Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

[Quickseller]

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I honestly don't think Quickseller views his lying and escrow scamming as wrong.  It's very possible he grew up in a household that encouraged such behavior. 

I am still waiting for an answer to my previous questions.....

[[BTC]onFIRE]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

[Quickseller]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

Sure, prove that you have 10 BTC

[achow101]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

You created an account called QS banned (Archive]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

[lahm-44]

i don't want to say anything bad for anyone because everyone has a different point of view and that person is right from his view..but i just want to say that i am using escrow only for my safty i don't want to be my funds got stolen or someone scammed me (maybe that can be situation when i need to transact that money and it can be very important for me)..i hate scammers specially at those situations and escrowers help me to transact or complete the deals safely

[[BTC]onFIRE]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

Sure, prove that you have 10 BTC

I'll sell all my possessions to buy and send you 10 BTC if what you claim is true.

[Quickseller]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

You created an account called QS banned (Archive]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

Implies is the key word in that sentence my friend. You also archived the incorrect link LMAO

[Vod]

You created an account called QS banned (Archive]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

I forgot about that!  

Look what Quickseller posted under that account:

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

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned. 

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

[Quickseller]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

Sure, prove that you have 10 BTC

I'll sell all my possessions to buy and send you 10 BTC if what you claim is true.

Sorry. I am not going to make that bet if I cannot be assured that I will receive payment immediately after the conditions of my winning such bet would be met (and I would obviously need you to put such funds in escrow ahead of time).

[[BTC]onFIRE]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

You created an account called QS banned (Archive]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

Implies is the key word in that sentence my friend. You also archived the incorrect link LMAO

Give up. Arguing will get you nowhere.

I told you, make a new thread explaining yourself and admitting/apologizing your mistakes. Clearly you did some wrongs, and there's no way out of it. About time you grow some balls to finally admit you did something wrong?

Now I'm no police, but you're making too much of a scene on this forum because you continue to fight back against something you'll never win. You could argue with me, Vod, tspacepilot, and everybody else, or just apologize. You got caught already with more than enough proof....

[[BTC]onFIRE]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

I have no interest in reading posts that are overwhelmingly obvious being made to build up your account and later sell. If you wanted to post from your main account (not that I don't know what it is), and not one that was purchased sometime before mid May of this year, then I would consider reading your posts

Let's make a bet. If I bought this account, you give me 1 BTC. If I didn't buy this account, I give you 10 BTC.

Fair?

Sure, prove that you have 10 BTC

I'll sell all my possessions to buy and send you 10 BTC if what you claim is true.

Sorry. I am not going to make that bet if I cannot be assured that I will receive payment immediately after the conditions of my winning such bet would be met (and I would obviously need you to put such funds in escrow ahead of time).

If you want to make the bet, I can gather 10 BTC . Let me know if you want to do the bet.

[Quickseller]

Look what Quickseller posted under that account:

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

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned.  

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

Is there a rule about being able to post only in certain sections/threads while someone is banned? Is the scam accusations section mentioned in that rule?

Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say "I am not allowed to post here..." if I was banned?

[Coinonomous]

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned.  

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

QS is so delusional he would make a great case study for a psychologist interested in studying GREED and multiple-personality (deceptions, or disorders?? lmfao).  

Keep doubling-down , doubling down .. You only look more and more ridiculous to the majority of the forum. Please do us all a favor and TRULY leave, already?  

[[BTC]onFIRE]

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned. 

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

This guy is so delusional he would make a great case study for a psychologist interested in studying GREED and multiple-personality (deceptions, or disorders?? lmfao).  

Keep doubling-down , doubling down .. You only look more and more ridiculous to the majority of the forum. Please do us all a favor and TRULY leave, already?  

Finally, someone else thinking the same way.

If this doesn't make Quickseller leave, what will?

[Pierre11]

ATTENTION

Are you crying because I might have other DT accounts already that will tag your scammer accounts?

That was in PM. Please find his alts and mark them so people know its Quickseller, a liar and dishonest man.

[Coinonomous]

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned. 

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

This guy is so delusional he would make a great case study for a psychologist interested in studying GREED and multiple-personality (deceptions, or disorders?? lmfao).  

Keep doubling-down , doubling down .. You only look more and more ridiculous to the majority of the forum. Please do us all a favor and TRULY leave, already?  

Finally, someone else thinking the same way.

If this doesn't make Quickseller leave, what will?

It will just further anger him. He has no self-control, that's clearly evident as we watch his utter downfall and destruction of trust in real-time.

[achow101]

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12331922#msg12331922"

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

You created an account called QS banned (Archive]. The banned part of that implies that you were banned at the time of the creation of the account although it was not specified for how long. Furthermore, you created this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12332658#msg12332658 which proves that you owned that account.

Implies is the key word in that sentence my friend. You also archived the incorrect link LMAO

Even though it is implied, the implied part can still be used against you (and will be used against you)

I did archive the right link, the link to your profile, in case somehow you convince one of the admins to actually delete the account. No need to archive your post, ndnhc quoted it already. And just for good measure, I will quote it here:

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-----

[[BTC]onFIRE]

Why wouldn't he be allowed?   Because he was pretending to be banned. 

The more this guys posts, the digger he deeps his hole.  

This guy is so delusional he would make a great case study for a psychologist interested in studying GREED and multiple-personality (deceptions, or disorders?? lmfao).  

Keep doubling-down , doubling down .. You only look more and more ridiculous to the majority of the forum. Please do us all a favor and TRULY leave, already?  

Finally, someone else thinking the same way.

If this doesn't make Quickseller leave, what will?

It will just further anger him. He has no self-control, that's clearly evident as we watch his utter downfall and destruction of trust in real-time.

When you build a structure using Q-Tips and paper towel, its only so much time until it falls down all the way down.

And yeah, it's gonna be fun to watch of course. Quite a fun show so far watching Quickseller pathetically try and get his trust back.

[[BTC]onFIRE]

@Quickseller Adding me trust calling me marco? That's the reason you lost your trust. If you can prove I am anybody you even know, I'll give you 0.5 BTC for your time

[jonald_fyookball]

• Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?

The same reason anyone pays a premium - for protection against fraud.

This protection is already there if you trust the person you are dealing with to send first to them.

The risk of the other person running away with the coins is exactly the same if you are sending first or if they are acting as an escrow agent.[/list]

I don't know who are trying to convince, us or yourself.  

Trades come with risk and escrow mitigates the risk.  And you always pay a bit extra for less risk
whether you're talking insurance, investing, gambling, trading, business, whatever.  

If the price plus escrow fees is greater than the value threshold, and someone is unwilling to pay
the premium, then they shouldn't take the trade.  But it's their choice.  

While it is true that sending first is the same risk as sending to the same person who says they are an escrow, that doesn't change the fact that you aren't a neutral party, that you used deception, and the other party didn't truly get the risk mitigation they thought they were getting.  I'm shocked you're even still arguing about this.