Community input

[mdayonliner]

OK, the feedback left by Lauda and actmyname speaks louder than the discussion we've had here--henceforth, no exceptions to account sellers being negged will be made.

henceforth

The date was January 27, 2019 and we as a community sealed it that we will tag account sellers.


How about someone who encourage account selling? Acting escrow for account selling is directly encouraging to disrespect the community value.


PS: I am not sure if the above screenshots are legit or not (However I assume they are legit coz it will be hard for this newbie user to edit the contents)
Also judging the user is newbie from his confessions:

TBH I am fairly new here,

[1714745498]

1714745498

[1714745498]

1714745498

[Findingnemo]

Community member SebasitanJU already known for his escrows while account selling and lot of discussion happened earlier as well but no one tagged escrow.

I conclude that he is just an escrow whatever the action,he did that transaction at time is important and for to be trusted.

[deisik]

I conclude that he is just an escrow whatever the action,he did that transaction at time is important and for to be trusted.

Excuse me for interfering here as I rarely visit this board (I mean other than recently with my thread here)

But it looks like a difficult if not to say tricky question. For example, if someone opens a payment channel over LN and he understands that someone else may be doing something dirty (read, launder money) by sending dough through his channel, should he be held responsible? It seems to me that this situation has pretty much in common with escrow services. So should the escrow be concerned with such things or he just do his best to make both parties keep their end of the bargain?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

No exceptions for account dealers is one thing, but I also recall saying that I wasn't going to start tagging escrows who facilitate account sales.  I'm only speaking for myself here--it's an area that I'm sure some folks don't agree with.  I certainly don't approve of helping account dealers, but tagging an escrow is going too far IMO. 

We did discuss all of this before, OP.  I'm 99.5% sure I wrote essentially the same thing around the time that I wrote the quote you provided.  I'd still be interested to hear others' opinions on the matter.  We do have a lot more DT members, and they might feel differently.  I don't have a monopoly on hard feelings toward account buyers/sellers.

[bones261]

No exceptions for account dealers is one thing, but I also recall saying that I wasn't going to start tagging escrows who facilitate account sales.  I'm only speaking for myself here--it's an area that I'm sure some folks don't agree with.  I certainly don't approve of helping account dealers, but tagging an escrow is going too far IMO.  

We did discuss all of this before, OP.  I'm 99.5% sure I wrote essentially the same thing around the time that I wrote the quote you provided.  I'd still be interested to hear others' opinions on the matter.  We do have a lot more DT members, and they might feel differently.  I don't have a monopoly on hard feelings toward account buyers/sellers.

TBH, I'm not certain of how escrow works. In such a case, does the escrow agent have to be privy to the fact that what is being exchanged is an account? Or do they just receive the bitcoin and when the other party says it's OK to release the funds, they do so, no questions asked.

[suchmoon]

TBH, I'm not certain of how escrow works. In such a case, does the escrow agent have to be privy to the fact that what is being exchanged is an account? Or do they just receive the bitcoin and when the other party says it's OK to release the funds, they do so, no questions asked.

Escrow has to know and actually hold the password to the account otherwise this wouldn't make sense. If you trust the other party you don't need escrow.

I'm more interested as to what would happen if an escrowed account ends up scamming. Escrow knew the account changed hands and didn't warn anybody. Shady AF IMO. See Master-P for a case study.

[poptok1]

But it looks like a difficult if not to say tricky question.

Tricky indeed, ambivalently greyish zone.
Now, my question is does this escrow gains profits from this activity? I would say that this is the key question here.
If he does this non-profit, then we are dealing with truly grey area here, at least no newbie will get robbed but... is it fair? Nope.  
That's why he, the escrow should take in to consideration the possibility of being red tagged. Because any one who finds his activity offensive, unfair or simply fraudulent will be fully entitled to have such opinion and the red tag will be honest and true.
Simple question of morality, if he goes red, it will be on his own wish and he shouldn't have any pretences.

Case is more obvious to me, while he makes money of this process.

Also, I would say that the example you have provided us with, is a little bit a miss. LN is not a conscious being, it has no voice nor choice. It just have to do what it was created to do. People however do have a choice, even more to that, we always have it.

[The Cryptovator]

In that case I am agree with OP and provided evidence look like valid to me (Personally I don't think it has been edited). However, PM could be verify by any moderators if SebastianJu disagree with it.

My opinions, I don't see any different between account buy/sell, provide escrow and keep as collateral. Where most of DT members not supporting account sell but someone from DT members providing escrow. I don't think it's wise work, who will be responsible if happen any scam by sold account? I don't think he is leaving even neutral feedback to sold account. So only escrow aware about it. If someone provide like that escrow then account sell will be more safer.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

Escrow has to know and actually hold the password to the account otherwise this wouldn't make sense. If you trust the other party you don't need escrow.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but let's say I was buying an account from you, could I not send bitcoin to escrow, you give me account details, and then escrow releases bitcoin to you after I tell them the "goods" were received? They never need to know what the goods were.

I'm more interested as to what would happen if an escrowed account ends up scamming. Escrow knew the account changed hands and didn't warn anybody. Shady AF IMO. See Master-P for a case study.

Yeah, this is the real issue. Not all account sales end up in scam attempts, but some do. Are you complicit for facilitating the scammer buying an account?

[suchmoon]

Escrow has to know and actually hold the password to the account otherwise this wouldn't make sense. If you trust the other party you don't need escrow.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but let's say I was buying an account from you, could I not send bitcoin to escrow, you give me account details, and then escrow releases bitcoin to you after I tell them the "goods" were received? They never need to know what the goods were.

I would need to trust you to not lie to the escrow. So I might as well go first and give the goods to you without any escrow and just trust you to pay me later.

This might work to some extent with physical trades that have e.g. tracking numbers. But even then if the buyer says "I received a brick instead of the very expensive thing that I bought" how is the escrow going to adjudicate the dispute?

[mdayonliner]

So, let's say (hypothetically) I want to buy an account in the forum. I post a topic asking for escrow for the deal. Insistently I will discover some DTs are tagging me because I am an account buyer and some trusted members possibly in DT network, are offering their escrow service because they will make some quick money.

This is a very strange standard to me.

[Findingnemo]

I conclude that he is just an escrow whatever the action,he did that transaction at time is important and for to be trusted.

Excuse me for interfering here as I rarely visit this board (I mean other than recently with my thread here)

But it looks like a difficult if not to say tricky question. For example, if someone opens a payment channel over LN and he understands that someone else may be doing something dirty (read, launder money) by sending dough through his channel, should he be held responsible? It seems to me that this situation has pretty much in common with escrow services. So should the escrow be concerned with such things or he just do his best to make both parties keep their end of the bargain?

As long as he is getting paid for what he is doing,and he do his service without any issue then it will be okay.

But IMO,if an escrow involved in dirty transactions like account selling then he also need to be considered as a not trusted person while buyers and sellers are treated like that.Which may varies on others (DT) opinion.

[deisik]

Also, I would say that the example you have provided us with, is a little bit a miss. LN is not a conscious being, it has no voice nor choice. It just have to do what it was created to do. People however do have a choice, even more to that, we always have it

It is not like the law of gravity

Or a so-called act of God, which you could shift the blame onto (i.e. anything outside human control) as in this case there are always people behind the technology or its application (which is what my example is about). And it is not just idle speculations because it is a serious legal issue. The point is that financial authorities believe cryptocurrency transfers should fall under KYC/AML regulation

For example, FinCEN have already made it clear that activities involving cryptocurrency transfers are subject to their control. That's basically why I brought forth the example of LN as you can always find and blame the payment channel operator for illegal remittances, which acts as a sort of escrow here. Indeed, we are not required to follow the law in the case in question, but we could still use it as an analogy

[mdayonliner]

Bump.

Reputable escrow who deals with account trading accepted like SebastianJu, we split the escort fees 50/50.

Archived: http://archive.is/Dbil2

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So, let's say (hypothetically) I want to buy an account in the forum. I post a topic asking for escrow for the deal. Insistently I will discover some DTs are tagging me because I am an account buyer and some trusted members possibly in DT network, are offering their escrow service because they will make some quick money.

This is a very strange standard to me.

Well, some DT members have differing opinions about whether account buying/selling is unsavory, and they wouldn't tag members on either side of the deal.  It's not a double standard, just a different view.  I would hope that a DT member who did think account buyers or sellers are deserving of a tag wouldn't escrow for an account sale.  I know I never would, but it isn't against forum rules and some trusted members don't have a problem with account sales--and I understand that. 

The escrow is basically ensuring that any deal results in the buyer getting his product and the seller getting his money.  That's it, it's to make sure nobody gets scammed.  I don't think just being the escrow for an account sale makes him untrustworthy, and thus I've never tagged anyone for doing that.

[TECSHARE]

Shhh. Some people are more equal than others, and you are a scammer and or troll for questioning the dictates of the grand pubahs.

[1miau]

It's a very tricky issue and I agree that account sellers and buyers should receive a red tag if there is no specified reason (like suchmoon securing the account of Gleb Gamow). Hacked or sold accounts are involved in any kind of shady activities and I bet the problem will get worse the older the forum gets. The last hack was back in 2015 and if there should be another hack acccount sales would be booming.

The escrow is basically ensuring that any deal results in the buyer getting his product and the seller getting his money.  That's it, it's to make sure nobody gets scammed.  I don't think just being the escrow for an account sale makes him untrustworthy, and thus I've never tagged anyone for doing that.

I was going to reply here and just saw your comment that described my opinion very well. Account sales would be done anyway, maybe on Telegram, other forums or somewhere else. There would be fake-account sellers making a business out of it by selling not existing high-ranked accounts to greedy bounty spammers. Prohibit escrows for account sales wouldn't decrease account sales. It would only lead to more people being scammed (although I would have no problem with scammed account buyers  )

Instead of suspecting the escrow we should make clear on the forum that account sales are discouraged and can lead to a red tag. I think most account buyers know that. They are deliberately cheating the Merit-System and try to buy an high-ranked account to scam others or shitpost the boards for a few shitcoins. It's our job to detect them after they are sold.

In addition, I would appreciate it if the escrow makes a clear statement before selling accounts in PM that account sales can lead to a red tag and the seller / buyer are making it on their own risk.

Personally, I would tag account sellers because it's not beneficial for the forum but I have no problem if other DT members don't tag them.