Topic: Bitcointalk Escrows - Trade Safely! - page 14. (Read 108567 times)

I think untrusted escrows don't make it in this list. Only when you are trusted to some extent you can apply on here. At least many already wanted to but were not big enough yet.

Another point might be that adding another escrow always contains the risk of adding a scammer that acted as a good guy. I know that I became very cautious with suggesting other escrows now.

First the escrows are not official but they are offering their service, the big 3 and others are trusted enough to deal as they have many deals in the past but always deal at your own risk.

P.S You should contact them directly if you need their escrow service.

What is criteria for using this escrow is this official from forum or they all doing personally if I need to use any escrow then I have to post here or sending Personal Message is better and safe for any exchange

I find that there are some other people also offering their escrow service. But those are not mentioned in this list. One of them is Neotox, who is offering free escrow service also.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/free-escrow-neotox-escrow-service-1277639

Though most escrows on the list are online less often than you are, I think. You would be wondered how many uses write to 5 escrows at a time and the first answering is dealt with. Or I answer some hours later and they already went another way. Other escrow or without escrow at all.

Might not be bad if you are there as an alternative. Many escrows even are online only once a day or so.

I dont have a thread and I never officially announced that I do escrow. I just say yes most of the time when Im asked. Im not really a full time escrow if you will, mainly doing it to help out.

mmmm but why shorena is not in the list already? he left him service?
or it's a temporary break? 

I always use coin control. All escrows should, or something like it. (Separate physical wallets or separate wallet files also works.)

I think for 99,99% of the cases this will be the truth. Though I wonder what will that mean for scammer proofs coming from walletexplorer. Guess it does not serve as a total proof now.

At least it can't be exploited by scammers to frame someone. The privkey of another person or shared wallet would be needed. On the other hand, some people sell their private keys. It might mean a risk though I think a small one in the cases I know.

I've never believed those either. A strong hint is still a hint, however it is not proof.

When you say it this way then it has to be that way. I think it might be interesting to check out the fundamentals of the protocal a bit mire. I did not bother yet about that besides multisig though that something I believed in now is not true anymore is interesting.


I meant walletexplorer.com is for finding connected bitcoin addresses so that you know that they have to be owned by the same wallet. Though now that doesn't sound like something trustworthy anymore. Even when inputs come from 2 address into a transaction, it is maximum a strong hint that they have the same owner. So even that can't be proof of anything.

LOL 

So seb what your new escrow rules ?

Please reply as soon as possible 

Should this page be pinned?

At the technical level, bitcoin doesn't know anything about wallets.  There are only inputs and outputs.  The only requirement on the inputs are that they refer to unspent outputs.  They don't need to belong to any wallets. They don't even need to belong to any bitcoin addresses. Or they can come from as many addresses or wallets as you like.  This is the concept behind things like "SharedCoin", "SharedSend", etc.


It can be done with any transaction.  They don't look any different.


All blockchain explorers have a lot of serious flaws.

I did not know that it is possible at all to send bitcoins from different wallets in one transaction. That possibility would make it impossible to surely judge from a transaction with 2 input addresses to the outcome that both addresses were in the same wallet and belong to the same person. Or one could connect his own wallet with another wallet to make it harder to find him.

Or is this only possible with multisig addresses and/or can it be done  with normal addresses too and does the transaction look differently than signed from the same wallet? If so then services like walletexplorer.com has a serious flaw.

Guess one should not get a stubborn one in your way with that scheme...

If you read the thread where Serge V. described the concept, you'd have seen that neither sends first:


So, the idea here is that a facilitator (they can be the buyer, seller, an escrow or agent, or whatever you like), is given a list of inputs that each party is planning on using to fund the transaction.  The facilitator then crafts a single unsigned transaction that uses the necessary inputs from BOTH parties and funds the 2-of-2 address with a single output (and adding additional outputs to send any required change back to the parties).  This transaction is unsigned and therefore not useful to the facilitator to steal anything from anyone.  The facilitator then provides the unsigned transaction to each of the parties so they can review it to make sure it does what it is supposed to do.  Once the two parties are happy with the transaction, they can both sign it.  Since the transaction simultaneously uses inputs from BOTH parties, it isn't useful when only one party has signed it. Therefore, it doesn't matter which of the two parties signs first.  After BOTH parties have signed the transaction, any of the three parties (buyer, seller, facilitator) can broadcast the transaction.  When the transaction has confirmed, the funds of BOTH parties will simultaneously be trapped in the 2-of-2 transaction until BOTH parties agree to release it.



He can, or the buyer can extort from the seller.  It's a bit like the "mutually assured destruction" that was supposed to prevent nuclear war.  As long as the "collateral" is large enough that neither party is willing to lose the money, and both parties are willing to walk away and lose their money in order to prevent the other party from gaining anything inappropriately, the scammer can't extort anything.  The scammer can force the victim to lose money, but they can't gain anything for themselves without the victims cooperation.

If the victim is more desperate than the scammer to at least get some potion of their money back, then the scammer can convince the victim to give up a portion of their money in order to get a little bit of it back.

If the scammer is more desperate than the victim to at least get some potion of their money back, then the victim can convince the scammer to give up a portion of their money in order to get a little bit of it back.

So, if the seller risks 1 BTC, and the buyer risks 2 BTC.

• The buyer can extort the seller, by demanding that the seller sign a transaction to release 2.1 BTC from the 2-of-2 so that the Seller only gets 0.9 BTC back.  The buyer will win this extortion if the seller is desperate enough.
• The seller can extort the buyer, by demanding that the buyer sign a transaction to release 1.1 BTC from the 2-of-2 so that the Buyer only gets 1.9 BTC back.  The seller will win this extortion if the buyer is desperate enough.

As Serge V. pointed out, if the victim is always willing to walk away with a complete loss of everything that they put into the transaction, then the scammer can't gain anything, all the scammer can do in that situation is lose their own money and force the victim to lose money at the same time.  Once the transaction is funded and confirmed, the entire thing turns into a negotiating contest where each party has the opportunity to try to negotiate the best possible result for themselves while trying to find a result that the counter-party will be willing to accept.

The buyer and the seller send funds to the MultiSig address at the same time and in the same transaction.
In most cases the seller is more reputable than the buyer and his reputation worth more than a single purchase... but it is doesn't matter, because the scheme is assumes that you will never put a desert eagle near your balls and will never shoot yourself in the foot.


There is nothing complicated for you as the MultiSig escrow agent, just to prepare the transaction, help verify and sign it, broadcast it to the network. All responsibility for any decisions lies on the buyer and the seller.

Serge V.


Hm. So the seller risk 1x and buyer 2x while the seller has the goods. Though the seller only sends the goods after the escrow address was funded. Additionally, who has to send first to the escrow address?

When the buyer has to send first 2x then the seller is in favor risking nothing. If the seller sends 1x first then he would be in risk of losing 1x. So a scam can happen by both sides. And using a new account will ensure that a scam accusation thread is useless.

Even when both sent. Then the seller risked only 1x and the buyer 2x. At this point the buyer is more at risk. The seller can extort for more than his 1x.

Well, when I feel into the situation then this surely is nothing you can use for every trade. One always had to keep the value of the other account in mind. Even when it is higher than the possible loss, he might have done it to multiple persons at the same time and thus his account was paid maybe multiple times with the scam already.

So far you would be astonished about the amount of escrow requests that are stopped because an escrow is involved or even the mentioning stops many deals. Obvious scams. So when I see all the traders that request me then there is a high amount of very likely scammers. Imagining having to put my trust in them is something I would not do honestly. I would either risk 2x as the buyer or 1x as the seller. Honestly, when I see the percentage of scam attempts then I would not feel safe to use this scheme. I would rather trust a third party. Well, if I would want more safety then I might chose a 2 of 3 multisig escrow. So the escrow could release the coins. I see the chance to get an established escrow who only now started to scam way lower than the percentage of scam attempts Iam confronted with as escrow.

It is like in trading of cryptos, you will never lose until you sell cheaper than bought, even if the current asset price is lower than when you bought it.

The beauty of this scheme is that without your wish nobody can scam you, but the scammer will lose his own money. And only you, by your own hands, can return to the scammer his money plus give him your own. If you are considering such a possibility, just do it before the deal, you will win a lot of free time.


Exactly! But it is not a problem, it is the foundation of the scheme, a good motivator for the both parties to be honest each with other.

Yes.  That's how Serge V. described the process. See here:


So the buyer sends payment plus "collateral" of bitcoins equal to payment, and seller sends "collateral" of bitcoins equal to the seller's price.

That way if the participants can't come to an agreement on a resolution for the payment/product dispute, they both lose the collateral (permanently stuck in the 2-of-2 transaction.  The only way either of them can get any of their collateral back is to find a resolution that they can both agree to.

The concept is that the collateral is enough motivation to force the scammer to behave, but the problem is that the collateral might be enough motivation for the scammer to force the victim to concede.