Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2301
|
 |
September 10, 2015, 08:38:58 AM |
|
No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.
How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example: What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade. It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You get merit points when someone likes your post enough to give you some. And for every 2 merit points you receive, you can send 1 merit point to someone else!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ajrah
|
|
September 10, 2015, 08:43:59 AM |
|
because of QS being removed from default trust many scammer will be running free.
the answer to you post is right within your post as well anyone is free to give his negative trust to anyone.
Actually you can also do your share if you think a transaction is about to turn to scam you can report to the ones in higher places I'm not saying we don't need QS, I even commend QS for running after those scammers and would be scammers But on this topic, not to single out QS or anyone in this forum, Escrow should a separate person. So if there's a transaction between A & B escrow should be C not A/C or B/C |
|
|
|
ndnh
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1005
New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Last edit: September 10, 2015, 10:13:18 AM by ndnhc |
|
No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.
How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example: What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade. It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time. FTFY: No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another if both are aware that the person acting as escrow is not a neutral and independent party to the trade. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.
Another way to say it is: If I want to sell a business, and make one of my employees or partner as an escrow to the trade, do you consider that a fair deal? It gets worse when you find out that the business owner was the escrow!  (^try doing this in RL  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
zecexe
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:13:24 AM |
|
~ Escrowing for yourself using your alt accounts is like sucking your own two balls.  |
|
|
|
|
zack26
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:37:00 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
21coin
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:49:06 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him. |
|
|
|
tmfp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1737
"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:51:09 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"is the criteria for leaving negative trust. I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer. What about you? Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate. Or maybe you have? |
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence |
|
|
zack26
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:57:24 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"is the criteria for leaving negative trust. I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer. What about you? Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate. Or maybe you have? Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here? |
|
|
|
|
ndnh
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1005
New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit
|
|
September 10, 2015, 10:59:54 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
Well, we don't really want 117 negative trust feedbacks there...  Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him.
At 117 saying yes :5 saying no. You can pretty well claim everyone agrees that it is shady. But not many thinks QS is a scammer, so no issues there.  As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?
Not leaving anything is inappropriate. Massively adding negative trusts is too. A couple of negative trusts and neutral ones is pretty reasonable whichever way you take it. |
|
|
|
|
tmfp
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1737
"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."
|
|
September 10, 2015, 11:06:09 AM |
|
Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here?
It says "Strong belief" not "solid proof". My feedback is left on that basis. |
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence |
|
|
erikalui
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1094
|
|
September 10, 2015, 11:12:49 AM |
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
Two raings are more than enough as he hasn't scammed anyone. This is a punishment for lying and a lesson for other escrows as well to not have such shady trades. Emplying another escrow to complete the transaction won't be so expensive and don't be pennywise and pound foolish. |
|
|
|
Vod (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3696
Merit: 3074
Licking my boob since 1970
|
|
September 11, 2015, 10:33:06 AM |
|
Well, it's almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.
I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.
|
https://nastyscam.com - landing page up https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon! OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinBoss666
|
|
September 11, 2015, 10:36:14 AM |
|
Well, it'm almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.
I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.
Who care what u say? You are biggest jealous cunt on this forum! Fuck you abuser. |
|
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
September 11, 2015, 10:58:36 AM |
|
Well, it's almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.
I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.
as long as TC and Blazr thinks its Ok and stay on DT i dont think it wont happen... IMHO when QS come back in a few months he will be back on DT. so i just think DT is fucked... |
|
|
|
Vod (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3696
Merit: 3074
Licking my boob since 1970
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:01:31 AM |
|
as long as TC and Blazr thinks its Ok and stay on DT i dont think it wont happen...
I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing. It's simple fraud. |
https://nastyscam.com - landing page up https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon! OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:09:33 AM
Last edit: September 11, 2015, 02:55:09 PM by LaudaM |
|
I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing. It's simple fraud.
Even if they do think that it is okay, it should not matter. If two persons (on DT) opinions can overrule the majority then the system is not working properly. It's pretty clear that almost everyone thinks that escrowing for yourself is not okay. I guess it will be added to one of those 'unwritten' rules for trust. If you break it, you might get a negative.
Update: I was not trying to imply that you are trying to overrule anyone. I was just stating a example in which the system would be flawed. |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
|
|Bitcoin|
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:14:12 AM |
|
Not a strange result. 7 votes for yes only. A escrow must be a third party or else it is not call escrow anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nicole7852
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:21:11 AM |
|
the person who is escrowing for himself should be banned and should be punished as far as possible BEcausE ..
he gained trust and tried to scam ..so this is the worst case..
|
|
|
|
BayAreaCoins
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 1244
Owner at AltQuick.com & FreeBitcoins.com
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:34:24 AM |
|
I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing. It's simple fraud.
Even if they do think that it is okay, it should not matter. If two persons (on DT) opinions can overrule the majority then the system is not working properly. It's pretty clear that almost everyone thinks that escrowing for yourself is not okay. I guess it will be added to one of those 'unwritten' rules for trust. If you break it, you might get a negative. A negative trust rating isn't the end of the world and I'm sure not trying to overrule anyone. I believe a number of people are a bit fearful of leaving negative trust for TC/QS for fear that they will be tagged back, removed from DT, hacked, trolled or worse. There is no doubt in my mind that what they were doing was a totally dishonest and sketchy in more ways than one. I've read TC private explanation to me over PM and I've tried to believe it, but I just don't. It would be unfair to remove DT and tag QS, but not TC. As far as I'm concerned they are both in the same line of business misrepresenting their services, farming accounts and god only knows what else. I believe TC should be removed off the DT as well. I will then consider changing my red to a neutral rating for both QS/TC. QS/TC still have plenty of business history to continue forward with what they do for the forum, but will lose their ability to farm trust for sock puppets when they self escrow. |
|
|
|
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119
|
|
September 11, 2015, 11:55:07 AM |
|
Obviously self escrow is a bad thing - no doubts. I am not sure however that it is really a scam and deserves negative trust. I would say shady/unethical, but I would also say with almost 100% certainty that he would never have ripped anyone off. I still think we were better off with QS on the DT than not on it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
