Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

[Quickseller]

There are two points that no one has even attempted to address:

• Why would someone be not willing to send first to a person when conducting a trade, if they would trust them enough to use them as escrow?
• Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?

1. I don't think anyone is claiming that is the case.

2. Escrow agents typically charge a fee. That fee increases the total cost of the deal. In exchange, both parties are more confident of a positive outcome.

1. I think this is the primary argument being used, as people are saying there is not a neutral third party to resolve any disputes.

2. There are a number of fees/costs that needs to be taken into consideration when pricing an item. Besides the escrow fee, tx fees, shipping costs and import tariffs need to be considered by each party who is bearing these costs.

If the import tariffs are too high for an item that is being considered to be purchased then the buyer cannot (they can, but it will hold very little credence) argue that they should be able to pay a lower price for such item. If the 10% (or whatever) import tariff makes such item has no price that would not be too expensive for the buyer to want to buy it, and is high enough for it to make sense for the seller to sell the item, then there will simply be no trade.

Furthermore, a point that I made upthread, that you appear to have agreed with, that also appears to have gotten buried upthread, is that if the potential for the escrow agent to also be acting as a party to a trade is disclosed, then there is really no reason why two parties cannot consent to enter into a trade if everyone is aware of the potential for one of the trading partners to also be the escrow agent.

[Quickseller]

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

Then why would you involve a third party, charge a fee for that that party, and provide no service for the fee?  (fraud/theft/scam/whatever)

1. To protect my RL identity. If I put up a [WTB] thread looking to purchase a physical item, how quickly do you think someone like TheGambler, or Candystripes (or someone else who I prevented from being able to steal money, when they believed they would be able to steal additional money) would be either creating a new account, or buying a new account to respond to that offer for the sole purpose of getting my name/address?

2. The same reason why many people are afraid to leave negative trust in many cases as scammers would be trolling on [WTB] and [WTS] threads that QS creates because they are upset that I stopped them from being able to steal money from others. These trolls would not make anyone any less willing to trust me, but it would make others who might be interested in trading with me more hesitant to post questions, ect.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I think there's too much hostility, arguing & negativity on this forum at the moment between certain parties. Can't we just agree that Quickseller isn't a scammer. Yes he participated in perhaps shady activity using an alt to escrow but let's face it escrow fees are minimal. He shouldn't have done it & it was deceptive but he's not a scammer.

Likewise TSP is not a scammer, perhaps he bent the rules with the bot he used but he's not a scammer plus how can anybody trust the exact details involved in that situation when it was TF involved.

I really think this whole scenario would go away if everybody just agreed that TSP & QS are not scammers, everybody remove negative trust from each others profiles & get back to chasing/tracking down/punishing the real scammers in this place because there are plenty of them about.

Please guys just think about it, let's all move on.

[Vod]

He shouldn't have done it & it was deceptive but he's not a scammer.

You are in the 5% of people who believe this (if we ignore QS alts).  95% believe otherwise.

Not only did he intentionally scam people into using his escrow -  when TSP started closing in, he actually faked a three day ban, to throw attention off.  ("Hmmm, QS is banned but panther is still chatting... they can't be the same person")

Only when an admin stepped in did his house of cards fall.  He made ZERO attempts to right things until he was caught.

[Quickseller]

when TSP started closing in, he actually faked a three day ban, to throw attention off.  ("Hmmm, QS is banned but panther is still chatting... they can't be the same person")

Nope. My personal text that was implying that I was banned was up for ~2 days prior to tspacepilot creating the scam accusation.

[nicole7852]

when TSP started closing in, he actually faked a three day ban, to throw attention off.  ("Hmmm, QS is banned but panther is still chatting... they can't be the same person")

Nope. My personal text that was implying that I was banned was up for ~2 days prior to tspacepilot creating the scam accusation.

so what u lied after gaining trust ...
that is what TF did am i wrong ?
he was lucky enough to get thousands of coins and u r not ,thats it

[botany]

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

[Quickseller]

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

So you are still paying an amount that you feel is equal to or less then the value you feel it is worth....

[botany]

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

So you are still paying an amount that you feel is equal to or less then the value you feel it is worth....

There is a difference
- value it is worth to the buyer.
- value it is worth to the seller.

The transaction price will be in between the two. I can claim that (as a rational buyer), I would have gotten a better deal if I had known the escrow and the seller were the same person.

[erikalui]

He shouldn't have done it & it was deceptive but he's not a scammer.

You are in the 5% of people who believe this (if we ignore QS alts).  95% believe otherwise.

Not only did he intentionally scam people into using his escrow -  when TSP started closing in, he actually faked a three day ban, to throw attention off.  ("Hmmm, QS is banned but panther is still chatting... they can't be the same person")

Only when an admin stepped in did his house of cards fall.  He made ZERO attempts to right things until he was caught.

I don't think even 95% do consider him a scammer. He's a liar and that definitely makes him untrustworthy (which doesn't imply he's a scammer). Also, he doesn't deserve to be an escrow anymore but he's just a regular member with a negative reputation.

@OP: I guess you can lock the scam accusation thread as almost everyone must have read it by now and the conclusion has already been obtained.

[Quickseller]

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

So you are still paying an amount that you feel is equal to or less then the value you feel it is worth....

There is a difference
- value it is worth to the buyer.
- value it is worth to the seller.

The transaction price will be in between the two. I can claim that (as a rational buyer), I would have gotten a better deal if I had known the escrow and the seller were the same person.

They can also claim that a day is 25 hours long. That doesn't make it true though.

If someone thinks a widget is worth $110, and offers $100 for it and is willing to pay $101 with the escrow few or offer $100 with him doing a direct trade then there is no reason why he would decline a counter offer of $101 from the party he is willing to send first to.

At worse it would be a negotiation tactic.   

[botany]

They can also claim that a day is 25 hours long. That doesn't make it true though.

If someone thinks a widget is worth $110, and offers $100 for it and is willing to pay $101 with the escrow few or offer $100 with him doing a direct trade then there is no reason why he would decline a counter offer of $101 from the party he is willing to send first to.

At worse it would be a negotiation tactic.   

If in my opinion, $100 (or something below that) is the best price that the seller can get elsewhere, I would decline the counter-offer of $101.

[Quickseller]

They can also claim that a day is 25 hours long. That doesn't make it true though.

If someone thinks a widget is worth $110, and offers $100 for it and is willing to pay $101 with the escrow few or offer $100 with him doing a direct trade then there is no reason why he would decline a counter offer of $101 from the party he is willing to send first to.

At worse it would be a negotiation tactic.   

If in my opinion, $100 (or something below that) is the best price that the seller can get elsewhere, I would decline the counter-offer of $101.

Like I said, this would, at worse work out to be a negotiation tactic.

What if the seller were to say that they would accept a $101 offer but they would pay the escrow fee? The buyer wouldn't  be paying the escrow fee in that case, but the buyer would still be paying the higher price.

[UserVVIP]

I really do not think that this is fair to the tradee.

It is really shady and deceptive. I vote no.

[sionsandman]

All this does is to show how flawed escrow services are.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Current model of escrow is the norm in bitcoin world because everything is relatively new.

Scammers evolve and will soon learn how to exploit this even further.

This is just the beginning... 

[rebuilder]

Man, what is this even?

Conflicts of interest can cause problems, I think that's clear. That's why it's important to be transparent about your personal connections if you're offering escrow services. Offering to escrow for your own trade using a secret alt is the exact opposite of transparency, and also does not offer your counterparty any of the protection escrow should offer.


If you think you're offering a decent service by escrowing for yourself with secret alts, why hide it? Is this actually what's happening? I find it hard to credit this is even being discussed.

[Hexcoin]

-The buyer is paying $100 for a widget.
-The widget is not worth $101 to him.
-If he cannot buy the widget for less then, or equal to $100 then he will not buy it.
-If the buyer trusts the seller with $100 then he will not request to use escrow.

Conversely:
-The seller wants to sell her widget for at least $95
-If the seller cannot get at least $95 for a widget then she will not sell it
-If the seller trusts the buyer with at least $95 then she will ship the widget to the buyer without first having payment secured by escrow.

This argument has been used quite a bit and I don't think it is accurate.
The widget might be worth $110 to me (which is why it is acceptable to pay up to $110 for it).

In my opinion, let us say it is worth at least $100 to the seller and I believe he would not sell it below that price.
So I would offer to buy it directly from him for $100 and offer to cover escrow charges (total cost $101) if escrow is used.
Even if he is a trusted party, I would only offer $100 (and not $101) to him (Because that is the price I think the widget is worth to him).

So you are still paying an amount that you feel is equal to or less then the value you feel it is worth....

And its like you are asking a bonus from your trade partner as your escrow fee? Isnt that like stealing extra bucks?

[TheButterZone]

WTF?

I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question:
Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3-escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2?

YES or NO?

Tacitly, no response.

1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts.

[B4zzA]

Its pretty unsensible Its no different then holding a ICO and buying all the coins yourself.

[Quickseller]

WTF?

I'm going to need a PGP-clearsigned YES or NO answer, from Quickseller, to the following question:
Did you, Quickseller, engage in 1 or more trades where any party other than you was led to believe that there were 3 parties with 3 different DNA profiles involved in the trade (1-buyer, 2-seller 3-escrow agent), but in reality there were only 2?

YES or NO?

Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used.

[1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is:

[MASS NOUN] The state of being kept in custody or trust until a specified condition has been fulfilled:

Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled

[2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).