Bitcointalk Escrows - Trade Safely!

[shorena]

Well, I wonder if it is more widely known by others since it looks a bit strange when a trader might get told to use an escrow named mexxer-2 and when he wants to he sees he might be a criminal mastermind.

Meh, I've got many escrow requests even with the avatar. F*ck those who don't get the reference  

Sometimes references can be a filter to keep people out. I would argue that knowing the 6th part of the trilogy is a must. As such one will likely know Colfer and Artemis as well. In regards to escrow, I sometimes feel people do not look enough at the profiles of those they hire.

[devthedev]

Hey Marco, I have relaunched my escrow service. Minimum tip is 0.01BTC

[SebastianJu]

Hi fellow escrows. I would like to get advice on how to handle a potential risk that I experienced lately.

I had a trade worth 260€. Everything went normal, deal ended with the seller sending the goods and the buyer telling me to release the coins. Only shortly after I received a pm from the buyer that he never received anything. I answered, only to get the message that I was blocked for answering the buyer. Shortly after I saw a scam accusation thread.

Well, first accusation was that I was scammed by the buyer who sent a message including our quotes from an account looking similar to the buyers one. First fright was gone when I realized that the pm came from the exact same account that the buyer owns.

It turned out he never blocked me from receiving messages so the only explaination was that his account was hacked by the seller so that he can get his coins back.

Next thing was that the seller claimed that he was scammed by sending the digital money to another account the seller told me. So the possibility was there that the buyer faked it and let it look like he was getting scammed. So that he had received coins and digital money.

At the end the story of the seller did not sound perfect and finally he was being revealed as the scammer.

Anyway the risk was there that the buyer would have faked it.

Third theory was that a third party was involved though this would have needed the other account being hacked too. So unlikely.

For information here the accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1386622.new#new and the thread where the scammer finally was revealed surely: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389494.new#new

It's the first time I hear of something like that where a hacker did not instantly change the password.


Now my question. How can an escrow prevent this?

Well, normally I would think that the trading partner would have to be cautious and that the escrow would have to assume that the trading partner was not hacked. But it seems there were voices like "so what will you do to prevent this?".

Well, I don't know. Some suggested that I demand a signed message when the seller sends me the address he wants the coins released to as well as the buyer sends one with his message that I can release the coins. Though surely that will scare away users. Even suggesting it... I know that it is a hassle only to start that topic, even with shorena's link on how to do it. Everyone who tried to explain signatures know that it can take ages.

Others claimed only to release coins when the escrow receives a screenshot of the payment. Well, that might have helped in this case, since I doubt the hacker sent anything at all, though I would not know if the screenshot is faked and investigating this surely would take time too.

And asking the trading partners to change their password because they might have been hacked sounds way too far fetched too.

So does anyone has an idea what an escrow potentially could do there? I mean it would have to be done in each trade only on the assumption that a trading partner could have been hacked.

[Ralobot.com]

Short Answer: Dont escrow .... here is why (Seb) :

You cant offer a safe deal even with a signed message simply because YOU're unable to check or verify if the goods has been REALLY received or not AND if they worked or Not.

Rule: The buyer can be a scammer as well as the seller.

Based on the above rule i can easly scam escrow and here is how:


Lets say i've found a member selling a 3D printer, i'll tell him to use escrow ofcourse he wont refuse since escrow is the protection right

Anyways i will deposit the price to escrow so the seller will ship the machine .... after i recieve it i will simply say its not working than i will send it back for a refund AFTER i get some stuff from it or use it  ... <--- behind these 3 points something that might blow your mind  

I can do the same thing with all E-codes i will use the code than tell escrow the code is not working and he should'nt release funds..... alots of things can be done to trick escrow cause simply

YOU ARE NOT A POINT OF VERIFICATION.

[Quickseller]

--help--

First and foremost, if the person sending the bitcoin is not clear that he is authorizing the release of escrow then you should not release the escrow until you receive clarification. If you have received and read the 2nd message saying that the goods have not yet been received prior to pushing the transaction releasing escrow to the seller then you should not release escrow and if you do then you are in the wrong. If you are in a situation when you receive conflicting messages as you say you did, and you are blocked from sending PMs to one of the parties to a trade you are in the middle of escrowing then you should open a scam accusation thread to get as much clarification from both parties and the community as possible.

A more common scenario is that the party releasing escrow is vague about the authorization of the releasing of funds, and this can be solved by replying to all requesting clarification on if you are okay to release funds held in escrow.

You have a couple of potential solutions to guarantee that you are receiving instructions from the person that you started the trade with. The first and most obvious solution would be to require a signed message from the person authorizing the release of escrow, the signing key does not need to be old, it only needs to be clarified at the time the trade is initiated and written into the escrow contract that you yourself sign. The same can be true about the specific address that you release funds to, as you could include a clause in the escrow agreement that the person receiving the bitcoin should sign the address he wishes to receive btc to with a specific key. In order to counter potential concerns about not being able to sign a message, you could also add a clause into your escrow contract that you will delay the release of escrow by x amount of time if you do not receive a signed message.   

[SebastianJu]

Quickseller


The person was very clear about authorizing the forwarding of the bitcoins. Well, the hacker ralobot surely chose the matching words and shortly after send a pm from ralobot's account that he sent the pm. It looked clearly like both parties fulfilled their duties and the buyer was pleased.

You don't think I would read the buyer writing me that he did not receive anything and still would release the coins, don't you? Of course the buyer only could answer on my email telling both parties that the coins are released and the escrow ended. The buyer never realized that something was off before that.

Sure, I would not release the coins, I wonder why you mention it at all. And yes, I would try to find out what is going on. Easiest way would be to contact the buyer through other ways or ask another user to send him a pm. Or my brandnew altaccount.

So you suggest a signature. Well, I'm not sure if you ever tried to explain signatures to someone new to it. It is no fun. Adding this to every escrowtrade... I would stop instantly now. Because it would be a huge hassle to explain everything in many cases. And escrow would become more complicated and longer. Which is, when I enforce it, a disadvantage of using escrows. People already switch or use no escrow at all only because I'm not online the whole day. So making that mandatory is not cool.

Well, I might suggest it to the trading parties at the start. Give me a phpkey or a bitcoin address you want to sign with when you want me to release coins or when you received the goods. Might still mean alot of explainations but maybe it works.

Man... and all this for this single happening. Wonder how often it will happen at all. Well done ralobot. >:-(


Ralobot.com


There are some cases when I actually can check if the goods reached. Couponcodes whose value I can check before I release it to the buyer without letting the seller know the time when I do. Buyer takes the amounts and tells me to release.

Or accounts might be able to be secured by me before forwarding them.

With material goods. There is tracking and both parties can make videos and images.

But you are sure that it is not 100% scamproof. It is a protection and till now all scam attempts Iam aware of could be stopped because the scammer ultimately was not so totally smart like he thought.

But yes, surely it's not absolutely safe. It's surely safer than sending bitcoins first and receiving nothing, yes.

[Ralobot.com]

Quickseller

......

Ralobot.com


Some bullshit ......... till now all scam attempts Iam aware of could be stopped because the scammer ultimately was not so totally smart like he thought.

Huh  yeah right 

Why would you be so smart since everthing is simple and stupid 


Anyways good luck bro.

Note: Try to follow KYC & AML terms for a SAFE escrow lool   

[SebastianJu]

Quickseller

......

Ralobot.com


Some bullshit ......... till now all scam attempts Iam aware of could be stopped because the scammer ultimately was not so totally smart like he thought.

Huh  yeah right 

Why would you be so smart since everthing is simple and stupid 


Anyways good luck bro.

Note: Try to follow KYC & AML terms for a SAFE escrow lool   

Right... my sentence was not the best. I only referred to the small part of trades that you referred to before.

At the end it's correct that it's not possible to make it totally safe. As escrow you can only try to find potential risks and avoid them or try to lessen them.

[ezeminer]

Quickseller

......

Ralobot.com


Some bullshit ......... till now all scam attempts Iam aware of could be stopped because the scammer ultimately was not so totally smart like he thought.

Huh  yeah right 

Why would you be so smart since everthing is simple and stupid 


Anyways good luck bro.

Note: Try to follow KYC & AML terms for a SAFE escrow lool   

Right... my sentence was not the best. I only referred to the small part of trades that you referred to before.

At the end it's correct that it's not possible to make it totally safe. As escrow you can only try to find potential risks and avoid them or try to lessen them.

That's pretty much the reason I wouldn't escrow, and probably other members as well. There are just too many frauds that go on in the forum, and people that want to rip off someone else.

[Serge V.]

At the end it's correct that it's not possible to make it totally safe. As escrow you can only try to find potential risks and avoid them or try to lessen them.

The best way to make the deal safe is to motivate both parties to be honest each with other and eliminate the third side that can make responsible decisions (such as escrow agent).

[SebastianJu]

ezeminer

That's pretty much the reason I wouldn't escrow, and probably other members as well. There are just too many frauds that go on in the forum, and people that want to rip off someone else.

Believe me, I often enough think of giving up. The time involved is high, the reward miniscule and not seldom you get a promise for a tip but no tip at all at the end.

And yes, many escrows gave up already... I'm sure they enjoy the free time they have now... haven't really lost much from that.

Though without escrows the scamsituation on here would be way way worse.


Serge V.

At the end it's correct that it's not possible to make it totally safe. As escrow you can only try to find potential risks and avoid them or try to lessen them.

The best way to make the deal safe is to motivate both parties to be honest each with other and eliminate the third side that can make responsible decisions (such as escrow agent).

I wonder if you are new on here or if your english is only that bad that you miswrote what you meant. I doubt that you really believe that a scammer can be motivated to be honest to his trading partner.

Without escrows the situation on bitcointalk would be way way worse. You never notice it because so many scams are stopped in the beginning only because an escrow is mentioned, then another big bunch when the escrow gets involved and alot of deals end before the escrow got released because before that doubts appear or a clear accusation comes into.

Well, I think you miswrote... or you somehow managed to never get scammed.

[Serge V.]

I wonder if you are new on here or if your english is only that bad that you miswrote what you meant. I doubt that you really believe that a scammer can be motivated to be honest to his trading partner.

Without escrows the situation on bitcointalk would be way way worse. You never notice it because so many scams are stopped in the beginning only because an escrow is mentioned, then another big bunch when the escrow gets involved and alot of deals end before the escrow got released because before that doubts appear or a clear accusation comes into.

Well, I think you miswrote... or you somehow managed to never get scammed.

I am not miswrote. There are a lot of examples here proved that a third party always will be the weak link in any deal. And some of you already can agree with it.

The more parties you involve in a transation, the more points of failure there are.

I'm always wonder how somebody still use the third party escrow in our community when the bitcoin protocol already gives more higher level of security than can give any trusted escrow. Very sad, that people can not understand, that more mature escrow service and longer history can not protect them from human error, hacking/physical compromising, from disappearing of the agent or the scam from his side...

Here is an example of the escrow scheme that motivates scammer to be honest to his trading partner:
1. The escrow agent creates a transaction, according to which the buyer collateral & the buyer payment for goods (2x) + the seller collateral (1x) will be sent to the created from their public keys MultiSig address.
2. The buyer and the seller checks and sign the transaction, the transaction is broadcasted to the network.
3. After the transaction is confirmed, the seller sends the goods to the buyer.
4. The buyer receives the goods and informs the escrow agent.
5. The escrow agent creates the transaction, according to which the seller will receive the seller collateral & the buyer payment for goods (2x) and the buyer will receive the buyer collateral (1x).
6. The seller and the buyer checks and sign the transaction, the transaction is broadcasted to the network.

Actually, this scheme will encourage both sides to be honest, and if something happens with the parcel to conduct a thorough investigation and find the consensus.

[SebastianJu]

I wonder if you are new on here or if your english is only that bad that you miswrote what you meant. I doubt that you really believe that a scammer can be motivated to be honest to his trading partner.

Without escrows the situation on bitcointalk would be way way worse. You never notice it because so many scams are stopped in the beginning only because an escrow is mentioned, then another big bunch when the escrow gets involved and alot of deals end before the escrow got released because before that doubts appear or a clear accusation comes into.

Well, I think you miswrote... or you somehow managed to never get scammed.

I am not miswrote. There are a lot of examples here proved that a third party always will be the weak link in any deal. And some of you already can agree with it.

Serge, it's a little bit funny that you quoted a sentence that he did not wrote against third party escrows but against multisignature escrowing. Though that is the solution you come up with.

The more parties you involve in a transation, the more points of failure there are.

I'm always wonder how somebody still use the third party escrow in our community when the bitcoin protocol already gives more higher level of security than can give any trusted escrow. Very sad, that people can not understand, that more mature escrow service and longer history can not protect them from human error, hacking/physical compromising, from disappearing of the agent or the scam from his side...

Here is an example of the escrow scheme that motivates scammer to be honest to his trading partner:
1. The escrow agent creates a transaction, according to which the buyer collateral & the buyer payment for goods (2x) + the seller collateral (1x) will be sent to the created from their public keys MultiSig address.
2. The buyer and the seller checks and sign the transaction, the transaction is broadcasted to the network.
3. After the transaction is confirmed, the seller sends the goods to the buyer.
4. The buyer receives the goods and informs the escrow agent.
5. The escrow agent creates the transaction, according to which the seller will receive the seller collateral & the buyer payment for goods (2x) and the buyer will receive the buyer collateral (1x).
6. The seller and the buyer checks and sign the transaction, the transaction is broadcasted to the network.

Actually, this scheme will encourage both sides to be honest, and if something happens with the parcel to conduct a thorough investigation and find the consensus.

Yes, an escrow is a point of failure but the same is true for your scenario. You only need one of these scammy escrows or a hacked escrow account and you already have zero security from that 2of3 multisig that you described. The scammer would initiate a trade with an altaccount, deal as the escrow and screw the other trading partner because the scammer already holds 2 of the keys to release the coins to himself.

I did not have seen yet a fully safe scenario there too. You could involve more than one escrows though that would mean more time it takes, more work and maybe higher fees. For more security though.

Still an escrow is needed for negotiating while problems. With 2 of 2 you run into the risk that one of your trading partners claim you did send something wrong or that he threatens you to not release the coins until you agree to pay half of the price back.

It's often suggested but it is only a partly solution for some problems and many remain unsolved or other attack vectors are there.

[Serge V.]

Yes, an escrow is a point of failure but the same is true for your scenario. You only need one of these scammy escrows or a hacked escrow account and you already have zero security from that 2of3 multisig that you described. The scammer would initiate a trade with an altaccount, deal as the escrow and screw the other trading partner because the scammer already holds 2 of the keys to release the coins to himself.

I did not have seen yet a fully safe scenario there too. You could involve more than one escrows though that would mean more time it takes, more work and maybe higher fees. For more security though.

Still an escrow is needed for negotiating while problems. With 2 of 2 you run into the risk that one of your trading partners claim you did send something wrong or that he threatens you to not release the coins until you agree to pay half of the price back.

It's often suggested but it is only a partly solution for some problems and many remain unsolved or other attack vectors are there.

According to my scheme/scenario there is no third party, the address is created only from the buyer and the seller public keys, so it is 2-of-2 MultiSig. The buyer can not scam the seller because he locks up twice as much as the seller, so he is motivated to be honest.

[Ralobot.com]

Serge V. The Stupid, i wonder how your little brain works (Are you a cartoon character?) f****k u anyways:   You dont know shit about shit so shuuuuu plz... tits brain

Seb look : If you want to offer a 99.99% safe escrow service than the ONLY way is to be a point of verification witch means all trades (Goods or digital goods) must be sent to YOU from both seller & the buyer (To your home or to your wallets) , than after you check , release to both dealers at the same time.  (+ a signed message).

My last words : escrow cant offer a 100% safe deal and i think u already know .... but 99.99% is good, just becarefull from receiving things to ur home or wallets ....

Yes, an escrow is a point of failure but the same is true for your scenario. You only need one of these scammy escrows or a hacked escrow account and you already have zero security from that 2of3 multisig that you described. The scammer would initiate a trade with an altaccount, deal as the escrow and screw the other trading partner because the scammer already holds 2 of the keys to release the coins to himself.

I did not have seen yet a fully safe scenario there too. You could involve more than one escrows though that would mean more time it takes, more work and maybe higher fees. For more security though.

Still an escrow is needed for negotiating while problems. With 2 of 2 you run into the risk that one of your trading partners claim you did send something wrong or that he threatens you to not release the coins until you agree to pay half of the price back.

It's often suggested but it is only a partly solution for some problems and many remain unsolved or other attack vectors are there.

According to my scheme/scenario there is no third party, the address is created only from the buyer and the seller public keys, so it is 2-of-2 MultiSig. The buyer can not scam the seller because he locks up twice as much as the seller, so he is motivated to be honest.

[ezeminer]

Yes, an escrow is a point of failure but the same is true for your scenario. You only need one of these scammy escrows or a hacked escrow account and you already have zero security from that 2of3 multisig that you described. The scammer would initiate a trade with an altaccount, deal as the escrow and screw the other trading partner because the scammer already holds 2 of the keys to release the coins to himself.

I did not have seen yet a fully safe scenario there too. You could involve more than one escrows though that would mean more time it takes, more work and maybe higher fees. For more security though.

Still an escrow is needed for negotiating while problems. With 2 of 2 you run into the risk that one of your trading partners claim you did send something wrong or that he threatens you to not release the coins until you agree to pay half of the price back.

It's often suggested but it is only a partly solution for some problems and many remain unsolved or other attack vectors are there.

According to my scheme/scenario there is no third party, the address is created only from the buyer and the seller public keys, so it is 2-of-2 MultiSig. The buyer can not scam the seller because he locks up twice as much as the seller, so he is motivated to be honest.

So how does the seller get his funds if the buyer refuses to release in this situation? That's what breaks your logic. And yes it would be nice to have people that are honest and all. But a scammer in this situation would talk you into that logic.

[Serge V.]

So how does the seller get his funds if the buyer refuses to release in this situation? That's what breaks your logic. And yes it would be nice to have people that are honest and all. But a scammer in this situation would talk you into that logic.

I think the the buyer can refuse to release the funds only in one situation, if he is oligophrenic person with defective brain (like some subjects here) has a problem with logic, because in this situation he can lose twice more coins than the seller.

[SebastianJu]

Serge V.

According to my scheme/scenario there is no third party, the address is created only from the buyer and the seller public keys, so it is 2-of-2 MultiSig. The buyer can not scam the seller because he locks up twice as much as the seller, so he is motivated to be honest.

I thought your scenario contains an escrow. Which would make it a 2 of 3 multisig. Though 2 of 2 holds the risk of getting extortet.

So how does the seller get his funds if the buyer refuses to release in this situation? That's what breaks your logic. And yes it would be nice to have people that are honest and all. But a scammer in this situation would talk you into that logic.

I think the the buyer can refuse to release the funds only in one situation, if he is oligophrenic person with defective brain (like some subjects here) has a problem with logic, because in this situation he can lose twice more coins than the seller.

I don't know what you mean. It surely won't help if someone tells the buyer that he has a small brain. He would have your coins hostage. And why can he lose twice more coins than the seller? He received his goods already from the seller but he decided to get half of his coins in escrow back. Nothing the seller can do except giving in when the buyer created the deal with a newbie account. He would not care about red trust on that account.


Ralobot.com


Yes you are right. I try to hold both items when it is possible. Though that is not possible with some accounts because they might get banned because of different ip logins and password changes and such.

And for physical goods it is hard because additional shipping costs, time delay and such. So the trading partners would decide to lower cost and time. Though maybe I should stress the risk more in these cases.

Well and receiving digital money, you are right there too, fiat and so on is something an escrow can not receive because of risks of receiving carded or phished amounts.

Though when I already started to point out risks and claim that I can't back them, I might do it correctly on all trades in the future. Not only certain types.

[Serge V.]

And why can he lose twice more coins than the seller? He received his goods already from the seller but he decided to get half of his coins in escrow back. Nothing the seller can do except giving in when the buyer created the deal with a newbie account. He would not care about red trust on that account.

I mean the coins on the MultiSig address, where the buyer locks up twice as much as the seller. In case when the buyer refuses to release the funds, he gets the goods (1x) but loses twice more coins than this goods worth (2x), his profit is x-2x=-x - not the best situation to lay down the conditions... Yes, for the seller the situation is not better, but at least he will have the chance to punish the scammer and leave him without his money, and I am sure, after that, the buyer will never try to repeat this scenario.

[TookDk]

And why can he lose twice more coins than the seller? He received his goods already from the seller but he decided to get half of his coins in escrow back. Nothing the seller can do except giving in when the buyer created the deal with a newbie account. He would not care about red trust on that account.

I mean the coins on the MultiSig address, where the buyer locks up twice as much as the seller. In case when the buyer refuses to release the funds, he gets the goods (1x) but loses twice more coins than this goods worth (2x), his profit is x-2x=-x - not the best situation to lay down the conditions... Yes, for the seller the situation is not better, but at least he will have the chance to punish the scammer and leave him without his money, and I am sure, after that, the buyer will never try to repeat this scenario.

So if the buyer refuses to release the funds, then will the funds be stuck for ever?

In a normal escrow scenario then will the escrow arbitrate between the buyer and the seller, if a settlement is not possible then will the funds be released to the part with the most convincing prof.