Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

[Quickseller]

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.

[ajrah]

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]

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]

~ Escrowing for yourself using your alt accounts is like sucking your own two balls. 

[zack26]

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

[21coin]

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]

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?

[zack26]

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]

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]

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.

[erikalui]

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]

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.

[BitcoinBoss666]

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]

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]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[|Bitcoin|]

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]

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]

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]

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.