Quickseller escrowing for himself

[Vod]

Why am I an asshole now?  I'm the only one giving you the benefit of the doubt here.     I actually believe you were banned (and not lying about it) because otherwise I'm sure BB would say something - he wouldn't have someone in his trust list who lies about being banned.

Martin Lawrence
46 Sheridan Dr St. Albert, Alberta Canada (source that is publicly available)
(please note that most people would present this information in a much harsher way).

All you are doing is harassing the old black woman that lives there - one that happens to share my first initial.  Good on you QS.  Burn one of your few friends.    

[1715654923]

1715654923

[1715654923]

1715654923

[OgNasty]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

[ndnh]

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.

Are you actually admitting it? 

[Quickseller]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

[Quickseller]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

This is not me rejecting others who I trust, this is me protecting myself by having my trading partner trust someone they willingly trust with their money.

The overall price of a good that two consenting parties agree to will always factor in any escrow costs (or lack thereof)

[OgNasty]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer?  Now you are spreading lies.

Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.

[Quickseller]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer?  Now you are spreading lies.

Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.

I've learned that when people deflect, they are usually in the wrong.

https://bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=00020150725135246063Xsvs9J9J06AE

Price: $340 (1.414BTC)/each
Price you are charging 1.515BTC/each

Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.

I am unsure about this particular case, however I have seen other cases when cost from you > cost+shipping from SP/BITMAIN (I never wrote down specific examples, but I did check). I don't see anything wrong with this, if you can provide good customer service, and can provide assurances that there is zero chance whoever buys from you will not get scammed, then why shouldn't you be able to sell at high prices?

[OgNasty]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer?  Now you are spreading lies.

Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.

I've learned that when people deflect, they are usually in the wrong.

https://bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=00020150725135246063Xsvs9J9J06AE

Price: $340 (1.414BTC)/each
Price you are charging 1.515BTC/each

They are not available as you claim and I offer free shipping.  They do not.

Nice try deflecting.

The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service.  Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.

[tmfp]

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

I struggle with QS's syntax, but this seems to me like a confirmation and attempted justification of acting as an escrow in deals in which he was one of the principles. Am I reading this correctly?

[Patejl]

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

I struggle with QS's syntax, but this seems to me like a confirmation and attempted justification of acting as an escrow in deals in which he was one of the principles. Am I reading this correctly?

Yup you got it right, I gonna take a archive of this, so that later QS doesn't claim his account was hacked or anything, he is acting weird this days, maybe anger does this to people.

[Vod]

The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service.  Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.

I guess the ball now lies in the court of TomatoCage and BadBear - they are the ones giving him the power to lie and cheat.

[Hazelnut]

The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service.  Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.

I guess the ball now lies in the court of TomatoCage and BadBear - they are the ones giving him the power to lie and cheat.

BB has removed QS from his trust list.

[deadley]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

This is not me rejecting others who I trust, this is me protecting myself by having my trading partner trust someone they willingly trust with their money.

The overall price of a good that two consenting parties agree to will always factor in any escrow costs (or lack thereof)

You are thinking for your protection then where is the protection for other side. Escrow doesn't mean you will protect only your side.

You mention Maidak,  now tell us if you ever try to scam are you going Maidak style first make great reputation then start scamming through giving escrow to your sock account.

[Patejl]

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.

BB has removed QS from his trust list.

Yeah TC had removed him from his trust list as well, don't know why he added him back.
P.S: I'd love to see Blazr's  face and TC's right now.

[Vod]

The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service.  Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.

I guess the ball now lies in the court of TomatoCage and BadBear - they are the ones giving him the power to lie and cheat.

BB has removed QS from his trust list.

I wonder if this means QS lied about being banned?

Oh well, I'm not going to speculate.  Things will work themselves out.

[tmfp]

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

I hope nobody is seriously going to try and get this to fly as a justification for what QS has owned up to.

[Quickseller]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

Where are those miners available directly from the manufacturer?  Now you are spreading lies.

Not to mention if you factor in shipping mine are still cheaper.

I've learned that when people deflect, they are usually in the wrong.

https://bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=00020150725135246063Xsvs9J9J06AE

Price: $340 (1.414BTC)/each
Price you are charging 1.515BTC/each

They are not available as you claim and I offer free shipping.  They do not.

Nice try deflecting.

The issue here is you charging money for providing a 3rd party service which was not a 3rd party service.  Now that you have admitted it, I await the backlash from those who have left you positive trust.

If anyone who has paid for my escrow services wishes to get a refund they are more then welcome to do so.

However even if "my alt" were to have paid for any escrow fee that I charged, the negotiation process would have worked in a way that would have allowed them to receive a higher starting price (or pay a lower starting price).

There is no difference between saying "I will sell 2 BTC @bitstamp+1%, and I will pay the escrow fee" and saying "I will sell 2 BTC @Bitstamp and you pay the escrow fee"

[Quickseller]

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

Even if this was a reasonable stance (consider me Switzerland)...  Did you have to charge others $ for it?

The overall deal that anyone got when dealing with me was one they were happy with. This is little different then you charging more for miners then is available directly from the manufacturer

This is not me rejecting others who I trust, this is me protecting myself by having my trading partner trust someone they willingly trust with their money.

The overall price of a good that two consenting parties agree to will always factor in any escrow costs (or lack thereof)

You are thinking for your protection then where is the protection for other side. Escrow doesn't mean you will protect only your side.

You mention Maidak,  now tell us if you ever try to scam are you going Maidak style first make great reputation then start scamming through giving escrow to your sock account.

If the other party is comfortable sending first in a direct trade (as would be indicated by the other party trusting me with escrow), then there is no difference in having them trust me as escrow. The other party accepting me as escrow means they trust me more then if they were to do a direct trade. 

[Vod]

If the other party is comfortable sending first in a direct trade (as would be indicated by the other party trusting me with escrow), then there is no difference in having them trust me as escrow. The other party accepting me as escrow means they trust me more then if they were to do a direct trade.  

Of course the other party is going to be comfortable and trusting.  You have been outright lying to them, telling them whatever they want to hear.

The key to being a good escrow is honesty and openness.  You should not be doing any escrow, period.

[Quickseller]

If the other party is comfortable sending first in a direct trade (as would be indicated by the other party trusting me with escrow), then there is no difference in having them trust me as escrow. The other party accepting me as escrow means they trust me more then if they were to do a direct trade. 

Of course the other party is going to be comfortable and trusting.  You have been outright lying to them, telling them whatever they want to hear.

The key to being a good escrow is honesty and openness.  You should not be doing any escrow, period.

Please point out the lie. Do you have an escrow agreement that says explicitly that I am not either the buyer nor the seller?