section".

[peligro]

He's already out of my trust list. 

http://gfycat.com/FlatBogusDeermouse

It is impossible, try again to put "~Quickseller" and after clear your browser cache, I am sure you will see his negative trust in the "untrusted section".

It takes some time to update.

If Quickseller thought the buyer was trying something he could've pointed that out and mention the changed terms. There is a good chance Quickseller left the feedback as he didn't like the loss in income. He has already shown he will try to earn even when the ethical thing would've been to not encourage scam sites.