Quickseller - Escrow Scammer

[Lauda]

Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from. Every escrow deal ever conducted possibly has a victim in it, thus the damage has always been extensive.

I wouldn't have come across this if it hadn't been for the long saga of quickseller abuse I've been suffering.  But recently he's started using a new alt/sockpuppet to try to attack me and I started looking more closely at the situation.  I realized that it seems that Panthers52 has done several deals which were escrowed by Quickseller.  The fact that Quickseller is escrowing for himself seems like a scammy behavior.  I'm not a trader here so it may be that there's nothing wrong with this.  But in any case, I'll go ahead and present some quantitative evidence here and you guys can discuss it as you please.

You can read the full story by clicking on the quote or by using this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.
Therefore, a newly created flag would be valid and should remain active for all eternity. Flags can't be edited, flags can't be removed nor updated.
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56


Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome). This does NOT include the accused user.
Updated local rule (7PM forum time), the "accused user" is no affected obviously even when this isn't an accusation thread.

[TECSHARE]

1. You are not a claimant (victim), thus by Theymos's standards you are not permitted to create a contractual violation flag.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.

2. The affected parties were not only refunded, they have forgiven Quickseller.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366566#msg12366566
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366803#msg12366803
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12352452#msg12352452

"Lauda alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

You are endorsing a false statement. No damages were incurred, any fees for services not actually rendered have been refunded, and those effected have forgiven Quickseller.


3. That is a cute local rule excluding people from defending themselves, or those most likely to defend them from posting. Also local rules not added with the original post are not valid. You edited the OP to add the local rule after I posted. Good luck getting that enforced.

Quote for reference:

Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from. Every escrow deal ever conducted possibly has a victim in it, thus the damage has always been extensive.

I wouldn't have come across this if it hadn't been for the long saga of quickseller abuse I've been suffering.  But recently he's started using a new alt/sockpuppet to try to attack me and I started looking more closely at the situation.  I realized that it seems that Panthers52 has done several deals which were escrowed by Quickseller.  The fact that Quickseller is escrowing for himself seems like a scammy behavior.  I'm not a trader here so it may be that there's nothing wrong with this.  But in any case, I'll go ahead and present some quantitative evidence here and you guys can discuss it as you please.

You can read the full story by clicking on the quote or by using this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.
Therefore, a newly created flag would be valid and should remain active for all eternity (IMO - 10 years is nothing for this scammer). Flags can't be edited, flags can't be removed nor updated.


Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECHSHARE, OgNasty, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome).

[mightyDTs]

@Lauda, now you are acting like a bitch. Clearly you are trying to harass QS to satisfy your personal issue. I thought I said goodbye but now I had to comeback seeing your attempts to create drama surrounding this new trust flags.

You should be excluded from the DT network. You were the root of all these drama and now when theymos finally done something to eliminate all these drama you are not liking it. Spread love instead of spreading hate.

[Quickseller]

Can you document this case of Quickseller scamming in OP too as it is locked?

Im sorry lauda, were you scammed? There is a flag on my profile that says you were.

Lauda alleges: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[Timelord2067]

Link to your flag please?

[Lauda]

Link to your flag please?

I wanted to create it, but I can't due to an early flag that I left with a bad link (limit 1 per 180 days per user). You can create a flag (type 1) if you want, and I'll support and add it in OP. Note: You can't link to the old thread.

[Quickseller]

It appears Hhampuz has added a flag with this thread as a reference in retaliation for my calling him out for stealing funds from BestMixer.

[TheNewAnon135246]

It appears Hhampuz has added a flag with this thread as a reference in retaliation for my calling him out for stealing funds from BestMixer.

*accusing him of stealing funds from BestMixer.

[Quickseller]

It appears Hhampuz has added a flag with this thread as a reference in retaliation for my calling him out for stealing funds from BestMixer.

*accusing him of stealing funds from BestMixer.

No, he actually stole money from BestMixer, but the difference doesn’t matter in the context of this thread— in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.

[TheNewAnon135246]

No, he actually stole money from BestMixer

You have yet to post a single piece of hard evidence regarding that accusation.

in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.

Another assumption.

[suchmoon]

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

[TheNewAnon135246]

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

"Libel: The written or published (media, print, signs, etc…) false assertion of fact communicated to a third-party, which ultimately causes damage to another person’s reputation."

I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions.

[suchmoon]

I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions.

The yellow box probably doesn't require HH to have suffered a loss, should be sufficient to show Quicksy's intent to cause damage.

[Lauda]

I can add more cases into OP if that is what people want. You can then use the same thread for multiple incidents.

The yellow box probably doesn't require HH to have suffered a loss, should be sufficient to show Quicksy's intent to cause damage.

I'm also a victim due to the pill-addiction fiasco.

[Quickseller]

in either case, the flag by Hhampuz is retaliation.

Another assumption.

Nonsense. No reasonable person would believe it is unsafe to trust with me. I have been trusted with large amounts of money by multiple people without incident or complaints. When someone retaliates they don’t admit to this. You really are a tool.

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

More nonsense. The standard is what a reasonable person would believe, not what you believe.

On the bright side, the new guidelines for red trust (remember those? used to be all the rage until recently) allow me to use it if I think trading with Quickseller is high-risk and obviously his attack on Hhampuz shows that. It might rise to the level of a yellow box too, I'll have to think about that. Quicksy does a lot of malicious shit to damage people's reputations.

"Libel: The written or published (media, print, signs, etc…) false assertion of fact communicated to a third-party, which ultimately causes damage to another person’s reputation."

I'd say Hhampuz would have a strong case if he loses work over this, unless QS finally decides to post evidence instead of evading critical questions.

More nonsense. Hhampuz is a scammer (he stole money). I never entered into any kind of implied agreement with him to not call him out when I believe him to be scamming.

[suchmoon]

More nonsense. The standard is what a reasonable person would believe, not what you believe.

Sounds about right:


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

[yogg]

Hhampuz is a scammer

That is what you believe.
There is this whole scam accusation thread you opened, where you stated more of your beliefs :

It appears that Hhampuz took out a loan in the amount of 0.5 btc not long before he what I now believe to be him stealing the btc from BestMixer.
Based on the above, I believe Hhampuz to have used the money from BestMixer to repay his debts.

Care to share with us more of your theories ?


Nice try to derail the conversation.
I am supporting this flag.

[marlboroza]

Confusing system.

Lauda is tagged or should I say "tagged" by theymos, link in reference is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35 and link is pointing to this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0 but it says "act occurred around September 2015"  

Flag from topic links different thread, and it is handled. Also, I see QS has new negative/orange/red/whatever trust/feedback.

Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?

[Lauda]

Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?

I have no idea. What happens if the thread is deleted?

[bones261]

Just for confirmation, if OP locks thread, that "box" won't be visible any more, or?

I have no idea. What happens if the thread is deleted?

Well, I tagged a user by the name of iramsarwar.  He was nuked later on, so the thread that I was using was deleted along with everything else. However, the trust score still had the # symbol and if you go into his trust history, people can still support or oppose my flag. (Not that it matter since he'll never post again, anyway.) To cover my ass, I posted the archive to one of his threads as a negative trust comment. I'm hoping it does not become necessary to open up a whole new thread just to give a newbie-warning tags to small time wannabe scammers.