Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

[Hugroll]

definitely no, because you are misleading the person on the other end of the deal.

[siwakotisaurav]

No because you are essentially making the other person trust you, and if you like , you can scam that person anytime you like.
Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

[mallard]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

[nicole7852]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

[BurgerKill]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

[nicole7852]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

you say it WRONG ? then you say my personal opinion ??

dont know about them but you r trolling for sure.

[BurgerKill]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

you say it WRONG ? then you say my personal opinion ??

dont know about them but you r trolling for sure.

Calm down; stop calling everyone a troll if they don't agree with you.

I'm just saying "wrong" because I'm stating my personal opinion. Maybe that came across in a way that you didn't quite like, but you need to take a quick breath and calm down.

[DaddyMonsi]

lets face it... majority may say "no! it's not ok" ang thats my answer here as well, but in the world of bitcointalk.org if you are planning to buy anything in the digital goods section and needs escrow, ofcourse we look for an escrow, thats what we have in mind and thats what we want to accomplish to be able to buy that item you want. So how in the world will you know if you are talking with the alt of the seller? No way right?
But again I voted for NO! Not OK

[gentlemand]

Why does this even need discussing? It unfurls its phallus and empties its bladder into the mouth of the whole concept of escrow.

[Quickseller]

don't start a debate war.

I am pretty sure this is the strongest argument that I have seen proposed so far.

[nicole7852]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

you say it WRONG ? then you say my personal opinion ??

dont know about them but you r trolling for sure.

Calm down; stop calling everyone a troll if they don't agree with you.

I'm just saying "wrong" because I'm stating my personal opinion. Maybe that came across in a way that you didn't quite like, but you need to take a quick breath and calm down.

its ok ,i will calm down now..
i guess it was just to increase ur post  count.

[Quickseller]

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.

Neither TC nor myself have left retaliation feedback against you, AFAIK no one has started trolling you, and I think I have acted professionally towards you. The real risk of getting trolled is if you were to leave a negative rating on a scammer who has gone to great lengths to hide the fact that they are a scammer, just look at the post history of tspacepilot over the past several months, he has gone to great lengths to troll me and slander my name. Other examples include turtlehurricane and CandyStripes (although he did this to BadBear, not me), both of which were exposed after being able to keep their scams hidden for a long time.

Regarding being removed from DT, I believe the forum policy is that inaccurate ratings will not be allowed to remain in the default trust network. I have posted to confirm that this policy is still in place and what is considered a "long" time however I have not heard back yet. I do wish to change your mind on the matter using factual arguments (as opposed to very generalized statements made by most people in this thread). It is my opinion that getting someone who has left an inaccurate rating to voluntarily remove a rating to be the best solution for everyone.

If you are concerned about charging a fee, then that is very little different from selling an altcoin at a 50%+ markup then what is available on an exchange, and from selling a domain you just registered for 6+ figures (both of which, if memory serves me correctly, you have listed for sale as much). Both involve an offer for something of value and the person you are dealing with willingly accepts that offer. Additionally, I do not think you would be willing to accept less money being sent to you for your domain just because the person you are dealing with does not want to trust you enough to send money first to you.

If you are concerned that the party involved is not neutral, then the argument is invalid because if you trust someone to escrow for you then logically you would trust that person with at least that much money in the event that you were trading directly with them. The reason for this is because there is the risk of the escrow running away with your money, just as with a direct trade, however when you trust someone to escrow for you (and the person you are dealing with is not the same as the escrow) then there is the possibility that the other party will try to scam you which would result in your money being tied up for some time while a dispute is resolved, having to incur a fee even though the trade did not go through and the potential for the person scamming you being able to fabricate sufficient evidence that the escrow provider should side with them (the last one is unlikely).

Lastly, I have added a disclosure on my escrow thread that I make no representation as to the party anyone using my escrow service is dealing with (including the possibility that they are trading with an alt of me). I would find it very difficult to argue against saying that someone should not be able to engage in a deal whose conditions may be controversial but they consent to.

Regarding TC, I am not certain what business he is involved in, however I am fairly certain he does not sell accounts. I believe that he has a policy of leaving trust under certain circumstances when he escrows deals (similar to how I have such a policy, however his is different then mine) and to hide the fact that someone is his alt he leaves trust. Afaik, none of his alts have ever been sold, not have they scammed.

[Keyser Soze]

If you are concerned that the party involved is not neutral, then the argument is invalid because if you trust someone to escrow for you then logically you would trust that person with at least that much money in the event that you were trading directly with them. The reason for this is because there is the risk of the escrow running away with your money, just as with a direct trade, however when you trust someone to escrow for you (and the person you are dealing with is not the same as the escrow) then there is the possibility that the other party will try to scam you which would result in your money being tied up for some time while a dispute is resolved, having to incur a fee even though the trade did not go through and the potential for the person scamming you being able to fabricate sufficient evidence that the escrow provider should side with them (the last one is unlikely).

What does the bolded part have to do with being a neutral party? Trusting an escrow with an amount of money is different than trusting an escrow will be fair in the event of a dispute between the buyer and seller.

[Quickseller]

If you are concerned that the party involved is not neutral, then the argument is invalid because if you trust someone to escrow for you then logically you would trust that person with at least that much money in the event that you were trading directly with them. The reason for this is because there is the risk of the escrow running away with your money, just as with a direct trade, however when you trust someone to escrow for you (and the person you are dealing with is not the same as the escrow) then there is the possibility that the other party will try to scam you which would result in your money being tied up for some time while a dispute is resolved, having to incur a fee even though the trade did not go through and the potential for the person scamming you being able to fabricate sufficient evidence that the escrow provider should side with them (the last one is unlikely).

What does the bolded part have to do with being a neutral party? Trusting an escrow with an amount of money is different than trusting an escrow will be fair in the event of a dispute between the buyer and seller.

Let me answer your question with another question.

If I were to trade you my Bitcoin for your litecoin, how would I be able to resolve a dispute if you had sent me your litecoin directly that I would not be able to do if I was acting as escrow for my alt?

What is the difference? In both cases there is the exact same potential bias

[mallard]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

Is there a thread where I can read about everything people accuse QuickSeller of?

[Kanapka]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

Is there a thread where I can read about everything people accuse QuickSeller of?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0

not everything but enough for some hours of fun

[Quickseller]

Although I guess I'm the only one but I put in Yes just for the heck of it 

Seems like a few other people also picked yes, but it looks like everyone in the thread thinks it's a bad idea.

NAH  my friend ,all the people who said YES are alt's of HIM (guess who)
hehe

Wrong. The people who picked "yes" are just trolling; I'm sure that QS realizes that what he did was wrong. This is my personal opinion, so don't start a debate war.

Is there a thread where I can read about everything people accuse QuickSeller of?

I think they need a dedicated sub for this. It is pretty much mud slinging though.

[dooglus]

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.

One could argue that charging for an escrow service while actually being the counterparty that the purchaser is looking for protection from is scammy in its own right. It could be considered that the purchaser of the escrow has been ripped off for the amount of the escrow fee.

I would much rather see escrow providers make a clear statement that they will inform you whenever they are also the person you are trading with, rather than a wishy-washy statement like:

    "no representations are made as to the identity of the person you are trading with, this includes the possibility of trading with an alt of QS, as well as trading with someone other then you believe them to be".

I mean, why not just tell people that you are wearing two hats at the same time, and let them decide whether they want to take the associated risk or not? In fact why even set up 5 or more alts in the first place, if not for trust farming and abuse?

[nicole7852]

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.

One could argue that charging for an escrow service while actually being the counterparty that the purchaser is looking for protection from is scammy in its own right. It could be considered that the purchaser of the escrow has been ripped off for the amount of the escrow fee.

I would much rather see escrow providers make a clear statement that they will inform you whenever they are also the person you are trading with, rather than a wishy-washy statement like:

    "no representations are made as to the identity of the person you are trading with, this includes the possibility of trading with an alt of QS, as well as trading with someone other then you believe them to be".

I mean, why not just tell people that you are wearing two hats at the same time, and let them decide whether they want to take the associated risk or not? In fact why even set up 5 or more alts in the first place, if not for trust farming and abuse?

or just hide on to another DARK GREEN DT account when one account is exposed ...

like this here .... https://i.imgur.com/iq9g7yx.png

[Keyser Soze]

Let me answer your question with another question.

If I were to trade you my Bitcoin for your litecoin, how would I be able to resolve a dispute if you had sent me your litecoin directly that I would not be able to do if I was acting as escrow for my alt?

What is the difference? In both cases there is the exact same potential bias

Thank you for proving my point. In a scenario where you secretly "self-escrow", you would have a bias similar to two parties trying to resolve a dispute in a trade without an escrow. As an escrow, hiding this bias from the other party is misleading and disingenuous.