Quickseller escrowing for himself

[redsn0w]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

At the end it didn't affect anything but only his 'reputation'. A lie is always a lie, and he lied so I don't trust a liar and I obviously agree with you (about the self-escrow thing).

[1714708534]

1714708534

[1714708534]

1714708534

[1714708534]

1714708534

[1714708534]

1714708534

[1714708534]

1714708534

[1714708534]

1714708534

[Lavos]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

He created an account called Quickseller - Banned(or something similar) to post in this thread during is fake ban period.

I think that's why he got caught, because people started to think that the admins were protecting him by not banning him again for ban evasion, so they had no choice other than deny that QS has been banned

[redsn0w]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

He created an account called Quickseller - Banned(or something similar) to post in this thread during is fake ban period.

I think that's why he got caught, because people started to think that the admins were protecting him by not banning him again for ban evasion, so they had no choice other than deny that QS has been banned

Yes, this is the post :

I believe I am allowed to post in scam accusations threads that have to do with me.

Tspacepilot, you are a scammer and a troll. You are an idiot for thinking you can find my unknown alts. You are an asshole and are wrong. I am looking forward to when karma catches up to you.

I can PGP sign this message if necessary. This is the only newbie account of mine that posted on this thread.

Edit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

This is to confirm that I personally authored the post located at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 in a thread created by the troll tspacepilot

QS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEVAwUBVep6KFMt0pDwvrUWAQisBgf8CicPaGI+zoBXfZExgpc/ti/e0c9xqVmL
dFUTF63MxrH1In7uTxAnBRkdVyvMo7kRGa+/68kIB1gVsi6RVvAWD3OyImLyLKZe
XLF2pIvZgM90BXupRgQBrxwf79nL5ydqqL7MYekfcpdusbebJn1/Pe2bRAgo5EHv
HVSOjUvYFQsmb7KdcwwCl59PHTEnIaY7OMkvU8CDcaDlo1gIKwKfOAlrTKRcGo64
pfZR3f6z9hpU09KH01XFoaghDhq9pLj9OqlC9+mYVQkb1Jg1QQSNOy/4J6vocfB3
WbI1ErWatlc9uZBm/odko5S6rud+qE+cwJIGuUOUuOOvQwtbsgZhag==
=9UNQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[achow101]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

I think he said at some point in this thread that he took the fake ban in order to allow his alt, panthers52, to attempt to respond to tsp as if there were other people who supported qs.

[jonald_fyookball]

@TBZ - I am sorry if my actions are something that you do not approve of. I repeat this same statement to anyone else who does not approve of my actions. I am not going to repeat my arguments as to why I believe that escrowing for yourself is okay because I have echo'ed them many times across multiple threads and for the most part they have mostly been ignored. There have also been no logical and/or factual arguments that counter any of my arguments, but rather nothing but trolls, scammers and shit posters who in no way address my arguments.

At the end of the day, what I did was a result of my witnessing of similar activity by one of the most, if not the most trusted and respected member of the community doing what was essentially the exact same thing out in the open and without consequence. I had posted in the thread where this was happening out in the open multiple times, so it is difficult to say that I was unaware of the situation.

If there are no rules regarding how people can and cannot conduct their own business, then how can you argue that someone who is conducting business in similar ways to one of the most trusted people in the community in the open months after he had done so is in the wrong?

Escrowing for yourself isn't okay because by definition an escrow is a neutral third party. 
It's been logically explained to you by numerous people.  TC isn't right for doing it either
but he's not going on trying to justify it. 

The more you argue it, the more I'm tempted to leave negative feedback.  I haven't done so thus
far because I thought the offense was minor and DT removal was good enough, but your attitude
makes me not trust your judgement.

Okay, if you and/or the community thinks that self escrowing is not okay, then why was there no outcry when it happened months ago? New users should know that asking for a loan without collateral is not okay because a) there is a sticky warning advising not to request such loans and b) because it happens often and the public result is that the new users receive negative ratings. On the other hand, escrowing for ones self happens out in the open with zero public outcry (there is more then one person engaging in this practice, however I am not going to call anyone out on this for obvious reasons).

Furthermore, if the appropriate disclosures are made (as I have since done), then whose business is it to say that others are not able to engage in a consensual transaction, that in reality, is going to overwhelmingly result in all parties involved saying they are happy with the transaction. This is exactly what a free market is, the ability for market participants to be able to make informed decisions as to how and what they wish to trade.

It's not consensual when there is deception involved.  no one cares when self escrowing is disclosed, but they do when it's not, which is what you've been doing.  

Pretty simple, dude.

Since I don't think you are stupid, I can only conclude you're unable to stop yourself from trying to rationalize your behavior and you're unwilling to just admit you're not right.

Let me give you an analogy and you can try to explain how your situation is any different.

Alice owns a small private airplane and hires Bob, an airplane engine mechanic to perform maintenance.
Afterward, Alice decides it would be prudent to have a second mechanic just double check the engine.  She hired Charlie, but it's really Bob who has a disguise and a fake mustache.  

Alice flies her plane, it works fine, no one gets hurt.  Bob points to this fact to rationalize his behavior.  
But his friend David is giving him flak for the deception, so Bob decides not to cash the second check made to Charlie.  Now he really feels good because no one got hurt and he never double charged Alice.

But what he's missing is that he deceived Alice, deprived her of the benefit of lower risk, and justified it all by pointing that he had done the job correctly.  Using insanely twisted logic, he says: "well if I didn't know what I was doing, the plane would have gone down, but that would have happened the same if she didn't hire a second mechanic to double check, or if I did the checking myself."

so, how is what you did any different than "Bob"?

Still waiting for QS to answer this.

[Timelord2067]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

When negative feedback / trust is given to a day old newbie who wants to buy BitCoin via PayPal with the message "scammer" and "use escrow" and similar threatening language in itself, but to add "I will remove if OP uses escrow" ... and wouldn't you know it, the person who left the negative feedback / trust is self escrowing.

So, if the newbie then uses escrow, they are charged an escrow fee on top of the 5% - 25% over preev.com spot price (and people say newbies are scammers?), so the escrow can rake in a few extra cents per transaction.

As these escrow scammers say themselves, "Scammers will scam for pennies!"

I've said in other post threads, I can see zombie newbies rising from the dead with not day old activity but weeks or months of activity time up and I can't envision anyone on the DT giving out negative trust for historical suspicion of scammer activity for a newbie wanting to use PayPal (yes, yes, PayPal is reversible, let's not forget people can scam that way).

Quickseller seems determined to take down Tomatocage with him/her, but in the long run they've both created a long term problem I don't think many people yet realise.

[Shadow_Runner]

I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.

[onemorexmr]

Quickseller seems determined to take down Tomatocage with him/her, but in the long run they've both created a long term problem I don't think many people yet realise.

do you have a solution?
a simple copy script was discussed some pages back, but i dont think thats a good idea.

IMHO: anybody should just be aware when he trades here. the accounts you are talking about dont even have a posting history. i dont think many people will blindly trust them.

[hashie]

I'm still waiting for tspacepilot to answer Quickseller's questions.

[Quickseller]

Since I don't think you are stupid, I can only conclude you're unable to stop yourself from trying to rationalize your behavior and you're unwilling to just admit you're not right.

Let me give you an analogy and you can try to explain how your situation is any different.

Alice owns a small private airplane and hires Bob, an airplane engine mechanic to perform maintenance.
Afterward, Alice decides it would be prudent to have a second mechanic just double check the engine.  She hired Charlie, but it's really Bob who has a disguise and a fake mustache. 

Alice flies her plane, it works fine, no one gets hurt.  Bob points to this fact to rationalize his behavior. 
But his friend David is giving him flak for the deception, so Bob decides not to cash the second check made to Charlie.  Now he really feels good because no one got hurt and he never double charged Alice.

But what he's missing is that he deceived Alice, deprived her of the benefit of lower risk, and justified it all by pointing that he had done the job correctly.  Using insanely twisted logic, he says: "well if I didn't know what I was doing, the plane would have gone down, but that would have happened the same if she didn't hire a second mechanic to double check, or if I did the checking myself."

so, how is what you did any different than "Bob"?

There are several differences.

First, in your situation in the event that Bob had made a mistake, the damage would be irreversible. Lives would be lost, and people cannot be "unkilled", once those on board the airplane are dead, that is the end of their lives, period. On the other hand, if the escrow makes a mistake (eg they send to the incorrect address, they release escrow to a party that he should not have released to and later additional information is discovered to have been available to the escrow that would reveal he should have released to the other party, ect), then the escrow will need to cover the losses out of his own pocket. The escrow making a mistake is something that can be fixed.

Secondly your example lacks the checks and balances of the other trading partner. The plane will takeoff only with the two signatures from Bob. When escrowing your own deal, you will need the authorization of the person you are dealing with to send funds to yourself. Granted there is the potential for a conflict of interest in this case, however it is my policy, (and although this clause was not included in the specific agreements in question, it is written in other templates, and such a policy would have been enforced) that if it is not abundantly clear which side to take in a dispute then a scam accusation should be opened so the community can help moderate the dispute, this is not unlike what happened here but with an actual escrow involved. A similar point is that it is very rare for there to be any kind of dispute when dealing with escrow. Both when discussing deals I have been a direct party to and deals that I have escrowed, there really have not been any disputes that have not been extremely clearcut from the very beginning. I understand that many people are saying that there is no neutral third party, however I am really not aware of any situations where, based on the evidence available that it was anything but clearcut as to which party was in the right.

Thirdly, in your example Alice wants to hire a second mechanic to check behind Bob. However in the situations that I was involved in, Alice would have gladly asked Bob to both check the first time and the second time, and would have paid a premium for doing so.

My fourth and what I believe to be my strongest point is a slightly changed scenario. Instead of Alice only owning a single airplane, she owns an airline, and there is another employee, Zach. Although there is no policy or rule against wearing disguises, and although there is no policy explicitly allowing this practice, Zach will, on multiple occasions wear a disguise and be seen by many others that work for the airline. This fact is even brought up multiple times during company meetings and no one is critical of the practice. Some may miss this point, but Bob sees that this is happening out in the open and has no reason to believe anyone would be critical of of this behavior. As a result, Bob does what is described in your post after seeing Zach doing the exact same thing without consequence.

With the above being said, I have my right to my own opinion just like you have your right to your opinion. You have the right to believe that escrowing for ones self is wrong just like I have the right to have an opinion that there is no issue with this.

With that being said, I absolutely would not escrow for myself in the future without giving the proper disclosure that this is a possibility. It is clear that some are out to get blood and will stop at nothing to get it, and will use this as a way to extract such blood.

If I were to find out that I was trading with someone who was using themselves as escrow then I would not be in any way upset, nor would I make any attempt to call them out on the issue. 

If someone were to ask my opinion about escrowing for ones self then I would tell them there is a great risk that some may go after blood if this is revealed, but that I do not have any personal issue with it, and that they should make a disclosure that it is possible the escrow is wearing more then one hat.


It really is not going to be difficult to hide the fact that an account is your alt, even from the administration (at least in theory). If the community is going to "outlaw" the practice of escrowing for your own trades then people are going to assume that the escrow is not the same person as the person you are dealing with, however if there are additional risks to this practice as you claim, then people will make no effort into protecting themselves from these risks.

[james.lent]

I'm still waiting for tspacepilot to answer Quickseller's questions.

why the fuck are all the scammers popping up here ? first tf, now you ... refund our god damn coins !!

[Bardman]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

I think he said at some point in this thread that he took the fake ban in order to allow his alt, panthers52, to attempt to respond to tsp as if there were other people who supported qs.

So more lies... so far quickseller has always denied that he had alt accounts or when they are exposed he always denies it first, if he just told everyone that those are his alt accounts no one will say anything, but he always denies it which makes him look suspicious

[Mrzinzin]

This whole thing is sort of sad really. At the end of the day, I would still trade with QS and would even have no issues sending first. He did a good job busting scams etc... I just do not get why he did the self escrow stuff  . While the self escrow thing was shady - not really sure it was a "scam" - more in the grey area.

What about the 'fake' 3 days ban from the forum? Only an opinion and obviously you are free to don't reply to my question.

I do not get the fake ban, but did it really affect anything? Maybe he thought a couple day break would clear his thoughts, and slow down the pitchforks? I think the only thing he did bad was the self-escrow thing.

I think he said at some point in this thread that he took the fake ban in order to allow his alt, panthers52, to attempt to respond to tsp as if there were other people who supported qs.

So more lies... so far quickseller has always denied that he had alt accounts or when they are exposed he always denies it first, if he just told everyone that those are his alt accounts no one will say anything, but he always denies it which makes him look suspicious

he doesn't deny neither he says yes when they are their alts, so no one would say he lied when someone prove that his alt is his alt.

of course the way he speaks makes you believe he denied, but he never did

[deadley]

I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.

But why you want to dox him/her. He/she did not scammed anyone. So no need to doxing.

[Kanapka]

I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.

But why you want to dox him/her. He/she did not scammed anyone. So no need to doxing.

QS threatens Vod with sue menaces and acuses him of commiting crimes, yet has his/her identity hidden so he can do and speak anything without fear of retaliation.

I don't think a DOX would be unfair

[jonald_fyookball]

Since I don't think you are stupid, I can only conclude you're unable to stop yourself from trying to rationalize your behavior and you're unwilling to just admit you're not right.

Let me give you an analogy and you can try to explain how your situation is any different.

Alice owns a small private airplane and hires Bob, an airplane engine mechanic to perform maintenance.
Afterward, Alice decides it would be prudent to have a second mechanic just double check the engine.  She hired Charlie, but it's really Bob who has a disguise and a fake mustache. 

Alice flies her plane, it works fine, no one gets hurt.  Bob points to this fact to rationalize his behavior. 
But his friend David is giving him flak for the deception, so Bob decides not to cash the second check made to Charlie.  Now he really feels good because no one got hurt and he never double charged Alice.

But what he's missing is that he deceived Alice, deprived her of the benefit of lower risk, and justified it all by pointing that he had done the job correctly.  Using insanely twisted logic, he says: "well if I didn't know what I was doing, the plane would have gone down, but that would have happened the same if she didn't hire a second mechanic to double check, or if I did the checking myself."

so, how is what you did any different than "Bob"?

There are several differences.

First, in your situation in the event that Bob had made a mistake, the damage would be irreversible. Lives would be lost, and people cannot be "unkilled", once those on board the airplane are dead, that is the end of their lives, period. On the other hand, if the escrow makes a mistake (eg they send to the incorrect address, they release escrow to a party that he should not have released to and later additional information is discovered to have been available to the escrow that would reveal he should have released to the other party, ect), then the escrow will need to cover the losses out of his own pocket. The escrow making a mistake is something that can be fixed.

Secondly your example lacks the checks and balances of the other trading partner. The plane will takeoff only with the two signatures from Bob. When escrowing your own deal, you will need the authorization of the person you are dealing with to send funds to yourself. Granted there is the potential for a conflict of interest in this case, however it is my policy, (and although this clause was not included in the specific agreements in question, it is written in other templates, and such a policy would have been enforced) that if it is not abundantly clear which side to take in a dispute then a scam accusation should be opened so the community can help moderate the dispute, this is not unlike what happened here but with an actual escrow involved. A similar point is that it is very rare for there to be any kind of dispute when dealing with escrow. Both when discussing deals I have been a direct party to and deals that I have escrowed, there really have not been any disputes that have not been extremely clearcut from the very beginning. I understand that many people are saying that there is no neutral third party, however I am really not aware of any situations where, based on the evidence available that it was anything but clearcut as to which party was in the right.

Thirdly, in your example Alice wants to hire a second mechanic to check behind Bob. However in the situations that I was involved in, Alice would have gladly asked Bob to both check the first time and the second time, and would have paid a premium for doing so.

My fourth and what I believe to be my strongest point is a slightly changed scenario. Instead of Alice only owning a single airplane, she owns an airline, and there is another employee, Zach. Although there is no policy or rule against wearing disguises, and although there is no policy explicitly allowing this practice, Zach will, on multiple occasions wear a disguise and be seen by many others that work for the airline. This fact is even brought up multiple times during company meetings and no one is critical of the practice. Some may miss this point, but Bob sees that this is happening out in the open and has no reason to believe anyone would be critical of of this behavior. As a result, Bob does what is described in your post after seeing Zach doing the exact same thing without consequence.

With the above being said, I have my right to my own opinion just like you have your right to your opinion. You have the right to believe that escrowing for ones self is wrong just like I have the right to have an opinion that there is no issue with this.

With that being said, I absolutely would not escrow for myself in the future without giving the proper disclosure that this is a possibility. It is clear that some are out to get blood and will stop at nothing to get it, and will use this as a way to extract such blood.

If I were to find out that I was trading with someone who was using themselves as escrow then I would not be in any way upset, nor would I make any attempt to call them out on the issue. 

If someone were to ask my opinion about escrowing for ones self then I would tell them there is a great risk that some may go after blood if this is revealed, but that I do not have any personal issue with it, and that they should make a disclosure that it is possible the escrow is wearing more then one hat.


It really is not going to be difficult to hide the fact that an account is your alt, even from the administration (at least in theory). If the community is going to "outlaw" the practice of escrowing for your own trades then people are going to assume that the escrow is not the same person as the person you are dealing with, however if there are additional risks to this practice as you claim, then people will make no effort into protecting themselves from these risks.

I don't think these are good arguments but not suprised you've spun
something creative to justify yourself.

Briefly:

#1) No the damage wouldn't be irreversible if there was a contractual
dispute and the escrower/trader didn't change their mind about how
to handle it.  You're also using an "ends justify the means" philosophy
where its ok to be deceive people for your own convenience as long as
no one gets hurt.  Same thing as I said in the example.

#2) Non sensical.  The person holding the money controls the risk.

#3) No.  If Alice would have "gladly asked Bob to check both the first and second time", then there's no need to be a secret escrow. 

#4) You are justifying based on how critical others are of the practice.

Yet, the community clearly has spoken:



You can have your own opinion about it, but almost everyone here
agrees you're wrong...and I think what you've posted here just
shows you'll go to any length to create mental gymanistics to
rationalize that opinion.

 

[suchmoon]

I'm still waiting for tspacepilot to answer Quickseller's questions.

why the fuck are all the scammers popping up here ? first tf, now you ... refund our god damn coins !!

Isn't hashie == TF? I've read it on this forum somewhere so it must be true.

Hashie has also named QS as escrow for this awesome deal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179915 which kind of makes it look like someone's lame attempt at a joke.

[Quickseller]

I'm still waiting for tspacepilot to answer Quickseller's questions.

why the fuck are all the scammers popping up here ? first tf, now you ... refund our god damn coins !!

Isn't hashie == TF? I've read it on this forum somewhere so it must be true.

Hashie has also named QS as escrow for this awesome deal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179915 which kind of makes it look like someone's lame attempt at a joke.

I am not sure if TF was exclusively running hashie, but he was almost certainly the one who was behind the programming on the site that allowed money to be stolen when the blockchain.info API messed up. He was defiantly in control of the domain as of when the puzzle was put up after it got "hacked" because part of the puzzle was also on his personal blog.

I would not be surprised if TF is the one currently behind the hashie account and I would not be surprised if the auction is an attempt to troll.

[deadley]

I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.

But why you want to dox him/her. He/she did not scammed anyone. So no need to doxing.

QS threatens Vod with sue menaces and acuses him of commiting crimes, yet has his/her identity hidden so he can do and speak anything without fear of retaliation.

I don't think a DOX would be unfair

Saying something and doing different thing. When QS will try to sue VOD his/her identity will reveal automatically.

I still don't support QS Dox.

[james.lent]

I will have a full dox of Quickseller posted by Friday if not earlier and will continue to update it and bust his alts.

But why you want to dox him/her. He/she did not scammed anyone. So no need to doxing.

QS threatens Vod with sue menaces and acuses him of commiting crimes, yet has his/her identity hidden so he can do and speak anything without fear of retaliation.

I don't think a DOX would be unfair

Saying something and doing different thing. When QS will try to sue VOD his/her identity will reveal automatically.

I still don't support QS Dox.

Gotta agree here...i don't see why a small matter such as this has to be escalated to such proportions ...