Quickseller escrowing for himself

[dooglus]

He explained it better here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12348272#msg12348272

Nobody is buying that lame excuse.

He could set a policy of denying his ownership of any alt he has escrowed for, and otherwise not commenting.

Then a "no comment" is not a "de-facto yes".

[Hazelnut]

He explained it better here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12348272#msg12348272

You believe that? have you considered the possibility that he made that up to try and get out of a tight corner? Or is your faith in him is so absolute that you are incapable of thinking for yourself?

This thread has been fantastic. It shows how far otherwise trustworthy people would bend their morals rather than admit that they were wrong in their judgement (TC, Blazedout419, Blazr, xetsr). Credit to Vod for being able to see this with an open mind. If anything it would have been easy for him to fall in the same pattern as you as he is tageted so much.

How have I bent my morals exactly? I clearly stated that escrowing for yourself would be wrong. I can not say that Panthers and QS are one in the same. Please explain where I have done something that is even slightly immoral.

In a neutral position you would've looked at the situation and evaluate. In this case your belief in QS makes you arrive at

Ah good I really did not think he would do that as he knows better.

even though he hasn't said that clearly. The irony in this situation is that you believe in QS, and he fooled you into giving him feedback on two accounts, essentially abusing your default trust position. I am sure if you didn't have full faith in him you would have realised all this long back.

[xetsr]

He explained it better here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12348272#msg12348272

You believe that? have you considered the possibility that he made that up to try and get out of a tight corner? Or is your faith in him is so absolute that you are incapable of thinking for yourself?

This thread has been fantastic. It shows how far otherwise trustworthy people would bend their morals rather than admit that they were wrong in their judgement (TC, Blazedout419, Blazr, xetsr). Credit to Vod for being able to see this with an open mind. If anything it would have been easy for him to fall in the same pattern as you as he is tageted so much.

Why wouldn't I believe that? Most "scam busters" use alts on this forum when buying and selling to or from those they don't trust or don't want to have certain personal info.

I posted several times I'm not taking sides, just pointing out things others would eventually point out...  Do I think Panthers and QS are the same? I have no idea. I mean, QS has done a pretty good job outing scammers and based on what I've read, I would have thought he wouldn't have made it this easy to out his alt like this. What I am sure of is TSP's algo / script proves nothing very little and he's basically doing the same thing he claims QS did to him. Not sure why nobody else sees that though so maybe I'm wrong.

Do I think it's wrong for you to escrow for yourself? Absolutely. This is scammy behavior IMO.

[Blazed]

He explained it better here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12348272#msg12348272

You believe that? have you considered the possibility that he made that up to try and get out of a tight corner? Or is your faith in him is so absolute that you are incapable of thinking for yourself?

This thread has been fantastic. It shows how far otherwise trustworthy people would bend their morals rather than admit that they were wrong in their judgement (TC, Blazedout419, Blazr, xetsr). Credit to Vod for being able to see this with an open mind. If anything it would have been easy for him to fall in the same pattern as you as he is tageted so much.

How have I bent my morals exactly? I clearly stated that escrowing for yourself would be wrong. I can not say that Panthers and QS are one in the same. Please explain where I have done something that is even slightly immoral.

In a neutral position you would've looked at the situation and evaluate. In this case your belief in QS makes you arrive at

Ah good I really did not think he would do that as he knows better.

even though he hasn't said that clearly. The irony in this situation is that you believe in QS, and he fooled you into giving him feedback on two accounts, essentially abusing your default trust position. I am sure if you didn't have full faith in him you would have realised all this long back.

The feedback he earned from me was not from any sort of abuse. Read the post I made that you have quoted... "looks to me he did said no." - I replied to that statement. This is why I try to avoid replying in these type of threads. I have nothing to even do with this situation...yet sock accounts are trying to drag me into it and question my morals

[Vod]

Why wouldn't I believe that? Most "scam busters" use alts on this forum when buying and selling to or from those they don't trust or don't want to have certain personal info.

I don't.  

But then again, I no longer do BTC commerce.  I can see the validity in having a single alt to do business with, but I can't see the reason to have many alts, giving feedback to each other, supporting each other in public debates, giving each other positive feedback, etc.  Reeks of reputation building to me, and this forum RELIES on reputation.

yet sock accounts are trying to drag me into it and question my morals

I simply ignore sock accounts, regardless if they are on my side or not.  If you can't stand behind your words and you need to be anonymous, your words are worth less than mine.

[tspacepilot]

What I am sure of is TSP's algo / script proves nothing and he's basically doing the same thing he claims QS did to him. Not sure why nobody else sees that though so maybe I'm wrong.

Now there I think you're going a bit too far.  I agree that everyone should evaluate the evidence I presented for themself and I'm not going back on that.  But I think if you say that it "proves nothing" then you're missing the fact that .5 million words of text is not easily come by, and statistical analysis of a corpus that size isn't something that you can just write off as irrelevant.

I also think it's in no way fair to suggest that I'm doing to him what he's done to me.  I'm not on default trust and I don't want to be put there.  I do think that people on default trust should not be using it to attack people for personal grudges.  QS has attacked me with 4 different account now and has repeatedly attempted to smear me off of the forum.  I've done nothing but to try to stand up for myself against a bully.

When it turns out that this bully is providing himself escrow services and I come across hard, quantitative evidence of it and I present it to the public, that's in no way the same thing as using some power that I have (I'm not on default trust, I have no power in the current system) to defame someone.  I have presented my evidence and I ask others to decide what to think.  QS has done quite the opposite to me, he neg-repped me without presenting any evidence and when he finally presented his "case" literally everyone is telling him to drop it.  He left a default trust rating on me and refuses to change it despite the consensus of his peers that he should do so.  I have no default trust rating to leave and I merely present some facts I uncovered and I ask you all to judge.  There's a big difference there.

[xetsr]

Why wouldn't I believe that? Most "scam busters" use alts on this forum when buying and selling to or from those they don't trust or don't want to have certain personal info.

I don't.  

But then again, I no longer do BTC commerce.  I can see the validity in having a single alt to do business with, but I can't see the reason to have many alts, giving feedback to each other, supporting each other in public debates, giving each other positive feedback, etc.  Reeks of reputation building to me, and this forum RELIES on reputation.

yet sock accounts are trying to drag me into it and question my morals

I simply ignore sock accounts, regardless if they are on my side or not.  If you can't stand behind your words and you need to be anonymous, your words are worth less than mine.

That's why I said most. I never said anything about giving feedback to other alts or anything you mentioned above, that's just wrong for someone to do. IMO if caught, they should be labeled a scammer unless there is a VERY good reason. I could only think of one reason, but scammers would also use that so it doesn't matter.

[jonald_fyookball]

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

also would be curious what my corpus score is

[xetsr]

What I am sure of is TSP's algo / script proves nothing and he's basically doing the same thing he claims QS did to him. Not sure why nobody else sees that though so maybe I'm wrong.

Now there I think you're going a bit too far. I agree that everyone should evaluate the evidence I presented for themself and I'm not going back on that.  But I think if you say that it "proves nothing" then you're missing the fact that .5 million words of text is not easily come by, and statistical analysis of a corpus that size isn't something that you can just write off as irrelevant.

I also think it's in no way fair to suggest that I'm doing to him what he's done to me.  I'm not on default trust and I don't want to be put there.  I do think that people on default trust should not be using it to attack people for personal grudges.  QS has attacked me with 4 different account now and has repeatedly attempted to smear me off of the forum.  I've done nothing but to try to stand up for myself against a bully.

When it turns out that this bully is providing himself escrow services and I come across hard, quantitative evidence of it and I present it to the public, that's in no way the same thing as using some power that I have (I'm not on default trust, I have no power in the current system) to defame someone.  I have presented my evidence and I ask others to decide what to think.  QS has done quite the opposite to me, he neg-repped me without presenting any evidence and when he finally presented his "case" literally everyone is telling him to drop it.  He left a default trust rating on me and refuses to change it despite the consensus of his peers that he should do so.  I have no default trust rating to leave and I merely present some facts I uncovered and I ask you all to judge.  There's a big difference there.

I did go a little far there, I'll edit that. Like I mentioned before though, that script could easily flag someone wrong and you know how people are very quick to call scam around here. People should use their heads, but it would be much easier for them to believe what a script is telling them. Just like how some blindly follow those with trust, no questions asked. Two very different things but you get what's I'm trying to say?

At the moment, you've done very little to test it out so how do you know that's not a false positive? QS or someone else will just bring this up later.

[Vod]

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

That depends.

Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off.  Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed?

[xetsr]

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

That depends.

Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off.  Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed?

I agree with this. If someone uses their alt, no protection is offered. Same as sending first, right? If they wanted to send first or trusted the buyer or seller they would have just done so and no escrow would have been needed.

[ndnh]

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

That depends.

Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off.  Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed?

I agree with this. If someone uses their alt, no protection is offered. Same as sending first, right? If they wanted to send first or trusted the buyer or seller they would have just done so and no escrow would have been needed.

I agree too. Escrow is supposed to be an independent third-party.

[onemorexmr]

escrowing for himself, but he didnt rip anyone off right?

That depends.

Taking money for the express purpose of protecting goods, and then offering no protection at all could be considered ripping people off.  Why was that extra money paid if it wasn't needed?

I agree with this. If someone uses their alt, no protection is offered. Same as sending first, right? If they wanted to send first or trusted the buyer or seller they would have just done so and no escrow would have been needed.

sending first with an additional escrow-fee

just removed tomatocage from my trustlist because of this:

I don't see how escrowing for himself would be a scam [...]

in case someones interested my new trust list looks like this:
jgarzik
Pieter Wuille
Luke-Jr
gmaxwell
smooth
TECSHARE
-ck
~smoothie
Vod
John (John K.)
~Tomatocage
DeathAndTaxes
BadBear
Blazr
DannyHamilton
rpietila
~nubbins
fluffypony
DefaultTrust
tspacepilot
~Quickseller

(yes i know it contains DefaultTrust. I am using Level 1 and it is by intent)

which displays QS as: Trust: 0: -1 / +13

[ndnh]

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

[Patejl]

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

Maybe you should start a new thread about it, as that discussion will again derail the discussion IMO  .

[xetsr]

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

Maybe you should start a new thread about it, as that discussion will again derail the discussion IMO   .

This thread hasn't been derailed. It's all about TSP's script, QS, Panthers, their shady or alleged shady activity.

He asked why he would fake a ban, still on topic. I'm sure that question has to do with QS and the panthers account which is what this thread is about lol

Someone actually confirmed he wasn't banned? If so, have to admit this just got much more interesting.

[ndnh]

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

Maybe you should start a new thread about it, as that discussion will again derail the discussion IMO   .

I would like it if we have all these discussions relating to QS in a single thread. I think even Quickseller wouldn't want so many threads discussing him, lol.

On the other hand, that is not exactly off-topic. One of the speculated reasons is QS faked the ban so that Panthers52 couldn't be QS since he was active during the ban period. which makes it on-topic.

I still have not been given a reasonable explanation on why Quickseller faked a ban.

He was banned for real, but some bans only last 3 days.

In any case you and everyone else with complaints against quickseller should start giving him negative rep. I will be leaving a negative rep for each incident for now on.

To be frank, I am not interested in leaving any negative trust feedback to anyone without proving him/her guilty.
I have no reasonable evidence to support that, and it remains a speculation.

Doing so would be adopting Quickseller's methods. which is what I am arguing against.

Edit: He was NOT banned.
He faked it using an alt with a username that would mislead people. And pretended to be ban evading while he wasn't.

[tspacepilot]

At the moment, you've done very little to test it out so how do you know that's not a false positive? QS or someone else will just bring this up later.

I think I get your point.  But to be fair to me, I haven't really set any criteria which count as a "positive" to start with.  It's not like I set thresholds and said, people with these metrics are alts.  What I did was create a model of the language of quickseller, and tested that model as a predictor of other account's texts.  I then released these results.  The results are merely descriptive.  They put a direct number on how similar a particular set of texts is to the model of quickseller.  They don't say "if you're this similar, you must be an alt".  That last part is something I purposely left for other people to judge for themselves.

Maybe this will help clarify things: the model is a collection of all of the 1, 2 and 3 word phrases that quickseller has used along with their frequencies across his .5 million words.  It's a pretty big model.  The perplexity numbers I published are nothing but direct evaluations of the postings of other accounts as they relate to the model of quickseller.  To put this in more layman's terms: if I used the same 1 2 and 3 word phrases at the same relative frequencies as quickseller, then my posts would get a very low perplexity score when we use the model of quickseller to predict them.  It turns out that I don't do this, and neither does dooglus, and neither does hillariousandco.  So far, these are the only corpora I've checked.

I hope this explanation helps.  I fell like the way you're calling it my "script" makes it sound like I may have done something mysterious.  I'll I've done is publish some concrete descriptive statistics about the words of 6 particular bitcoin talk accounts.  What you take away from this is up to you.

This thread hasn't been derailed. It's all about TSP's script, QS, Panthers, their shady or alleged shady activity.

Maybe, given the explanation above, and the fact that I've provided all the code you'll need to replicate my work, you could start calling it "the information that tsp presented" or "tsp's experimental results".  I feel like calling it my "script" or "algorithm" is a bit of a misuderstanding.

[Vod]

BadBear would know if QS was banned.

BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.

[Quickseller]

BadBear would know if QS was banned.

BadBear would probably remove QS from DT if QS lied about being banned - but that is just my thoughts.

Look asshole, do you think it would be fair to have my personal information published and my name slandered by enemies that I have made on the forum? When the reason I have made such enemies is because I prevented them from being able to steal from others?

If you think this is fair then please PM me your new/updated contact information so I can update what is below:

Vod:

(please note that most people would present this information in a much harsher way).

Do you think it is fair that I should have to risk my money on the potential that someone else will run away while acting as escrow, when I have built up my own reputation to a level in which others are willing to risk their money on me, if I want to protect my own identity? This is not unheard of and has happened before. If you think this is fair, then why don't you repay shdvb the $400 that was stolen from him by maidak, the $5,000 that was stolen fromandresmm91, and the $10,000 that he apparently stole from someone on OTC? Maidak was previously one of the most reputable people on the forum until it was revealed that he stole all this money.

There is no reason why I should have to risk my money like that just so I can protect my privacy.