Quickseller escrowing for himself

[OgNasty]

I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades

We very much disagree on this point.  I will state publicly that users of my escrow service can be 100% guaranteed that I am acting as an independent 3rd party.

Isn't it known who OgNasty is?  I thought he was an Asian dude who runs a mining company....or something.

I'm not asian.  This is what I'm known for running: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.0

[onemorexmr]

And I actually find it kind of funny how so many people think I'm QuickSeller. And now QuickSeller himself thinks I'm OgNasty. I mean how cool would that be to have two accounts in DefaultTrust?

you mean like Wardrick claims to have and QS had at some point?
in my book you arent QS. but have you changed your mind regarding "its not a scam to escrow own trades"? i'd really like to put you back on my trust list... but with this just statement i just...cant...

Other than "OldScammerTag", there's only like a dozen or so guys in DefaultTrust, which is what I was referring to. I don't think QS ever claimed to have any accounts in that tier.

ok, understood

And I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades, though let's call it what it really is: A deal in which you're sending first. However, tacking on additional escrow fees and making the counter party pay it is what tips the scales toward the shady side of things.

damn. i think its deceiving and scammy - even without escrow fees.

users on this forum cant check if someone is an alt. only badbear can (to some extent). so even if someone is on DT we should assume that he is not trustworthy as escrow, because the hole point of escrow is a trusted third-party and not that the other part is trustworthy (that is a big difference).

best practice would be that the customer selects multiple escrows and trader selects one which fits, or do you have another suggestion?

[Quickseller]

And I actually find it kind of funny how so many people think I'm QuickSeller. And now QuickSeller himself thinks I'm OgNasty. I mean how cool would that be to have two accounts in DefaultTrust?

you mean like Wardrick claims to have and QS had at some point?
in my book you arent QS. but have you changed your mind regarding "its not a scam to escrow own trades"? i'd really like to put you back on my trust list... but with this just statement i just...cant...

Other than "OldScammerTag", there's only like a dozen or so guys in DefaultTrust, which is what I was referring to. I don't think QS ever claimed to have any accounts in that tier. And I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades, though let's call it what it really is: A deal in which you're sending first. However, tacking on additional escrow fees and making the counter party pay it is what tips the scales toward the shady side of things.

Where he is the thing, if someone is selling a widget and they want to have $100 in their pocket after all costs to them then there is no difference to the seller if I were to say that I would offer $101 for the widget and the seller pay any escrow fee, or if I were to say that I offer $100 and I pay any escrow fees (assuming in both cases that the escrow fee is $1). In both scenarios, the seller ends up with $100 in their pocket (both scenarios also ignore shipping costs).

However with that being said, in my experience, there is a greater chance that the person is not paying the escrow fee will send a tip my direction when acting as escrow. Therefore, if I were to use the scenario in which I cover the escrow fee (I offer $100 but I cover the escrow fee), then the seller may feel additionally compelled to tip me verses if the seller was paying the escrow fee - this would especially be the case if I were to release escrow while I would be able to quickly access my escrow wallet, so the seller not paying the fee + quick/good service = the seller being further pressured to send a tip, even if one is not solicited.

This is why I say that when escrowing your own trade that having the other party pay the escrow fee is going to be the most transparent way to handle business because they will know exactly how much money they are due, and will be minimally pressured to leave any kind of tip.

[onemorexmr]

And I actually find it kind of funny how so many people think I'm QuickSeller. And now QuickSeller himself thinks I'm OgNasty. I mean how cool would that be to have two accounts in DefaultTrust?

you mean like Wardrick claims to have and QS had at some point?
in my book you arent QS. but have you changed your mind regarding "its not a scam to escrow own trades"? i'd really like to put you back on my trust list... but with this just statement i just...cant...

Other than "OldScammerTag", there's only like a dozen or so guys in DefaultTrust, which is what I was referring to. I don't think QS ever claimed to have any accounts in that tier. And I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades, though let's call it what it really is: A deal in which you're sending first. However, tacking on additional escrow fees and making the counter party pay it is what tips the scales toward the shady side of things.

Where he is the thing, if someone is selling a widget and they want to have $100 in their pocket after all costs to them then there is no difference to the seller if I were to say that I would offer $101 for the widget and the seller pay any escrow fee, or if I were to say that I offer $100 and I pay any escrow fees (assuming in both cases that the escrow fee is $1). In both scenarios, the seller ends up with $100 in their pocket (both scenarios also ignore shipping costs).

However with that being said, in my experience, there is a greater chance that the person is not paying the escrow fee will send a tip my direction when acting as escrow. Therefore, if I were to use the scenario in which I cover the escrow fee (I offer $100 but I cover the escrow fee), then the seller may feel additionally compelled to tip me verses if the seller was paying the escrow fee - this would especially be the case if I were to release escrow while I would be able to quickly access my escrow wallet, so the seller not paying the fee + quick/good service = the seller being further pressured to send a tip, even if one is not solicited.

This is why I say that when escrowing your own trade that having the other party pay the escrow fee is going to be the most transparent way to handle business because they will know exactly how much money they are due, and will be minimally pressured to leave any kind of tip.

the difference is when it comes to a dispute.
have you ever been in a fight or misunderstanding? only a third party can be free of emotions and decide fairly

[Tomatocage]

I have no idea who is who's alt, but what if something happens like:
1. I make an agreement with X, and an escrow Y who is actually an alt of X, which no one is aware of (No one is aware of who is who's alt around here, so it is a completely possible speculation)
2. After I send say 1BTC to escrow, I get no reply.
3. Game over.

I start a scam accusation, I will be dealing with the escrow and the seller, both of them who are supposedly independent agrees that I have not paid 1BTC to anyone. If I am, say a jr. member (easy target), how many would be on my side arguing against say, Quickseller?

Sure, there's that scenario, but why does X even have to be involved? The same thing could happen in a direct non-escrow deal. The same trust and expectation would be involved. The simple solution to that is to arrange the deal out in the open.

[Quickseller]

And I actually find it kind of funny how so many people think I'm QuickSeller. And now QuickSeller himself thinks I'm OgNasty. I mean how cool would that be to have two accounts in DefaultTrust?

you mean like Wardrick claims to have and QS had at some point?
in my book you arent QS. but have you changed your mind regarding "its not a scam to escrow own trades"? i'd really like to put you back on my trust list... but with this just statement i just...cant...

Other than "OldScammerTag", there's only like a dozen or so guys in DefaultTrust, which is what I was referring to. I don't think QS ever claimed to have any accounts in that tier. And I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades, though let's call it what it really is: A deal in which you're sending first. However, tacking on additional escrow fees and making the counter party pay it is what tips the scales toward the shady side of things.

Where he is the thing, if someone is selling a widget and they want to have $100 in their pocket after all costs to them then there is no difference to the seller if I were to say that I would offer $101 for the widget and the seller pay any escrow fee, or if I were to say that I offer $100 and I pay any escrow fees (assuming in both cases that the escrow fee is $1). In both scenarios, the seller ends up with $100 in their pocket (both scenarios also ignore shipping costs).

However with that being said, in my experience, there is a greater chance that the person is not paying the escrow fee will send a tip my direction when acting as escrow. Therefore, if I were to use the scenario in which I cover the escrow fee (I offer $100 but I cover the escrow fee), then the seller may feel additionally compelled to tip me verses if the seller was paying the escrow fee - this would especially be the case if I were to release escrow while I would be able to quickly access my escrow wallet, so the seller not paying the fee + quick/good service = the seller being further pressured to send a tip, even if one is not solicited.

This is why I say that when escrowing your own trade that having the other party pay the escrow fee is going to be the most transparent way to handle business because they will know exactly how much money they are due, and will be minimally pressured to leave any kind of tip.

the difference is when it comes to a dispute.
have you ever been in a fight or misunderstanding? only a third party can be free of emotions and decide fairly

When escrowing my own deals? No.
Also, I know if I have sent/received whatever is being traded, and am going to act honestly (as I am being trusted to be as much) so if the other person is 100% above board then there will be no issues, and if they are trying to scam me then I will 100% know for sure.

[ndnh]

PQ (alt of QR) agrees to sell something to xyz (a jr. member) using QR as escrow. xyz sents the payment to QR.
Both of them denies receiving the payment. What can xyz do?

Even if xyz starts a scam accusation, he is not likely to succeed arguing against PQ and QR, who will be seen as independent persons with at least one of them of good repute.

And as BadBear pointed out, escrow will very likely always be siding with PQ.

[Quickseller]

Escrowing for yourself...on the one hand if someone is using Quickseller as an escrow, then they are using him because they trust him, or at the very least because they think his reputation is worth more than what they are trading. Him being part of the trade doesn't change that, and it still provides the peace of mind that an escrow can provide.

On the other hand, an escrow is supposed to be an impartial mediator in the event of disputes, which would be very difficult to do when being part of the trade. Even if he knew or thought he wouldn't do anything wrong in the process of the transaction, disputes can still arise when neither party has done anything wrong. That and taking additional fees isn't really the right thing to do. It's probably something one should avoid.

If you and I are doing a direct trade, and I send money directly to you (without escrow), and the goods never arrive to my address, and you are unable to provide any kind of proof that you sent the items, don't you think it would be expected of you to return such money (and learn your lesson to next time keep better documentation)?

I can't speak for anyone else, however if I was selling something to someone and a similar to the above situation were to occur (including others that I may not have been described but would still be my fault), then I would certainly refund the buyer. I can even say that a situation similar to this even occurred that resulted in a partial refund to someone I sold a miner to (you can check my trusted feedback).

If I am able to act this way in a direct trade, then why would I not be able to act this way when acting as an escrow?  

edit: see my previous post regarding the fee

[Mitchell]

Alright, apparently people keep posting stuff about me here and I don't really like that. Yes, I've left both QuickSeller and Panthers52 a positive trust rating. Why? Because I did successful business with them without using escrow. I didn't even know that Panthers52 was an alt of QuickSeller and would have never guessed that. Panthers52 paid extra so that the coin got here before I went on vacation, I call that good business and I don't see how that could ever be considered as buying trust (yes, I'm talking to you Hazelnut). Kialara does the same for my group buys, he pays extra so that the package arrives quickly and I can distribute them in a timely manner. Does he also buy trust because of that? Don't be ridiculous. Anyway, I will not remove my trust feedback as I don't see how the current situation has anything to do with those ratings. If you have a problem with that, go ahead and complain, but as long as I don't see a very good reason to remove them, I won't.

However, I do not approve of this behaviour. If someone escrow your transactions, that person should be someone that you don't know and that isn't you. This is an opinion I've stated quite a few times in my signature overview thread (in which sed, and others, did harass me to remove the small paid advertisement I had in the OP to compensate for the time I put into it, but that is off-topic here).

I have nothing else to add to this discussion and I would prefer to be left out of this. Thank you.

[Quickseller]

Quickseller doesn't have any notable alts that I know of,

There is apparently a 13 page thread about a "probable alt" of quicklseller.

I removed Quickseller because he was acting to deceive people, and I can't, and won't, be a part of that (he wasn't banned) if I know about it. I don't think he had bad intentions, or is a bad person, just maybe didn't think it all the way through.

I obviously have made a number of enemies during my tenure here. The primary reason for this is because I have cost a lot of people (who were trying to steal/scam) a lot of money (that they were trying to steal/scam). I think I also have the reputation of being someone who is able to stop a scam in it's tracks. Naturally, this would mean that there would be great value to someone who was planni(ng a scam in the future.

I cannot speak for you, and I cannot speak for TC (nor anyone else in similar positions), however I somewhat assume you are in a better situation then I am. However if I were to get approached by someone who was planning on executing a scam in the future and were to receive a message saying they would say that QS is "John Smith" who lives at "123 main street" and that person is a Pedo (or some other 100% BS) then I would most likely vouch for them. That is something that I am simply not willing to risk, unfortunately.

With the above being said, I have received reports from NDNHC that he is receiving requests from newbies via PM (I have no idea if this is true or not) who are asking him to make (obviously fake/BS) scam accusations against me. Granted this information was not told to me until after the alleged indiscretion. However it is no secret that scammer, and scammer hopeful's would love to get their hands on personal information of those who might call them out as scammers in the future.

I would not be surprised if "random newbies" were to approach the accounts that Panthers52 had goods shipped to, with allegations that Panthers52 scammed them (without or with bogus proof obviously), and asking for personal information so legal action can be taken, ect. Do you think it would be entirely unreasonable for someone to fall for that kind of ruse?

With all that being said, do you think that the "ends might justify the means" in this situation? Maybe such deception was to avoid a situation that would result in a scam that is discovered be endorsed because of a (successful) extortion attempt.

Additionally, such no deception resulted in not (attempted or actual) financial gain (see above RE: the escrow fee).

I think it is probably fair to say, that if either you, theymos, or TC were to accidentally leak what could result in their/your personal information being disclosed, that any of you would take steps to prevent such information from appearing credible.

I can say with great certainty that you absolutely do not  want your personal information disclosed to the public

I don't have a strong stance on tspacepilot's feedback, or turtlehurricane's. I probably wouldn't leave the negative feedback myself, but I don't strongly disagree with it either.

Your (or TC) probably should, especially the later considering how much commerce he (claims to) engage in.

[everaja]

PQ (alt of QR) agrees to sell something to xyz (a jr. member) using QR as escrow. xyz sents the payment to QR.
Both of them denies receiving the payment. What can xyz do?

Even if xyz starts a scam accusation, he is not likely to succeed arguing against PQ and QR, who will be seen as independent persons with at least one of them of good repute.

And as BadBear pointed out, escrow will very likely always be siding with PQ.

Very strong Point indeed !!
xyz can do nothing , instead he can throw some heavy amount to DOX the Guy. I also assume this type of scenario is quite possible.

[tmfp]

I still stand by my original assertion that it's not a scam per se to escrow your own trades

It depends how you define a scam.
An escrow isn't an escrow unless it is a third party, by definition.
That's fact.
You can Caveat Emptor, you can Bitcoin is Different, you can whatever, but that is a fact. A trading counterparty that pretends, thru an alias, to also be a third party escrow, is a liar indulging in deception for their own benefit.

If one party withholds information relevant to a financial transaction so that they benefit and the counterparty doesn't, is that a scam?
If one party lies by omission, offering to use an "escrow" which is not an escrow at all because it is them in disguise, is that a scam?

You could probably answer no, they aren't scams because nobody lost anything.

Is the attitude necessary to not only behave like that, but to also continually attempt to justify doing it when caught out, indicative of anything?
Yes it is.
Would I trust with someone with that attitude?
Would I fuck.
I'd count my fingers after shaking hands with them.

[shorena]

-snip-
With all that being said, do you think that the "ends might justify the means" in this situation?
-snip-

I dont. I understand that you are protective about your privacy, so are many here. Some have more to fear others less. NO amount of scam busting puts you in a position where its ok to do shady things. Try if you can and see your actions in this thread as if they where someone elses. Would you consider that person trustworthy?

[BadBear]

Escrowing for yourself...on the one hand if someone is using Quickseller as an escrow, then they are using him because they trust him, or at the very least because they think his reputation is worth more than what they are trading. Him being part of the trade doesn't change that, and it still provides the peace of mind that an escrow can provide.

On the other hand, an escrow is supposed to be an impartial mediator in the event of disputes, which would be very difficult to do when being part of the trade. Even if he knew or thought he wouldn't do anything wrong in the process of the transaction, disputes can still arise when neither party has done anything wrong. That and taking additional fees isn't really the right thing to do. It's probably something one should avoid.

If you and I are doing a direct trade, and I send money directly to you (without escrow), and the goods never arrive to my address, and you are unable to provide any kind of proof that you sent the items, don't you think it would be expected of you to return such money (and learn your lesson to next time keep better documentation)?

I can't speak for anyone else, however if I was selling something to someone and a similar to the above situation were to occur (including others that I may not have been described but would still be my fault), then I would certainly refund the buyer. I can even say that a situation similar to this even occurred that resulted in a partial refund to someone I sold a miner to (you can check my trusted feedback).

If I am able to act this way in a direct trade, then why would I not be able to act this way when acting as an escrow?  

edit: see my previous post regarding the fee

I can handle reports related to my posts. I have a vast and very complete knowledge of forum rules and policies, precedents related to them, and am probably best equipped to do it. But I don't, because there would be an inherent bias and conflict of interest, whether I see it or not. It's just the proper way to do it, and helps to put others at ease (though odds are nobody would ever know). Everyone is biased to some extent, it's best to minimize it as much as possible. If for nothing else, than for public perception.

There is apparently a 13 page thread about a "probable alt" of quicklseller.

Indeed. Edited my post to clarify.
 

With all that being said, do you think that the "ends might justify the means" in this situation? Maybe such deception was to avoid a situation that would result in a scam that is discovered be endorsed because of a (successful) extortion attempt.

Additionally, such no deception resulted in not (attempted or actual) financial gain (see above RE: the escrow fee).

I think it is probably fair to say, that if either you, theymos, or TC were to accidentally leak what could result in their/your personal information being disclosed, that any of you would take steps to prevent such information from appearing credible.

I can say with great certainty that you absolutely do not  want your personal information disclosed to the public

You can do what you want, but you brought me into it, and I can't risk my reputation and the trust I've built up over the years. Being trustworthy, credible, and reliable as an admin is too important, more than any one person, including me (as a person). With that in mind, no the ends don't justify the means, I wouldn't lie to cover up my personal information either.

Whether the deception resulted in monetary gain is irrelevant. It's the betrayal of trust that matters. It's very hard to gain that back once it's lost, if not impossible.

Like I said, I'm sorry about the situation your in, but it's a situation of your own making. Tangled web, deceit, etc.

[Wardrick]

@BadBear I'm kind of confused right now, my understanding is that you removed QS for faking a ban and not for the escrow issue, or was it because of both?

How do you know it wasn't someone else behind the "qs banned" and "panthers52" accounts?

I heard from a few people that someone might have been bruteforcing default router passwords of bitcoin users to use their IP as a proxy. Do you know anything about this? it has happened to many Bitcoin nodes and  the leaked DB here is a suspected source as it appears the hackers have knowledge of things that are likely in the DB. Maybe IP evidence isn't so useful, I hope your accusations aren't based solely on that.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@BadBear I'm kind of confused right now, my understanding is that you removed QS for faking a ban and not for the escrow issue, or was it because of both?

How do you know it wasn't someone else behind the "qs banned" and "panthers52" accounts?

I heard from a few people that someone might have been bruteforcing default router passwords of bitcoin users to use their IP as a proxy. Do you know anything about this? it has happened to many Bitcoin nodes and  the leaked DB here is a suspected source as it appears the hackers have knowledge of things that are likely in the DB. Maybe IP evidence isn't so useful, I hope your accusations aren't based solely on that.

You seem very concerned about Quickseller buddy. Relax it's not your issue is it?

[Wardrick]

@BadBear I'm kind of confused right now, my understanding is that you removed QS for faking a ban and not for the escrow issue, or was it because of both?

How do you know it wasn't someone else behind the "qs banned" and "panthers52" accounts?

I heard from a few people that someone might have been bruteforcing default router passwords of bitcoin users to use their IP as a proxy. Do you know anything about this? it has happened to many Bitcoin nodes and  the leaked DB here is a suspected source as it appears the hackers have knowledge of things that are likely in the DB. Maybe IP evidence isn't so useful, I hope your accusations aren't based solely on that.

You seem very concerned about Quickseller buddy. Relax it's not your issue is it?

If you have evidence that I am an alt of QS then please post it here. Please do not attempt to spread FUD. Lots of people have met me here in RL meetups and know who I am. I promise you I am not QS nor am I a close friend or anything, I have stated such many times and nobody has provided any evidence otherwise, so please don't try to mislead people.

It is mostly tspacepilot I am concerned about. He is the one who pulled a scam and weaseled his way out. I'd just like some clarification from BB on a couple of things is all.

[achow101]

How do you know it wasn't someone else behind the "qs banned" and "panthers52" accounts?

Qs banned posted a message signed with qs pgp proving that he is qs

[Vod]

I removed Quickseller because he was acting to deceive people, and I can't, and won't, be a part of that (he wasn't banned) if I know about it. I don't think he had bad intentions, or is a bad person, just maybe didn't think it all the way through.

So QS outright lied about being banned (for what reasons I don't know).  I don't see how anyone can trust a word of what he types anymore.

[Bardman]

I removed Quickseller because he was acting to deceive people, and I can't, and won't, be a part of that (he wasn't banned) if I know about it. I don't think he had bad intentions, or is a bad person, just maybe didn't think it all the way through.

So QS outright lied about being banned (for what reasons I don't know).  I don't see how anyone can trust a word of what he types anymore.

Funny enough if a random did what quickseller has done until now he would have gotten hundreds of negative ratings easily, yet quickseller has no negative not even neutral from a dt member.