Quickseller escrowing for himself

[Panthers52]

Why would Mitchell speak out against you a second time? Don't you think he learned his lesson the first time?

Maybe I should reiterate this question: Why exactly did you ask me to post in your meta thread if you "knew" that I "am" QS? Are you such a horrific stalker that you go around analyzing the speech patterns of users trying to find potential "alts" of QS?

If you want to ask me my opinion about using yourself as escrow, then I will tell you that my opinion if none of your business. I made the mistake of telling you my opinion once before and am not going to make that same mistake again. 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.

I will also say that the fact that you have ignored my relevant questions will allow the preponderance of the evidence to show the following:

#TSP harassed Mitchell for months in retaliation for calling him a scammer
#TSP chose to harass QS because he did business with someone TSP did not like, and was making TSP's overall harassment less effective
#TSP is an asshole

[alani123]

I'd say that it's the other way around. Take a look at the reason QS gave tspacepilot the negative rating, it's quite obvious that QS was looking for a reason to give him a negative rating and he dug out a very petty incident, he had nothing to do with and held zero proof about. Also from years ago. After being called out and even temporarily removed from default trust after a lot of controversy had concentrated in a small period of time QS still refused to revise the rating out of spite. Do you still think that tspacepilot harassed quickseller?
Now to remind people about QS suspicious behavior:

Around the day he's removed from default trust he stops his escrow service, weeks later, same two people (badbear, tomatocage) that had him removed from their trust lists re-add him and he gets back in default trust, re-opens his escrow service. Now he's caught escrowing himself, which is unacceptable for normal escrow, tomatocage says

I don't see how escrowing for himself would be a scam,

(just how flawed is the logic behind this?) and Badbear, the only person able to check for account ownership remains silent while still keeping QS in default trust?

Last time QS was removed from badbear's trust list was when someone topped the overload of then controversy about QS and accused them of being the same person, so I don't know if he should be trusted either.

[Tomatocage]

At this point, I'm actually convinced that you are not only Quickseller & Panthers, but also TC.

Negative ghost rider.

[Panthers52]

I'd say that it's the other way around. Take a look at the reason QS gave tspacepilot the negative rating, it's quite obvious that QS was looking for a reason to give him a negative rating and he dug out a very petty incident, he had nothing to do with and held zero proof about. Also from years ago. After being called out and even temporarily removed from default trust after a lot of controversy had concentrated in a small period of time QS still refused to revise the rating out of spite. Do you still think that tspacepilot harassed quickseller?

Timeline:

March 3, 2015:
The escrow for TSP"s signature campaign posts a GPG signed message claiming to be in possession of 8 BTC. TSP continued his participation of this signature campaign without incident

Over 30 days pass!

April 9, 2015:
TSP trollsQS on a signature campaign thread about signing a bitcoin message from the bitcoin address he claimed to be holding money in. QS had previously signed a PGP message saying almost the exact same information as the message in the signature campaign TSP was participating in.

Over 11 days pass!

April 20, 2015:
TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining that QS was engaging in trust abuse. It appears that QS had removed the negative trust rating and then put it back on, so I am not quite sure as to what date it was originally put on, however I have no reason to believe it was any date other then this same date.

I think yes, TSP was the one harassing QS, not the other way around. It was going on for over a week and a half before QS found something on TSP. If the trust rating was really something petty, don't you think he would have added it sooner rather then after more then a week?

I have seen a lot of people troll QS (yourself included) that never receive any kind of negative trust from QS. I don't think you like QS, do you? Has QS ever given you any kind of negative rating? I don't think you would like it if I started to harass you for over a week after you did nothing to me (don't worry, I am not going to do this), so why would you think QS would be any different?


Even if you did not believe that TSP was harassing QS (even though I just proved that he was), then how would you explain TSP's harassment towards me? I had posted in TSP's meta thread at September 02, 2015, 10:43:41 PM and TSP responded on September 02, 2015, 11:33:07 PM, only 50 minutes later(!) claiming that I am QS. Do you really think that TSP was able to do all this research in only 50 minutes? To add insult to injury, TSP is not even sure that he is right about me and QS being the same person.

If you want to deny that panthers52 is your alt, you should go ahead and deny it (I'm guessing you don't want to do this because you can already foresee the day when you're going to have to own up to it, like you eventually did with ACCTSeller).  

There is also the issue of why TSP asked me to post in his meta thread in the first place. I received this unsolicited personal message from TSP around two weeks ago:

[...]
So, again, perhaps you'll delete your post or recraft your reply to be about the topic at hand.  I really think that I have to defend myself if you're going to attack me, but I don't see how it's helpful for anyone for us to do this in this thread.  If you want to join the discussion surrounding QS' personal war on me, maybe you could do it in the Meta thread about that topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.0

Why do you think TSP asked me to post in his meta thread, and only two weeks later accused me of being QS, and accused QS of what he claims QS did?

[dooglus]

April 20, 2015:
TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining QS on a signature campaign thread about signing a bitcoin message from the bitcoin address he claimed to be holding money in. QS had previously signed a PGP message saying almost the exact same information as the message in the signature campaign TSP was participating in.

Over 11 days pass!

April 20, 2015:
TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining that QS was engaging in trust abuse. It appears that QS had removed the negative trust rating and then put it back on, so I am not quite sure as to what date it was originally put on, however I have no reason to believe it was any date other then this same date.

Something's wrong with your timeline. There aren't 11 days between April 20 and April 20.

I think if QS had signed a message with the address he claimed to control this would have ended. It's standard practice to do so, why wouldn't QS do it?

TSP is not even sure that he is right about me and QS being the same person.

Why don't you help us out. Are you and QS the same person or not?

[Vod]

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.

[alani123]

Asking to sign a message was trolling? I get that there was a conflict between him (,quickseller) and you (Panthers52) but there's nothing that could justify searching back in his history to give him a negative rating with no proof. That on it's own is the definition of trust abuse and to some extent justifies tspacepilot's meta posts while making the person behind the account you're defending loose a lot of credibility on the eyes of someone looking at this from a second person perspective. If you ask me, both sides hold responsibility for keeping up a conflict for so long, but the way quickseller handles some of his negative ratings is just childish.

[Panthers52]

April 20, 2015:
TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining QS on a signature campaign thread about signing a bitcoin message from the bitcoin address he claimed to be holding money in. QS had previously signed a PGP message saying almost the exact same information as the message in the signature campaign TSP was participating in.

Over 11 days pass!

April 20, 2015:
TSP opens a thread in Meta complaining that QS was engaging in trust abuse. It appears that QS had removed the negative trust rating and then put it back on, so I am not quite sure as to what date it was originally put on, however I have no reason to believe it was any date other then this same date.

Something's wrong with your timeline. There aren't 11 days between April 20 and April 20.

If you read what I wrote, you would see that the exact same thing was posted on both "April 20th"'s. There was 11 days between when TSP started trolling QS, and when QS gave TSP a negative rating.

I think if QS had signed a message with the address he claimed to control this would have ended. It's standard practice to do so, why wouldn't QS do it?

That is something you would need to ask QS. I did give an example of a case when this was not done. This is an example where TSP would have a legitimate reason to be concerned about actual possession of money because a portion of the money in question was going to be due him.

If you really want me to answer why QS did not sign a message, then he might have taken from the allmighty dooglus:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=717300.msg8253439#msg8253439

I woke up this morning to find an email from support at dicebitco.in asking if I would be willing to escrow another 5 BTC for them for the sig campaign.

I agreed, gave them 18KSgPcNRPi9K4bp91Vb3pVNygPon4y5Pw as the address to send the coins to, and they sent 5 BTC.

Here's the transaction ID:

https://blockchain.info/tx/f329fda96936bdb136bc5cebe56d201b19f579e8730f2880e4c96344e0fa08d1

The address is actually an address in the Just-Dice hot wallet, which is still being used to allow people to withdraw from the site (I use it as my day-to-day web wallet), so it's possible the coins will move before the end of the month but don't worry - I have other coins offline to replace them with if I need to.

I can sign a message saying "dooglus owns this!" with that address if that helps, but so could whoever really owns it (if you're the suspicious type) so I don't see that it really proves anything. My post here should be enough, right?

More specifically

I can sign a message saying "dooglus owns this!" with that address if that helps, but so could whoever really owns it (if you're the suspicious type) so I don't see that it really proves anything. My post here should be enough, right?

It seems that legendary signature campaign manager dooglus never signed a message from the escrow address.

It also said that you have other coins to replace them with if they were lost/spent.

Tspacepilot also posted several times in that thread, but never asked you for a signed message. Why do you think that is? FYI - he did have standing to ask because one of his alts was going to receive payment from the signature campaign (unlike the one he was trolling QS in).

I understand that you are strangely backing tsp blindly, but I really do not think this is a good approach. Why are you so interested in this case anyway? There are plenty of other scammers who cry trust abuse that you take no interest in. Seems suspicious to me.

TSP is not even sure that he is right about me and QS being the same person.

Why don't you help us out. Are you and QS the same person or not?

I have answered this question before, and answering it again is only going to result in my words getting twisted by tsp (and maybe you).

[Panthers52]

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.

Being an alt of someone with Dark Green trust means you get negative trust I am sorry to say but I think you have this backwards

[Panthers52]

Asking to sign a message was trolling?

It was more then just the one post. There were other examples of tsp's trolling I am sure.

It is also unusual that someone who never conducts any trades is so concerned how the reputation system works

[james.lent]

[Vod]

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.

Being an alt of someone with Dark Green trust means you get negative trust I am sorry to say but I think you have this backwards

No, you would get negative trust for being a liar.

You state for a fact you are not QS.  We find out for a fact you are.  You would probably get negative trust from multiple people for dishonesty.

This is why I don't understand why you just don't state for a fact that you are or are not the same person.  Why all the games?

Honestly confused here.

[Coinonomous]

Asking to sign a message was trolling?

It was more then just the one post. There were other examples of tsp's trolling I am sure.

It is also unusual that someone who never conducts any trades is so concerned how the reputation system works

Wow, so questioning how a system works is scammy to you? You are fucking dead nuts crazy dude. Get off the adderall or whatever keeps you up 22 hours a day to post on this fucked up corrupt and criminal forum.

[Quickseller]

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)

[Quickseller]

troll

I am sorry troll, but who are you? Why don't you grow some balls and post an actual argument from a non-troll account?

[Vod]

As TC mentioned, escrowing for yourself is really not a scam.

Well I will have to disagree with TC.

If you escrow, you charge a fee for insurance.

If you escrow yourself, you still charge the fee, but you don't provide any extra insurance at all.

That is the scam.

[Quickseller]

As TC mentioned, escrowing for yourself is really not a scam.

Well I will have to disagree with TC.

If you escrow, you charge a fee for insurance.

If you escrow yourself, you still charge the fee, but you don't provide any extra insurance at all.

That is the scam.

The fee is not insurance, the fee is for your time (ect.).

However the insurance is provided because if I were to hypothetically escrow for my own trade, and lose the money I was holding then I would still need to cover the losses from my own personal funds

[Quickseller]

The escrow fee is factored into the price that both parties agree to. If the buyer is paying the escrow fee, then the seller would be able to agree to a little bit lower of a price, and conversely if the seller is paying the fee, then the buyer would be willing to pay a little bit higher of a price.

[Coinonomous]

I am sorry troll, but who are you? Why don't you grow some balls and post an actual argument from a non-troll account?

Oh shit, really...?? Why?? Because I don't want an unwarranted scammer tag on a hero account from a fucking crooked loser like you, you retarded kid/asshat, which you frequently give out to anyone you even think maybe "Scamming"... You're clearly a stupid fucking hot-headed bullying child kind of mental case. Good luck with that in life, loser.  

Edit - Keep posting your childish bullshit. we all see through it. Your time here is limited. Use it wisely, eh? 

[Vod]

The fee is not insurance, the fee is for your time (ect.).

The fee is insurance.  The escrow is stating he will replace the funds (insure) if you are the victim of fraud.

If you really believe the fee is for your time, explain why newbies shouldn't be escrows.  Their time is just as valuable as yours, they just can't insure it because they don't have the reputation.

Escrowing for yourself, esp if the other person isn't aware it's your alt - is fraud and scammy behavior.  Since you and the escrow are the same person, why do you get paid twice for your time?