CanaryInTheMine refuses to pay for won auction

[runam0k]

This is a good summary of theymos' opinion on the matter. Probably just need a written agreement though, not GPG. Unless I missed something

There was a written agreement (evidenced by the thread)..

I'm not entirely sure you know how written agreements work...

Find, on the main auction page, where a binding agreement is created prior to bidding. This sort of agreement would state how both parties should proceed once bidding has ended and a winner has been chosen.

The agreement is for the sale and purchase of codes. Offer, acceptance and consideration evidenced by the thread as a whole.

I understand your point - that they did not set out in writing the order of payment and delivery - but such terms are surely implied being the norm for auctions (i.e. pay first (or into escrow), get product).

[1714801830]

1714801830

[crumbs]

This is a good summary of theymos' opinion on the matter. Probably just need a written agreement though, not GPG. Unless I missed something

There was a written agreement (evidenced by the thread)..

I'm not entirely sure you know how written agreements work...

Find, on the main auction page, where a binding agreement is created prior to bidding. This sort of agreement would state how both parties should proceed once bidding has ended and a winner has been chosen.

The agreement is for the sale and purchase of codes. Offer, acceptance and consideration evidenced by the thread as a whole.

I understand your point - that they did not set out in writing the order of payment and delivery - but such terms are surely implied being the norm for auctions (i.e. pay first (or into escrow), get product).

This is pretty much Rampion's point:  No terms are implicit, no precedence or common knowledge can be applied, theymos was *explicit* on that.

[Rampion]

This is a good summary of theymos' opinion on the matter. Probably just need a written agreement though, not GPG. Unless I missed something

There was a written agreement (evidenced by the thread)..

I'm not entirely sure you know how written agreements work...

Find, on the main auction page, where a binding agreement is created prior to bidding. This sort of agreement would state how both parties should proceed once bidding has ended and a winner has been chosen.

The agreement is for the sale and purchase of codes. Offer, acceptance and consideration evidenced by the thread as a whole.

I understand your point - that they did not set out in writing the order of payment and delivery - but such terms are surely implied being the norm for auctions (i.e. pay first (or into escrow), get product).

This is pretty much Rampion's point:  No terms are implicit, no precedence or common knowledge can be applied, theymos was *explicit* on that.

EXACTLY.

runam0k: Read the link I posted in my first post in this thread for more info (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238474.0)

EDIT: I did the job for you and looked for the relevant quotes, please see below (I bolded the parts that seem relevant for the current discussion)

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Forum policy: No matter how many times you do this, you will never get a scammer tag unless you have an explicit agreement which says otherwise. Auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

[Este Nuno]

This thread serves it's purpose.

But just don't expect any tagging to be done because of it.

Theymos just expects you to use the trust system now.

[runam0k]

This thread serves it's purpose.

But just don't expect any tagging to be done because of it.

Theymos just expects you to use the trust system now.

I thought I read scammer tags are now a thing of the past - are the mods still giving out scammer tags at all? If yes, there's a heck of a backlog.

crumbs, Rampion - thanks. I understand the auction scammer tag policy (no scammer tag unless there's an actual scam i.e. fraud) and that the mods won't otherwise enforce auctions (seems daft that winning bids aren't binding, but whatyagonnado?).

That wouldn't stop me posting neg rep for blatant auction time-wasting. We frown upon it for a reason: it's dickish and the perp should be called out. (General statements - this is a weak case.)

If the mods feel strongly enough, they can always remove it.

[TheSwede75]

Those codes are worthless and you are a less trusted member. Why should be send you BTC first? Lots of QQ for 0.5 BTC you would have gotten if you hadn't been a child about sending the codes.