SebastianJu accepts transaction buying/selling bitcointalk accounts

[wettsuit]

SebastianJu accepts transaction buying/selling bitcointalk accounts.
how this can happen, forums prohibit sell/buy forum accounts, but escrow receive transaction sell/buy forum account ?

https://i.imgur.com/kWH31mu.png

[1715682739]

1715682739

[1715682739]

1715682739

[1715682739]

1715682739

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

forums prohibit sell/buy forum accounts

No, account sales are not prohibited they are generally discouraged.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

SebastianJu accepts transaction buying/selling bitcointalk accounts.

SebastianJu is just an escrow. He is not a seller or buyer of account. Only Buyer or Seller of accounts are tagged.
Escrows are just middleman for transactions, they are not encouraging account sales.

[wettsuit]

forums prohibit sell/buy forum accounts

No, account sales are not prohibited they are generally discouraged.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

SebastianJu accepts transaction buying/selling bitcointalk accounts.

SebastianJu is just an escrow. He is not a seller or buyer of account. Only Buyer or Seller of accounts are tagged.
Escrows are just middleman for transactions, they are not encouraging account sales.

yes i know he just escrow, and i see a lot of people forbid to sell or buy bitcointalk account or giving red trust to accounts selling.

then I try to ask more here.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Selling accounts here isn't against the rules, but you'd know that if you were ever a part of the community.  Account sales are seriously frowned upon, however, which is why I tagged you for doing that.  I don't tag escrows for keeping those transactions safe, even though I'd much prefer that they didn't get in the middle of account sales.  If you have a problem with that, you can continue your complaint here or wherever you like. 

However, you come off as someone who's aggravated that he got tagged and now wants everyone else to get negative trust so that his sense of justice isn't offended.  You've done sweet fuck-all for bitcointalk except shitposting and account sales, so there's a limit as to how seriously I'm going to take your thread here.

[digaran]

Yes I see it too, this is the same as account selling however I think The Pharmacist is not the kind of DT2 who could go against people such as SebastianJu. this is no different than any other account sales, no escrow should ever engage in a deal like this.

[Lutpin]

Escrowing doesn't make you untrustworthy, but buying and selling accounts does, in the eyes of some people.
The thing people like The Pharmacist want to get rid off is account sales, not trade escrows.
So where's the point in tagging escrows? You want to discourage account sellers and the buyers of those accounts, you do not want to discourage people from escrowing for trades.
And yes, many escrows will not offer their services for trades that do involve accounts, but that should be something up to the decision of the escrow themselves,
especially with a topic as controversial as account sales.

haha pharmacist, have fun with trollgaran.

[digaran]

SebastianJu is escrowing a deal to make sure it goes smooth with no problem, he is directly facilitating an account sales deal, however you put it, is no different than helping people to successfully trade accounts.
If nobody is going to take any action, I'll even though my trust feedback means jack. unless he discloses the names and UIDs of those accounts involved.

[Flying Hellfish]

Escrowing doesn't make you untrustworthy, but buying and selling accounts does, in the eyes of some people.
The thing people like The Pharmacist want to get rid off is account sales, not trade escrows.
So where's the point in tagging escrows? You want to discourage account sellers and the buyers of those accounts, you do not want to discourage people from escrowing for trades.
And yes, many escrows will not offer their services for trades that do involve accounts, but that should be something up to the decision of the escrow themselves,
especially with a topic as controversial as account sales.

haha pharmacist, have fun with trollgaran.

To be honest I agree, acting as the escrow for account sales itself doesn't qualify as untrustworthy to me and doesn't deserve a neg tag IMO

I do have a problem in general though with any escrow that chooses to work on account sales and you touched on it here

You want to discourage account sellers and the buyers of those accounts,

The problem for me is that an escrow actually encourages account sales farming IMO.  Providing a secure and safe environment for which both the seller and buyer can operate allows more people the confidence to "game the system" with a purchased account.  Especially when they know that the account info won't leak out from the escrow causing red paint.

It really is a hotbed topic and very subjective but I don't think any respected member should be doing anything to encourage that environment...

[digaran]

I am willing to bet this is not the first time they are escrowing for account deals, if they are not tagged red they would assume it's OK to do this kind of deals and every account farmer would trade their accounts with ease of mind without ever getting caught. but be my guest and let this one slide. good for account sellers, now they know how to sell and buy accounts with no problem.

[audaciousbeing]

Selling accounts here isn't against the rules, but you'd know that if you were ever a part of the community.  Account sales are seriously frowned upon, however, which is why I tagged you for doing that.  I don't tag escrows for keeping those transactions safe, even though I'd much prefer that they didn't get in the middle of account sales.  If you have a problem with that, you can continue your complaint here or wherever you like.  

However, you come off as someone who's aggravated that he got tagged and now wants everyone else to get negative trust so that his sense of justice isn't offended.  You've done sweet fuck-all for bitcointalk except shitposting and account sales, so there's a limit as to how seriously I'm going to take your thread here.

I think if the community is frowning against account sales, then it should be total. What is the main purpose of doing this? We all know the ills that comes along with it and the escrow in this case is a respected member of the forum and should have declined such trade in my opinion.

The only situation where the middlemen is to be spared is if he is not aware of the nature of the trade and the only thing he did is just to hold funds for the transaction. The cleaning of the forum should be everyone's responsibility.

Edit: However, making this about the escrow which the Op is trying to achieve here is also not the right way to go because the parties involved knew what they are trying to do and if SebastianJu didn't do the escrow, someone else would probably do it but its better to discourage all avenue that makes it lucrative. #my opinion.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>

If it's everyone's responsibility, why have you tagged a grand total of ZERO scammers/spammers/shady ICOs/anything else?

[Lauda]

The primary (notable) names that are or were against tagging people for account trading were those that were directly or indirectly involved in them (case example shorena). This should be an intuitive conclusion for anyone who isn't having a hard time beating monkeys at spelling 4 letter words.
Looks like Seb. turned into what we here refer to as a pajeet. #SayNoToAccountTrades.

[pugman]

Seb is one of the noted members on Bitcointalk and tagging for his service might actually make him leave bitcointalk. A lot of knowledgable and reputable members have left already, we don't want honorable members to leave, we want shitposters to leave.

I think if the community is frowning against account sales, then it should be total. What is the main purpose of doing this? We all know the ills that comes along with it and the escrow in this case is a respected member of the forum and should have declined such trade in my opinion.

Then the community only includes a quarter portion of DT members and a few others. The main purpose of this frowning upon is to avoid scams and then spam. Other than that, nothing. The escrow has nothing to do with this. And Sebastian isn't the only escrow who has escrowed accounts. People give their bitcointalk accounts as collateral for loans and those are also escrowed. Point is, escrows shouldn't be tagged for this. Period.

[Quickseller]

So where's the point in tagging escrows?

People (largely though anon troll newbie accounts) have called for the tagging of everyone involved in any way of account sales for a long time, going back to 2015 or so. These same people have compared selling accounts to rape and murder, which is just ridiculous. This is just more evidence that hardliners against account sales are pointless to debate, act in bad faith, and are willing to ignore any community consensus, or lack thereof in regards to the underlying issue.

The fact remains that anyone who buys an accounts is, in effect, paying a bounty in the form of the price of their account that they will not engage in behavior that will result in them getting banned, nor that they will attempt to actually scam anyone (as in steal money, or attempt to steal money) because doing so will result in the account they paid for becoming worthless, or nearly worthless.

Ignoring all of the above, I generally do not like telling other people what kind of transactions they can and cannot take part of, when all parties to the transaction are fully understanding of the consequences of the transaction. Attempts to regulate these kinds of transactions is nothing more than a power grab.

[digaran]

As always we have Quickseller defending account sellers and their escrows. if SebastianJu is not tagged and stopped right now, he will continue to do this forever, what is the meaning of tagging account dealers while giving a legitimate way of doing it safely?

[pugman]

As always we have Quickseller defending account sellers and their escrows. if SebastianJu is not tagged and stopped right now, he will continue to do this forever, what is the meaning of tagging account dealers while giving a legitimate way of doing it safely?

Tagging is always not the right thing to do. It's up to the escrow on what he wants to escrow for. If the community really wants to eradicate account sales, then just tell Sebastien Ju that such thing is frowned in the community.

[digaran]

Tagging is always not the right thing to do. It's up to the escrow on what he wants to escrow for. If the community really wants to eradicate account sales, then just tell Sebastien Ju that such thing is frowned in the community.

OK, lets do this for everybody then, when you see somebody is doing something untrustworthy and wrong, just tell them that and if they didn't change their behavior then tag them. but I don't think anybody would do that, no they want to bully normal members and always give a free pass to trusted members (especially DT members). DT members here are not in the mood of giving any chance to those people they don't like. how do we know SebastianJu is not going to escrow for account sales anymore? should we just tell him that what he is doing is frowned upon by community and wait to see if he does that again or not?

Let us do that for everybody to show greatness and let them to learn that greatness from us.

[pugman]

OK, lets do this for everybody then, when you see somebody is doing something untrustworthy and wrong, just tell them that and if they didn't change their behavior then tag them. but I don't think anybody would do that, no they want to bully normal members and always give a free pass to trusted members (especially DT members). DT members here are not in the mood of giving any chance to those people they don't like. how do we know SebastianJu is not going to escrow for account sales anymore? should we just tell him that what he is doing is frowned upon by community and wait to see if he does that again or not?

Let us do that for everybody to show greatness and let them to learn that greatness from us.

You're comparing trusted members to shitposters. That is like comparing chicken to broccoli. No one likes broccoli.

I don't know if you remember this, marlboroza also gave you a warning and a second chance, did he not? He gave you the benefit of the doubt and so did all the other members who tagged you, initially. But you decided to fuck that up. What you were doing is wrong, and you knew it(which is why you edited your service topic numerous times to correct yourself).

Again, it is up to SebastianJu whether or not he decides to escrow accounts. That's his decision. If you want, you can tag him, not that anyone would care about that. If DT members see it right, they might tag him, and SebastianJu would do what would be the best case scenario for him,probably.

how do we know SebastianJu is not going to escrow for account sales anymore? should we just tell him that what he is doing is frowned upon by community and wait to see if he does that again or not?

Why don't you ask SebastianJu yourself? Off topic: Did you contact blazed yet?

[digaran]

Go away sheep. you are like the rest of them, you think DT members as your gods, what they say or what they do, what they decide. you are=sheep.
SebastianJu has done many escrowing for account dealers for years, he has facilitated a safe haven for them and now we're smelling all the shit he has done. on the bright side though, Quicksy now has a legitimate way to do account sales using the most trusted escrow. go figure eh.

[pugman]

Go away sheep. you are like the rest of them, you think DT members as your gods, what they say or what they do, what they decide. you are=sheep.
SebastianJu has done many escrowing for account dealers for years, he has facilitated a safe haven for them and now we're smelling all the shit he has done. on the bright side though, Quicksy now has a legitimate way to do account sales using the most trusted escrow. go figure eh.

I am sheep? WHY SHEEP? You can't even make names up now? who dis? Definitely not the digaran troll we all know.

DT members ain't gods. Trusted members =/= DT members. And no, I don't agree with all DT members. And I have told that openly.

[digaran]

Are you the new merit source now? if you are then what happened to your promise of meriting those 10 posts in your application? if you are then it could explain your change of behavior, or are you trying to become more of DT bitches so that they could welcome you to their flock? are you also going to do favors for those who you or DT members trust? perhaps doing merit favors for them like some of the sources?
The problem with me is that I don't do favors for people, escrowing for account sales for years deserve a red trust. you disagree? you want to let them decide what is best?

Who says DT=trusted? DT actually means that theymos is favoring a selected few over others, he is not doing anything if these trusted few do something untrustworthy such as red tagging the competition or countering the feedbacks to hide the truth from the public eyes or bullying other forum members or leaving positive trust on whomever they want with no reference.
How does that make you feel if I could rank up anybody I want without giving them any merits? leaving positive trust with no reference is like that, they are increasing the trust scores of anybody they want without providing any evidence other than their words.

Here take this positive trust because I trust this guy.(without providing any convincing reason so that people know why this guy has a green trust)
Here take this forum rank because I trust this member.(without giving them merits so that people could see why this member is getting to the next rank)
Both of them are wrong.
Here SebastianJu has done escrow for account sales for years if you read the PM in the screenshot, didn't he know that the community was frowning such deals? yet he was gladly taking the deals because of his fees. unfuckingtrustworthy behavior no matter how much you don't want it to be.

[actmyname]

are you also going to do favors for those who you or DT members trust? perhaps doing merit favors for them like some of the sources?

I am not aware of any DT member that wants merit that badly. Most are Hero Members and Legendary.

Who says DT=trusted? DT actually means that theymos is favoring a selected few over others, he is not doing anything if these trusted [... are] countering the feedbacks to hide the truth from the public eyes

This argument is still stupid and yet you continue to push it. Is this quote not enough? Haven't you seen it enough?

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating.

or [DT members] leaving positive trust on whomever they want with no reference.

You can leave feedback based on the person, not a specific trade.

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

they are increasing the trust scores of anybody they want without providing any evidence other than their words.
[...]
Here take this positive trust because I trust this guy.(without providing any convincing reason so that people know why this guy has a green trust)

The comment section isn't relevant at all, then.

[pugman]

Are you the new merit source now? if you are then what happened to your promise of meriting those 10 posts in your application? if you are then it could explain your change of behavior, or are you trying to become more of DT bitches so that they could welcome you to their flock? are you also going to do favors for those who you or DT members trust? perhaps doing merit favors for them like some of the sources?

Irrelevant.

I am not trying to be a DT "bitch". I want to help this forum,yes. But being a DT member is not the only way. And change of behavior? The fuck? Do elaborate.

I don't do anybody favors,unless I know them very well personally.

The problem with me is that I don't do favors for people, escrowing for account sales for years deserve a red trust. you disagree? you want to let them decide what is best?

This has nothing to do with favors. Stop twisting my own words against me. I know what I said and I stand by it. Seb shouldn't be tagged for doing escrow.

Do you know there is something called,"There's an exception to anything and everything." This applies here.

Seb helps this forum, and the people by providing escrow so that people can't be scammed and you want to warrant him a negative trust because he is untrustworthy all of a sudden,just because he escrows accounts?

Who says DT=trusted? DT actually means that theymos is favoring a selected few over others, he is not doing anything if these trusted few do something untrustworthy such as red tagging the competition or countering the feedbacks to hide the truth from the public eyes or bullying other forum members or leaving positive trust on whomever they want with no reference.

What does =/= mean?

You have a very disturbing idea of what DT actually is. No wonder you're saying random shit.

How does that make you feel if I could rank up anybody I want without giving them any merits? leaving positive trust with no reference is like that, they are increasing the trust scores of anybody they want without providing any evidence other than their words.
Here take this positive trust because I trust this guy.(without providing any convincing reason so that people know why this guy has a green trust)
Here take this forum rank because I trust this member.(without giving them merits so that people could see why this member is getting to the next rank)
Both of them are wrong.

You have no clue on how this forum works, let alone DT. Do you know why theymos handpicked a few DT members? Do you? And FYI, people have been booted off from DT1.

Here SebastianJu has done escrow for account sales for years if you read the PM in the screenshot, didn't he know that the community was frowning such deals? yet he was gladly taking the deals because of his fees. unfuckingtrustworthy behavior no matter how much you don't want it to be.

You can't say if he knew or didn't knew. If a community frowns such behavior, that doesn't mean that he should also frown such behavior.

[digaran]

Ignoring our newest forum sheep a.k.a pugman. moving forward with the fact that from now on people are going to use SebastianJu as escrow to buy and sell forum accounts without any risk.

Unfuckingbelievable, could we have a few topics on invites and accounts asking buyers and sellers to use the most trusted forum escrow for their deals already?

[wizcoin]

Doing escrow of buying and selling account is obviously tolerating the transaction of an account being transferred to someone else. Isn't being untrustworthy? Or is it only because a "SebastianJu" did the escrow that's why no one can touch him? So is it safe to say that the account that were escrowed by someone like "SebastianJu" can be safe and will not be tagged by DT members as long as they aren't violating any rules?

How about other members of this community doing escrow like this but not famous as SebastianJu, will they be neg tagged for this kind of transaction?

No hate, just asking this.  

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Doing escrow of buying and selling account is obviously tolerating the transaction of an account being transferred to someone else. Isn't being untrustworthy?

I don't like it particularly, but I'm not going there with the tagging.  That goes for all escrows.  The purpose of an escrow is to keep the buyer and seller safe, which is what SebastianJu was doing.  That's necessary with bitcoin, and I would probably venture that escrow has been used for other things I wouldn't agree with--I don't have examples, just my suspicion, and I'm not talking about SebastianJu in particular.  But every situation is different. 

In this case, it's bitcointalk accounts and he might not agree with my stance that account buyers & sellers are killing this forum and can be used to scam.  I pick my battles, and this isn't one of them.

[digaran]

Bump, unbelievable seeing that SebastianJu is still walking around with no red tags, I know that you are afraid of OgNasty, I'm just hoping for the best.

Doing escrow of buying and selling account is obviously tolerating the transaction of an account being transferred to someone else. Isn't being untrustworthy?

I don't like it particularly, but I'm not going there with the tagging.  That goes for all escrows.  The purpose of an escrow is to keep the buyer and seller safe, which is what SebastianJu was doing.  That's necessary with bitcoin, and I would probably venture that escrow has been used for other things I wouldn't agree with--I don't have examples, just my suspicion, and I'm not talking about SebastianJu in particular.  But every situation is different.  

In this case, it's bitcointalk accounts and he might not agree with my stance that account buyers & sellers are killing this forum and can be used to scam.  I pick my battles, and this isn't one of them.

Hear me out will you? if SebastianJu is not tagged with red left and right, people will use his service to buy and sell accounts, your great job at tagging account sales would be wasted if people could bypass somebody like you on DT2 and trade accounts safely. SebastianJu is not going to stop this because he is getting a fee for escrowing no matter what is the deal, if he is tagged though he will stop doing it.

[Lauda]

Bump, unbelievable seeing that SebastianJu is still walking around with no red tags, I know that you are afraid of OgNasty, I'm just hoping for the best.

You can't tag him even if you have proper justification without receiving unjust retaliation (not OgNasty, Seb. himself). Therefore, I highly doubt that anyone will act on this regardless of where they stand on escrowing forum accounts.

[Quickseller]

Bump, unbelievable seeing that SebastianJu is still walking around with no red tags, I know that you are afraid of OgNasty, I'm just hoping for the best.

You can't tag him even if you have proper justification without receiving unjust retaliation (not OgNasty, Seb. himself). Therefore, I highly doubt that anyone will act on this regardless of where they stand on escrowing forum accounts.

Very few people are so corrupt that they will leave negative ratings against people that speak out against them for made up reasons. Your level of corruption is the exception rather than the rule.

See won’t get tagged because he isn’t weak enough to be unable to defend his actions. He would win a debate of the issue on its merits.

[qwk]

You can't tag him even if you have proper justification without receiving unjust retaliation (not OgNasty, Seb. himself). Therefore, I highly doubt that anyone will act on this regardless of where they stand on escrowing forum accounts.

I would.

There's just one tiny problem, why I won't:
I simply don't see anything wrong with escrowing a deal that is perfectly legal and even accepted under the rules of this forum.

If I negged that, where should I stop?
Could I also neg the escrows of any kind of deal I personally don't like?

I don't like selling Altcoins, ICOs, drugs, porn (because I consider it a human right to get that for free!), and probably a lot of other things.
But who am I to force my opinion on others?

I really loathe account sales.
But I will never judge anyone for escrowing them.

[minifrij]

The buyers and sellers of the accounts are the issues. Keeping people safe as an escrow isn't something to be punished for, regardless of what they are escrowing.

Ignoring all of the above, I generally do not like telling other people what kind of transactions they can and cannot take part of, when all parties to the transaction are fully understanding of the consequences of the transaction. Attempts to regulate these kinds of transactions is nothing more than a power grab.

What a silly thing to say.

[Quickseller]

Ignoring all of the above, I generally do not like telling other people what kind of transactions they can and cannot take part of, when all parties to the transaction are fully understanding of the consequences of the transaction. Attempts to regulate these kinds of transactions is nothing more than a power grab.

What a silly thing to say.

Sarcasm?

[minifrij]

Sarcasm?

Not particularly. I think there is certainly merit to trying to regulate certain types of sales, and punish those overstepping boundaries.
Someone buying/selling fake IDs or credit cards is a non-extreme example that comes to mind right away. Both may understand the consequences of the transaction should they be caught, however that doesn't mean that we should allow these transactions to take place here without leaving negative ratings and the like. IMO, thinking that these transactions should be allowed and go unpunished/unfiltered is a silly thing to think.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, in which case feel free to correct me.

[digaran]

Very few people are so corrupt that they will leave negative ratings against people that speak out against them

Like OgNasty for example? being so corrupt to leave me a negative rating after speaking against him.

won’t get tagged because he isn’t weak enough to be unable to defend his actions. He would win a debate of the issue on its merits.

I would very much like to see how he is going to win this debate if he is tagged by a DT member, I wish there were some good DT1 member who could have tagged SebastianJu for escrowing account deals. unfortunately people around here are too coward to do anything.

Read more about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102721.msg42549551#msg42549551

EDIT: what is this dude saying posting below my post? what does this old timer trust abuser wants from me? I wonder what could happen if account sales were banned by the forum? I'm sure ogy and friends could've found another way at earning escrow fees.

[OgNasty]

Dude...  You are obsessed with trying to get my attention.  Look at how much time you've spent over the last week mentioning me.  Get a life.  Please.

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

OgNasty

[endlasuresh]

Very few people are so corrupt that they will leave negative ratings against people that speak out against them

Like OgNasty for example? being so corrupt to leave me a negative rating after speaking against him.

won’t get tagged because he isn’t weak enough to be unable to defend his actions. He would win a debate of the issue on its merits.

I would very much like to see how he is going to win this debate if he is tagged by a DT member, I wish there were some good DT1 member who could have tagged SebastianJu for escrowing account deals. unfortunately people around here are too coward to do anything.

Read more about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102721.msg42549551#msg42549551

EDIT: what is this dude saying posting below my post? what does this old timer trust abuser wants from me? I wonder what could happen if account sales were banned by the forum? I'm sure ogy and friends could've found another way at earning escrow fees.

Does Account buying and selling is illegal?
I seen somewhere people got tagged for selling accounts, then why these guys doesn't get the same tag?

[Quickseller]

Sarcasm?

Not particularly. I think there is certainly merit to trying to regulate certain types of sales, and punish those overstepping boundaries.
Someone buying/selling fake IDs or credit cards is a non-extreme example that comes to mind right away. Both may understand the consequences of the transaction should they be caught, however that doesn't mean that we should allow these transactions to take place here without leaving negative ratings and the like. IMO, thinking that these transactions should be allowed and go unpunished/unfiltered is a silly thing to think.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, in which case feel free to correct me.

The sale of fake IDs and stolen credit cards is illegal in most of the civilized world, so this is already against forum rules.

Further, both of your examples have real victims, and the harm is not that someone's feelings are hurt. There will be people and/or entities that will ultimately suffer real financial losses as a result of stolen credit cards and/or fake IDs.

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts. None of the flawed arguments against account sales even make this claim. In fact these arguments fail to account for *real* market incentives not to do the very same things that those against account sales claim sales cause.

It is ridiculous to claim any kind of authority to regulate what people can and cannot do. Especially when you are in absolutely no way elected, and in no way accountable for your decisions. People who regulate others' actions who are neither elected nor accountable are generally described as "dictators".

[qwk]

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.

Yes, there are.
The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable.
Therefore, a certain percentage of the people whose accounts have been "hacked" are victims of people selling forum accounts.

It's the same logic that applies to the sale of e.g. ivory.
Of course the seller doesn't shoot elephants, but someone does when there's a market.
In the end, the elephant dies.

[digaran]

I seen somewhere people got tagged for selling accounts, then why these guys doesn't get the same tag?

Nobody is going to tag SebastianJu because they are afraid of a retaliatory negative trust from them, since abuse of trust system has gone unpunished for years people are afraid to do anything because even if DT members such as ogy and SebastianJu abuse the system nobody with any power(an admin aka theymos) would step in to solve and put an end to the massive abuse. long story short, if you are on DT you could do whatever you want.

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.

Selling forum accounts would encourage spam and scam, therefore the whole community is the victim of account sales whether through trusted escrows such as SebastianJu or in the black market. stop defending your own underground business.

People who regulate others' actions who are neither elected nor accountable are generally described as "dictators".

Wrong, dictators are generally elected first and before becoming a dictator, they'll later become dictator when nobody is able to hold them accountable such as ogy and friends.
EDIT:

Power with no authority is tyranny.

[Quickseller]

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.

Yes, there are.
The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable.
Therefore, a certain percentage of the people whose accounts have been "hacked" are victims of people selling forum accounts.

I don’t think selling accounts makes hacking accounts profitable. If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account, which IMO is worse than you selling my account because if you sold my account, I could argue to the buyer their lack of a signed message is an indication they did not do proper due diligence and they were scammed by someone else, however if you were scamming from my account directly that argument would not work.

Further the reason accounts have value is because they can generate income. Using the above scenario, if you cannot sell my account after hacking it, you could use it to generate income, likes

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Dude...  You are obsessed with trying to get my attention.  Look at how much time you've spent over the last week mentioning me.  Get a life.  Please.

Don't take it too personally.  He tries to get the attention of DT members in general in his warped quest to approach TradeFortress in the negative feedback area.

I seen somewhere people got tagged for selling accounts, then why these guys doesn't get the same tag?

Because DT members generally are willing to draw the line somewhere.  Even if account selling itself is a shady activity, escrowing those deals is simply keeping both parties safe from scamming.  You might not agree with that, but this "if X was tagged, why wasn't Y tagged?" argument is tiresome and smacks of sour grapes.  Usually the people who say those things are people who don't tag account sellers or scammers and are whining because they (or an alt account) got tagged for some sketchy activity.

By the way, the question of why escrows for account sales aren't getting tagged has been answered at least once already.  There's no need to keep asking it.

[minifrij]

It is ridiculous to claim any kind of authority to regulate what people can and cannot do. Especially when you are in absolutely no way elected, and in no way accountable for your decisions. People who regulate others' actions who are neither elected nor accountable are generally described as "dictators".

Due to the nature of the trust system here, I don't think that comparing it in any way to a traditional election/dictatorship is valid.

If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account, which IMO is worse than you selling my account because if you sold my account, I could argue to the buyer their lack of a signed message is an indication they did not do proper due diligence and they were scammed by someone else, however if you were scamming from my account directly that argument would not work.

There being multiple ways to scam with an account doesn't invalidate that account selling opens up another method to do so. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is here.

[qwk]

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.

Yes, there are.
The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable.
Therefore, a certain percentage of the people whose accounts have been "hacked" are victims of people selling forum accounts.

I don’t think selling accounts makes hacking accounts profitable. If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account

Your argument seems to be "there are other ways to make money from a hacked account, not only selling it".
I can agree to that, but it doesn't really counter my point.
That's basically the same as saying "there are other ways to make money from shooting people, not only contract killing"...

[digaran]

Bump, we have an unsolved issue here, people like SebastianJu should not be trusted.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Bump, we have an unsolved issue here, people like SebastianJu should not be trusted.

I doubt bumping this thread is going to change anything. If you really want them to be removed from the DT, you should message people who added them to the list. The topic, however, is highly subjective and doesn't qualify for an obvious case that deserves an instant negative feedback.

[digaran]

I only take bitcointalk forum accounts into escrow whose risked amount are at least $50 per account. Otherwise the risk i can help avoiding and the amount of time i have to implement are in no sane proportion.

Read the date on the quote above, it says 2015, how many deals do you think they have made since? could it be that they have been on selling accounts business and said that they were only the escrow for the deals?

If you really want them to be removed from the DT, you should message people who added them to the list. The topic, however, is highly subjective and doesn't qualify for an obvious case that deserves an instant negative feedback.

I want them to stop escrow for account sale deals, they have been doing it since 2015 and their DT1 sponsor is a trust abuser and bully who'd tag anybody speaking against them.
For 3 years they have helped spammers and scammers to trade accounts with no problem, would it be OK if I start doing the same? I want to know that if I could escrow for account traders just to receive my fee and earn money while people get scammed and this forum get spammed?

[minifrij]

would it be OK if I start doing the same? I want to know that if I could escrow for account traders just to receive my fee and earn money while people get scammed and this forum get spammed?

Could you escrow account sales? No, you're an idiot.
Could someone else escrow account sales? Yeah probably, if they really want to.

[whywefight]

You can't tag him even if you have proper justification without receiving unjust retaliation (not OgNasty, Seb. himself). Therefore, I highly doubt that anyone will act on this regardless of where they stand on escrowing forum accounts.

I would.

There's just one tiny problem, why I won't:
I simply don't see anything wrong with escrowing a deal that is perfectly legal and even accepted under the rules of this forum.

If I negged that, where should I stop?
Could I also neg the escrows of any kind of deal I personally don't like?

I don't like selling Altcoins, ICOs, drugs, porn (because I consider it a human right to get that for free!), and probably a lot of other things.
But who am I to force my opinion on others?

I really loathe account sales.
But I will never judge anyone for escrowing them.

best and only useful post in this thread.

[naturerock]

AT least people have a safe avenue to trade with his escrow service.  It's a better option than people being scamme.  He's not selling accounts himself, he is just a middleman.

[wizcoin]

I really loathe account sales.
But I will never judge anyone for escrowing them.

Then anyone can do an escrow with account sales without tagging them?

[Quickseller]

There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.

Yes, there are.
The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable.
Therefore, a certain percentage of the people whose accounts have been "hacked" are victims of people selling forum accounts.

I don’t think selling accounts makes hacking accounts profitable. If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account

Your argument seems to be "there are other ways to make money from a hacked account, not only selling it".
I can agree to that, but it doesn't really counter my point.
That's basically the same as saying "there are other ways to make money from shooting people, not only contract killing"...

I disagree. I view your argument to be that the sale of accounts makes hacking accounts profitable, and is therefore the reason accounts are hacked. My counter is that hacking of accounts would still be profitable if the sale of accounts was somehow prohibited. 

The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable.

There are other ways to profit from hacking an account other than to sell it.