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

[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".

It takes some time to update.

Nah I do not think, it is an instant 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.

I did not follow the situation so I cannot say anything about the trade that it has involved all the parts (worhiper_-_ , meren and Quickseller).

[Muhammed Zakir]

It takes some time to update.

Once you update your trust list, effect will be immediate.

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.

The terms were good and was PM'ed. Then "worhiper_-_" can ask why it was changed but he just backed out the deal. That isn't good IMHO. However, it probably is good to leave a neutral trust feedback

[worhiper_-_]

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that but there are also some inconsistencies on your part. 

[Quickseller]

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

The negative stands. I have taken the opinions of others into consideration and they were not able to change my mind. Most of the people who are advocating for the removal of my trust are not reputable in my eyes.

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that

Okay then. Case closed.

but there are also some inconsistencies on your part. 

no

[worhiper_-_]

It's funny how you still claim that your rating is 100% accurate.

You must be extremely pretentious to go around saying that we two had an agreement while it's so clear that we never did. It's also very selfish of you to use your advantage of being in the default trust to bring down people that have bad things to say about your service but that's another story.

[TECSHARE]

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

The negative stands. I have taken the opinions of others into consideration and they were not able to change my mind. Most of the people who are advocating for the removal of my trust are not reputable in my eyes.

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that

Okay then. Case closed.

but there are also some inconsistencies on your part. 

no

Quickseller, IMO changing his rating to a neutral is in your own best interest. You know why?  Because now anyone considering trading with you in the future will see that this may happen to them if they change their minds or don't like your terms of a deal and simply not trade with you to begin with.

[Quickseller]

<snip>

Do you feel selling bitcointalk accounts puts you in a curious space, being on the default trust and all?
I could see so many ways to turn that into some coin, tho that's just me.

I am not sure why you think that I sell bitcointalk accounts. I think it should be pretty clear that I do not currently sell any. I am also not sure why you created your account just to make that statement, it really isn't all that controversial (although it is incorrect). I am sure that a good number of people in the default trust network sell bitcointalk accounts, probably just not from their account that is on default trust. If you think that I am giving positive trust to any of my accounts that I am selling/have sold in the past then you are free to bring it to my attention and if I do not give you a satisfactory answer then you are free to open a thread accusing me of such (or you can just jump straight to opening a thread), however I can assure you that is not something I engage in. Your theory has also been debunked in the past.

It's funny how you still claim that your rating is 100% accurate.

You must be extremely pretentious to go around saying that we two had an agreement while it's so clear that we never did. It's also very selfish of you to use your advantage of being in the default trust to bring down people that have bad things to say about your service but that's another story.

It is factually accurate. Any dispute about my rating is solely about semantics and the substance behind my ratings is accurate. If you really want to argue about semantics then I can modify my comment to say "After an escrow agreement was sent to worhiper_-_, he demanded changes to the escrow agreement that would put both the escrow and seller at risk, after worhiper_-_'s scammy demands were me he failed to fund the escrow address.  I would avoid doing business with this person under any circumstances" however I really don't think it is necessary.

I have also reviewed your post history and it appears that you have been one of the first people to invest in various HYIP's that eventually ended up scamming, yet you always got your money back  

Quickseller, IMO changing his rating to a neutral is in your own best interest. You know why?  Because now anyone considering trading with you in the future will see that this may happen to them if they change their minds or don't like your terms of a deal and simply not trade with you to begin with.

You may be correct in saying that that people may think that I would give a negative in the event that someone  had some kind of change in circumstances and needed to back out of a trade with mutual understanding, however that was not the case in this situation. He even admits that the only reason he backed out of the deal was because he was angry, however after having a long time to "cool down" he has not gone through with the deal. If there was a mutual agreement to cancel the deal with all parties agreeing then a negative would have not even be considered. If this means that I have more difficulty conducting business in the future then so be it, however I am not going to allow a scammer to blackmail me into removing a negative I left for a scammer and that will be the cost of calling out scammers.

[tspacepilot]

Quickseller, with so many people telling you that your negative rating might have been too much haven't you given this some more thought?

The negative stands. I have taken the opinions of others into consideration and they were not able to change my mind. Most of the people who are advocating for the removal of my trust are not reputable in my eyes.

I admin that I shouldn't have backed out of the deal like that

Okay then. Case closed.

but there are also some inconsistencies on your part.  

no

Quickseller, IMO changing his rating to a neutral is in your own best interest. You know why?  Because now anyone considering trading with you in the future will see that this may happen to them if they change their minds or don't like your terms of a deal and simply not trade with you to begin with.

You are probably right in principle.  But in practice I suppose that very of quickseller's potential customers spend much time reading through these kinds of threads on meta.

[dogie]

Font size 3 text (sigh) quoted for those that want to read it

I hope I didn't ruin it for you, doubt I did tho. The demographic you cater to only posts & scams, doubt those kids actually bother reading the forum - no money in it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Font size 3 text (sigh) quoted for those that want to read it

I hope I didn't ruin it for you, doubt I did tho. The demographic you cater to only posts & scams, doubt those kids actually bother reading the forum - no money in it.

He's still got it

[SebastianJu]

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.

There are ways to make the transfer so that it isnt revealed. For example only changing after escrow has the coins in escrow address.

Even if not, its up to buyer and seller to negotiate on a security level they feel comfortable with. Escrow only should step in when its unsecure for him or to give a tip about a potential risk. But at the end its up to them to decide what they feel comfortable with.

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.

I dont see that problem since its easily proven that the escrow isnt in charge.

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.

Then you might let the logins send to you only after the escrow address is funded. Its highly unlikely that it gets banned in the time after that.

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  

Buyer funds first then. And why should the escrow release the coins to the seller before the buyer claims the accounts are secured?

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.  

Might be that scammers are often virtuous with words. Though assuming that this here was a scam attempt sounds a far fetched assumption. Its not that he posted some "Double your bitcoin"-Links, where you know with certainty whats going on.

Edit:

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.

Then the escrow gives back the bitcoins. No risk at all. Since those things practically never happens, its not a risk at all. Even when, no harm done. The seller can get a red trust and thats it. If he later comes and claims he was in hospital then things can proceed.

[SebastianJu]

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.

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer, would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

I guess if the seller in this case is buying the accounts and the escrow can confirm, then it might be enough to take that trust away? But still, 50% sure that someone is a scammer. Im really not sure that he is one. So that makes it fully dependend on the user who views the case. And im sure if you move on that way that you will hurt someones justice feelings and he will neg rep you too at the end. I wonder how the scam accusation threads will read then.

Not speak meant its easy to judge a delinquent at court when he doesnt defend itself. Its obvious he cant say anything against because he is guilty. Luckily there is a rule that allows this and it cant be taken against him. Might be you dont take a red trust as a court order but look around the forums, the ones with the red trust are practically all scammers. It doesnt matter if you spread red votes on believes, its practically a scammer label. And i would not care to read what was written in there. If someone "had a feeling" that he might be a scammer. I simply wouldnt use him. And he would be out of business as long as he doesnt create a scam accusation threat.

Ok, you dont think the red trust is justified. But i think OP wasnt shady too. Only rules werent made clear before the start. The trade already started without that. I wouldnt want to be in a trade and then hear new rules being added to the contract.

[SebastianJu]

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.

I only speak for me but i dont bother reading anything more when someone has red trust. Because in the past it was a sign for a scammer. Simply as that.

And whats the small mistake in judgement? Am i understood it wrong that rules werent clear before the trade started?

[Bicknellski]

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.

Ding ding ding ding... we have a winner. He didn't get paid so acted like a prick.

Do not, repeat do not, do business with this guy. He is a prick.

[EcuaMobi]

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

Just to make it clear (in case it wasn't for you on my previous posts) I do not think it's OK to leave a negative trust if I just have a hunch someone is a scammer. But it's OK to do it if I'm 99% convinced he is trying to scam (even if he hasn't yet). As I've said I have left negative trust with only about 50% certainty but I never consider it closed on those conditions. I keep reading the replies and either keep it if that certainty goes close to 100% or remove it otherwise. Several scams are produced because of a newbie making a deal right after a scammer posts a thread. That thread usually has several red flags that older users can notice but not newbies. It's possible someone can show "false positive" red flags such as not using escrow or not providing collateral for a loan. But on those cases they will correct quite fast if someone points that out. If they do of course the negative trust should be immediately removed. I'm convinced it's OK to leave a red rating if I'm 99% sure someone tries to scam (as I also said that doesn't apply for a judge and someone accused of a crime). Although I'm not on default trust I think some people will read the feedback and I hope I prevented at least one scam.

There would be much more scams if only those who succeeded on scamming received red trust and not those with clear scammy/shady behavior. They could scam, get negative trust, create a new account and repeat knowing they won't get his account red until they scam again.

(Again your post and my response are somewhat off-topic. I'm talking in general here, not about OP.)

Edit:

Ok, you dont think the red trust is justified. But i think OP wasnt shady too. Only rules werent made clear before the start. The trade already started without that. I wouldnt want to be in a trade and then hear new rules being added to the contract.

Regarding this probably it's not worth commenting because I think OP's behavior was somewhat shady and you don't and that's that. However to make it clear I think it was shady mainly because the conditions he demanded didn't protect the seller and because he backed out of the deal even after all his conditions were met (OP recognized the conditions were met and he backed out just because he was angry). I don't think that's enough to tag him as a scammer but that's definitely not a professional behavior. It's like when someone bids on an auction and then cancels the deal after winning. The other party could have rejected other deals because OP already confirmed it. Personally I prefer not to deal with someone that does this kind of things.

[tspacepilot]

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

[EcuaMobi]

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

[tspacepilot]

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

I hope you are correct.  Unfortunately, I have the opportunity to put your assertion to the empirical test.

[EcuaMobi]

So if a red trust rating is not the same like marking a scammer

Where did this come from? I haven't said it's not the same. If you ask me it's almost the same. A red trust rating is a scammer tag or an indication that an user had a scammy behavior which indicates it's very likely he will (or tried to) scam.

would you be fine if someone makes your trust red because he "thinks" you are a scammer? You know... you would not be able to defend yourself, because the evidences are only the believe of someone. So what would you say then?

Sure that would be fine as long as I've had a scammy behavior or I'm trying to scam, even if I haven't really scammed. If that was produced for a misunderstanding I would PM him or create a thread on Meta. Since I have never had a scammy behavior I would be certain that negative trust wouldn't last.

This is not entirely true.  You don't have to have any "scammy behavior", all you really have to do is get on the bad side someone on negative trust.  It's pretty easy if you tend to call people out who are in the blessed class.

If I received a negative rating without even having a scammy behavior or other good reason then of course I wouldn't be OK with that. However that's very unlikely to happen and if it's clear I would contact the person who added that person into the default list (i.e. the user of depth 1) and ask him to remove him.

What do you mean "get on the bad side"? If you have problems with other people and "tend to call people out" then definitely you have more chances of people calling you out too. But if you never had a shady behavior it would be very difficult for them to do so (unless they're just plain lying but in that case it shouldn't be difficult to have them removed from the default trust list).

I hope you are correct.  Unfortunately, I have the opportunity to put your assertion to the empirical test.

I don't think that would be an example of what I posted. It seems very arguable from the little I know about it. I will probably read that thread (and the old one) more carefully later when I have some time and comment if I think it's worth by then. But it's BadBear's decision.

[Muhammed Zakir]

There are ways to make the transfer so that it isnt revealed. For example only changing after escrow has the coins in escrow address.

What if seller change password and tell it waa escrow who did it? It can't be resolved easily unless admins involve in this.

Even if not, its up to buyer and seller to negotiate on a security level they feel comfortable with. Escrow only should step in when its unsecure for him or to give a tip about a potential risk. But at the end its up to them to decide what they feel comfortable with.

IMHO giving tips about security it good but escrowing according to their terms aren't always good. If their terms aren't good, escrow should come up with new terms which is comfortable for both. The terms Quickseller came up with were good but backing out that deal for making a safer terms is shady.