Quickseller escrowing for himself

[tspacepilot]

You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.

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.

[1715064432]

1715064432

[1715064432]

1715064432

[1715064432]

1715064432

[Quickseller]

Looks like BayAreaCoins left QS deserved negative trust.

QS has posted that leaving him negative trust (BayAreaCoins) will get you removed from Default Trust.

Let's see what happens.

I would not be surprised honestly.

Everyone else is "scared" of being removed off the trust system for calling out untrustworthy people... not me sir.

The free cookies for being on DT aren't worth letting you do what you are doing.

If you feel leaving negative trust is the right thing to do, then negative trust away. If you honestly strongly feel negative trust is appropriate then I applaud you for staking your reputation on this issue. I have done the same thing in the past, stood my ground and maintained my position. You are right, there are not many people who are willing to leave a controversial rating.

With that being said, I do not think your conclusion is accurate, as I would not have escrowed my own deal if there was any doubt in my mind that doing so was not a scam. I do think that those who leave negative trust will end up removed from DT, although I do not have any direct control over this (I can make an argument for as much, and in the past those who do make these kinds of decisions have concurred with my opinions).

[BayAreaCoins]

If you feel leaving negative trust is the right thing to do, then negative trust away. If you honestly strongly feel negative trust is appropriate then I applaud you for staking your reputation on this issue.

Thank you and I do everything I do from my heart.

My heart of hearts does stand behind this.

I do think that those who leave negative trust will end up removed from DT

If it happens, then so be it.

I'll take it like a man, I will not complain and I will continue to use Bitcointalk for trading ect.

Remember remember the 8th of September!

[Quickseller]

If you feel leaving negative trust is the right thing to do, then negative trust away. If you honestly strongly feel negative trust is appropriate then I applaud you for staking your reputation on this issue.

Thank you and I do everything I do from my heart.

My heart of hearts does stand behind this.

I do think that those who leave negative trust will end up removed from DT

If it happens, then so be it.

I'll take it like a man, I will not complain and I will continue to use Bitcointalk for trading ect.

Remember remember the 8th of September!

I think you should at least take my argument into consideration, however I obviously cannot force you to change your mine.

Remember remember the 8th of September!

LAMO

[dooglus]

Holy shit, QS, you are just bat shit dead nuts crazy, as well as a complete asshole to people. Unless of course my sarcasm detector has malfunctioned. 

Thanks for the insight doog.

Shouldn't you be busy laundering money somewhere or using your various alts shilling against scrypt.cc?

You think that's me? That's not me. I don't have any alts other than an account called "Just Dice" that posted once asking to be freed from newbie jail.

Coinonomous uses too many commas, just, like, I do. But I don't think I ever would say "dead nuts crazy". That's just weird.

I don't launder money, and I don't think it's possible to "shill against" anything, only for it:

  shill: noun. an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Maybe you should take a break for a while and calm down.

QS lied and he should be giving refunds to everyone he scammed without them having to ask.

Kindly point to the post in which I said this.

See what I mean? You're replying without reading.

[EcuaMobi]

However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it.

You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.

If you and I are trading, and you are selling 1 BTC for 240 dollars, then what is the difference between you sending me 1BTC, and me sending you CAD$240 from QS, verses me sending you CAD$240 from an alt? Even if the fact that what currency is being used is not documented properly (an escrow agreement should do this), it is still a scam in both instances. If this would be done as a direct trade, then it would be possible to weasel your way out of it, however if you were acting as an escrow, then your reputation as an escrow would be damaged because you did not properly gather all of the facts prior to advising that it is safe to send money

Let's use a not-so-obvious example to explain what I mean:

Let's say I'm selling 0.1 BTC for 28.3 dollars (note at the moment 283 is the average between BTC/USD and BTC/CAD). I send 0.1 BTC and you send 28.3 USD to the escrow. We didn't specify the currency and for some reason I think it's obvious it's USD because I charge a fee and you think it's obvious it's CAD because you charge a fee (neither wants to scam, we just disagree). If you are the escrow yourself then the escrow would also find it obvious it's CAD and he could just complete the deal.

I may start a scam accusation against both you and the escrow (which I don't know are the same person) and I may win or I may not. Only if I win the escrow risks his reputation and I may get the money back in an attempt of the escrow to keep his reputation. If I lose I just lose. And very probably I wouldn't even bother starting a scam accusation because of the small amount and because I'm aware it was my fault too for not specifying the currency on time.

If a real third party would have been used then he wouldn't be biased and I could trust much more his judgment. It's possible he decides it's CAD too; but he may also decide it's USD or he may not know and make an average or cancel the deal completely.

I'm just saying a real third party can act neutrally without any bias. If it's a neutral third party I'd feel much more comfortable trusting him. And I repeat I do not think this behavior deserves a trusted negative feedback, but I do prefer to use an escrow that never does this.

[Quickseller]

However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it.

You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.

If you and I are trading, and you are selling 1 BTC for 240 dollars, then what is the difference between you sending me 1BTC, and me sending you CAD$240 from QS, verses me sending you CAD$240 from an alt? Even if the fact that what currency is being used is not documented properly (an escrow agreement should do this), it is still a scam in both instances. If this would be done as a direct trade, then it would be possible to weasel your way out of it, however if you were acting as an escrow, then your reputation as an escrow would be damaged because you did not properly gather all of the facts prior to advising that it is safe to send money

Let's use a not-so-obvious example to explain what I mean:

Let's say I'm selling 0.1 BTC for 28.3 dollars (note at the moment 283 is the average between BTC/USD and BTC/CAD). I send 0.1 BTC and you send 28.3 USD to the escrow. We didn't specify the currency and for some reason I think it's obvious it's USD because I charge a fee and you think it's obvious it's CAD because you charge a fee (neither wants to scam, we just disagree). If you are the escrow yourself then the escrow would also find it obvious it's CAD and he could just complete the deal.

I may start a scam accusation against both you and the escrow (which I don't know are the same person) and I may win or I may not. Only if I win the escrow risks his reputation and I may get the money back in an attempt of the escrow to keep his reputation. If I lose I just lose. And very probably I wouldn't even bother starting a scam accusation because of the small amount and because I'm aware it was my fault too for not specifying the currency on time.

If a real third party would have been used then he wouldn't be biased and I could trust much more his judgment. It's possible he decides it's CAD too; but he may also decide it's USD or he may not know and make an average or cancel the deal completely.

I'm just saying a real third party can act neutrally without any bias. If it's a neutral third party I'd feel much more comfortable trusting him. And I repeat I do not think this behavior deserves a trusted negative feedback, but I do prefer to use an escrow that never does this.

In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what. Granted he is not neutral, however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting.

One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.

There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded. 

[EcuaMobi]

In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what.

Not necessarily, it depends on the escrow's behavior.

Granted he is not neutral

That's my main point. The escrow would be much less neutral in this case. Therefore it would be better to have third party instead.

however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting.

One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.

There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded. 

I get your point, on the majority of cases there would be little to no difference, but not always. This is a complex problem and it's difficult to come up with the perfect hypothetical example. However I think the point was made: an independent third party would be more neutral so there's no reason to stop using a real third party escrow.

[jonald_fyookball]

You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.

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.

Spot on.  No justification for being your own escrow.

[tarsua]

Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC

Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account

[achow101]

Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC

Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account

Well even a normal escrow can do that. Except a 3rd party escrow can also run off with both the goods and the BTCBTCBTC, which is why people say to use a trusted escrow.

[tarsua]

Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC

Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account

Well even a normal escrow can do that. Except a 3rd party escrow can also run off with both the goods and the BTCBTCBTC, which is why people say to use a trusted escrow.

How trusted can the escrow be if he hides the fact that he is the person at the other end of the deal?

[P-Funk]

I have answered your question regarding my identity and who I am, and I am not going to be any more specific then I have because I know you will somehow twist my words to make it sound like I said something else.

Why don't you just clearly state that you are not Quickseller?  That would satisfy me and probably other members, because then if it turned out you were lying, we could leave you and QS negative trust.

I have also answered this once (see page 2). However moving forward, I am going to adopt a policy of neither admitting nor denying if any alt accounts are mine (except possibly ones I use to investigate scams), especially ones whose trust history reflect having physical items shipped to them.

As TC mentioned, escrowing for yourself is really not a scam. If you are going to trust someone to send first to them (do a direct trade), then all you need to trust is that they will end up not scamming you, however if you are going to trust someone to escrow for you then you must trust they will not simply run away with coins, but also will effectively mediate any dispute that arrises, therefore you must trust someone more to use them as escrow verses trusting them doing a direct trade. Whenever I had escrowed deals involving panthers, there was never any disputes and released money only when I was instructed to do so.

I am fairly certain that you did not appreciate it when scammers were posting what they claimed to be your dox (I am unsure if the entire dox is correct, however you had confirmed that the name is correct), and I would think you would understand that I would like to avoid similar activity (although my name is a lot more common then yours is).

This thread is nothing more then an intimidation attempt against me by tspacepilot (and this is not the first one). I really do not think it is a good idea to believe/trust him simply because the person he stole from is a scammer (even if you did think this was okay, TF was not a scammer - he was at least not labeled as one - when tspacepilot stole from TF). I do not doubt this will be the last intimidation attempt by him either.

If what panthers had posted about receiving a message to post in tspacepilot's thread about me is true, then tspacepilots claim that he "stumbled" across this information in his thread. This is in addition to the fact that tspacepilot's experiment is not scientifically valid as it does not use anywhere near as many data points as necessary to confirm/deny his hypothesis. I would not be surprised if tspacepilot ran similar tests on many other users until he found three that had high scores on everyone else in his test (assuming of course that the data he presented is real)

(my own bolds added) Haha really?

[xetsr]

After all is said and done, I just hope nobody falls for the scams to come that go like this: I won't send first and I don't trust escrow because of the quickseller incident, how do I know you're not so and so?

Thought it was bad before? 

[Quickseller]

In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what.

Not necessarily, it depends on the escrow's behavior.

I think they would. If I saw a case similar to the one that you described then it would be my opinion that it is not safe to use them as escrow. The deal you described is one that would not be easily be mediated. If a deal cannot be easily mediated then the escrow should decline to help with the transaction (or in this case get more information about the transaction).

however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting.

One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.

There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded. 

I get your point, on the majority of cases there would be little to no difference, but not always. This is a complex problem and it's difficult to come up with the perfect hypothetical example. However I think the point was made: an independent third party would be more neutral so there's no reason to stop using a real third party escrow.

Another point that I would make is that in order to act as an escrow, you need to have a good amount of trust, and generally speaking in order to gain trust, you need to have a lot of trading experience. You also need to have a history of acting honestly.

It would be my opinion that someone with sufficient trading experience to act as escrow would not make the mistake of failing to clarify which currency is to be used in a trade unless they were acting maliciously. If you plan on acting maliciously then you might as well simply run away with the coins.

[Quickseller]

Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC

Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account

If they are going to run away with the coins, then what is the point of using an alt? Why don't they just wait for someone else to ask them to escrow and run away with those coins?

[jonald_fyookball]

just stop the hemming and hawing already.  there's no good justification for being your own secret escrow. 

[tarsua]

Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC

Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account

If they are going to run away with the coins, then what is the point of using an alt? Why don't they just wait for someone else to ask them to escrow and run away with those coins?

If you simply want quick cash this would be an easy route, its just not wise to act as an escrow for your alt, did you tell the other persdon you were trading wiith that quickseller is your alt?

[tspacepilot]

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.

[Quickseller]

There's a wiki for this, it's called Bogus Escrow and is explicitly defined as a scam.



The IC3 defines this exact situation as fraud.



It's definitely illegal in the United States.

Ummm....in both of your examples the person the escrow is trading with gets nothing in return....eg they send money to escrow and receive nothing in return. That is not what happened, nor is what is claimed to have happened.....it is however what happened in a case involving you.....