Quickseller escrowing for himself

[james.lent]

Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?

Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar... 

[dooglus]

How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?

add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.

Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.

Edit: oh, are you saying I should wipe out my whole trust list other than 2 entries, just keeping in the person I want to examine, and ~DefaultTrust?

[Jhanzo]

How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?

add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.

Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
tried to use that with your name (exluded DT) and found that you have trusted 23 users and excluded QS. if that's wrong then I must be wrong.

Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar... 

just stay in the background, man.

[dooglus]

Since you were dealing with QS, you *did* send first; he may have pretended to send first, but was really only sending to himself?

Now this reminds me of the movie Interstellar... 

Kind of offtopic, but kind of related:

People often appear in the Just-Dice chat asking if I have CLAM for sale for BTC. I often do. Instead of telling them "send X btc to address Y" I'll use the built-in escrow system. It will tell them the amount and address, and hold my CLAMs in escrow until they send the BTC. In a sense I'm escrowing my own deal since I own JD and by extension its escrow system. But there's no fee, they are willing to send first anyway, and I don't think anyone has the expectation that JD is a neutral third party.

[Blazed]

How can you tell? Is there a way of viewing people's trust lists?

add a user to your trust list and you'll be able to see it clear as day. you'll have to exclude DT and remove other users.

Can you give more details? Where do I see it? I've added users to my trust list before and not noticed their trust list appear anywhere.

Edit: oh, are you saying I should wipe out my whole trust list other than 2 entries, just keeping in the person I want to examine, and ~DefaultTrust?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - or under trust settings scroll to the bottom and click on "Hierarchical view"

[deadley]

Click Trust then trust setting then scroll down and Hierarchical view.

You will see who added whom.

[dooglus]

Click Trust then trust setting then scroll down and Hierarchical view.

You will see who added whom.

Got it. Thanks.

[Tomatocage]

I guess you're all just waiting on me now. In light of the evidence that's been presented here, I think it would be prudent at this time to remove QS from my Trust list until the issues can be sorted.

[Patejl]

I guess you're all just waiting on me now

Don't know about the others but I sure was

In light of the evidence that's been presented here, I think it would be prudent at this time to remove QS from my Trust list until the issues can be sorted.

BTW I heard you removed QS from your trust list some time ago, but what made you put him back in, yup he does awesome scam-busting, that might be a reason, but if so, why remove him in the first place?
Lastly I had a question, does you removing QS from defaulttrust mean he is kicked out of DF altogether or will he just drop to a lower Trust level?

[EcuaMobi]

Lastly I had a question, does you removing QS from defaulttrust mean he is kicked out of DF altogether or will he just drop to a lower Trust level?

At the moment both TC and BadBear removed QS from the DT and dooglus has him negated. As a result he has '-1' on level 2 and therefore can't be on any other level, regardless of how many people from DT levels 2+ add him.
If a single person from level 1 adds him then he'd be back on level 2 as I've seen '0' is enough to be there (unless that logic changed recently).

[Patejl]

Lastly I had a question, does you removing QS from defaulttrust mean he is kicked out of DF altogether or will he just drop to a lower Trust level?

At the moment both TC and BadBear removed QS from the DT and dooglus has him negated. As a result he has '-1' on level 2 and therefore can't be on any other level, regardless of how many people from DT levels 2+ add him.
If a single person from level 1 adds him then he'd be back on level 2 as I've seen '0' is enough to be there (unless that logic changed recently).

I dont see the negative rating you claim from dooglus, and by the way the removal won't mean any change in his trust score right?
And btw TC hasn't yet taken out QS from his trust list AFAIK.

[EcuaMobi]

I dont see the negative rating you claim from dooglus

I didn't mean he left a negative rating, I meant he negated QS on the DT as in "~Quickseller" shown as "Quickseller"

and by the way the removal won't mean any change in his trust score right?

No, it doesn't. It just means QS' feedback is shown as untrusted by default.

And btw TC hasn't yet taken out QS from his trust list AFAIK.

He doesn't appear on either TC's or BadBears's list on my side (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full), probably there's some cache.

[jonald_fyookball]

Quickseller is now removed from default trust completely

 

But now a lot of scammers that were negrated by qS wont have red marks.

That's why its important for at least 2-3 DF peeps to do it, because sometimes
people lose the DF.

Not sure why QS wanted to escrow for himself.  Bad decision I guess.

[worhiper_-_]

I guess you're all just waiting on me now. In light of the evidence that's been presented here, I think it would be prudent at this time to remove QS from my Trust list until the issues can be sorted.

Tomatocage, this isn't the first time you remove Quickseller from your trust list. Even if the issues are resolved, do you think there's good reason to add him back in default trust? He just keeps getting involved in controversial stories.

[tspacepilot]

Quickseller is now removed from default trust completely

 

But now a lot of scammers that were negrated by qS wont have red marks.

Could you say who they are?  If it's actually clear that they are scammers, surely one of the other default-trusters will be happy to mark them.

If it's not so clear that they are scammers, perhaps they ought to be offered the benefit of the doubt given QS' shoot first, rationalize later modus operandi.

That's why its important for at least 2-3 DF peeps to do it, because sometimes
people lose the DF.

Not sure why QS wanted to escrow for himself.  Bad decision I guess.

Isn't it pretty clear why?  He says so himself just upthread:

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.   

^^^He believes that his "contribution" makes him above the rules that the rest of us mortals are supposed to abide by.  If we were all "scambusters" like quickseller, then we'd be free to interpret ethical principals to our own advantage too.

[jonald_fyookball]

Could you say who they are?  

I didn't mean you... if thats what you're asking.

Just noob loan spammers that need to be swatted.

But yeah, its not acceptable to escrow for one's self, I think... even if there was no fees involved,
because its representing one as a third neutral party when that is not the case.

[tspacepilot]

Could you say who they are? 

I didn't mean you... if thats what you're asking.

Just noob loan spammers that need to be swatted.

I didn't necessarily take it that way, I meant my comment quite directly: if someone lists them and they're clearly scammers, surely someone else on the standard trust list will mark them.  If it's not so clear, maybe they've been unfairly repped, as was QS' wont.

[tmfp]

Quickseller is now removed from default trust completely

 

But now a lot of scammers that were negrated by qS wont have red marks.

Could you say who they are?  If it's actually clear that they are scammers, surely one of the other default-trusters will be happy to mark them.

If it's not so clear that they are scammers, perhaps they ought to be offered the benefit of the doubt given QS' shoot first, rationalize later modus operandi.

It's quite easy to see who they are, just look at Quickseller's sent negative feedback and you'll find them. Loads of them.
A quick look thru the list confirms that the vast majority of her 'policing/scam busting' involved marking operators of ponzi type games in the Investor Games section, and collateral free newbie would be borrowers in the Lending section.
Hardly master criminals.
Seeing as QS appears to have been operating with Tomatocage's vicarious blessing, I'd suggest that TC should find time to look thru this loooong list and, should he find situations where a serious scammer may be getting off a legitimate hook, that he reinforce QS's now impotent neg trust with some of his own red stuff.

This whole episode is a clusterfuck which only strengthens the arguments against centralized trust, potentially creating far more opportunity for the scammers it was supposedly set up to neutralize.

[tspacepilot]

This whole episode is a clusterfuck which only strengthens the arguments against centralized trust, potentially creating far more opportunity for the scammers it was supposedly set up to neutralize.

I couldn't agree more.  Links to relevant threads for those who may want to follow up:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1031791.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.0

[alani123]

Despite the fact that QS is out of default, most of the people he had sent negative trust ratings to still have a red rating as he wasn't the only one to go after them.

The list of people with a non-negative overall trust score while they have a negative rating from qs is smaller than the total.

http://pastebin.com/w4ex68rN part1
http://pastebin.com/a7PNVhD5 part2

The above is a somewhat accurate list of accounts with a neutral overal trust score that had received a negative trust rating from Quickseller.