Topic: Bitcointalk Escrows - Trade Safely! - page 18. (Read 108567 times)
I want to appeal to all bitcointalk escrow providers. Please stop providing escrow for bitcointalk account sales. It is incredibly unethical and I think we as a community need to do our part to stop this practice, or at the very least not assist those who choose to participate.
Now that there are quite less number of escrows, I believe Cyrus might be willing to offer global escrows(instead of the local-only escrows that he does ATM). Also, wasn't Shorena offering escrows too(no thread made about it though)?
If someone asks whether I can escrow I usually say yes, Due to a recent PM I got from someone I consider opening a multi sig escrow. Its mainly a time/priority issue currently.
Posting here to let people that I still do (very specific) escrow. I just don't want to be in this thread as people coming from here don't seem to read my thread.
Now that there are quite less number of escrows, I believe Cyrus might be willing to offer global escrows(instead of the local-only escrows that he does ATM). Also, wasn't Shorena offering escrows too(no thread made about it though)?
I've been thinking about officially opening an escrow service for a while , but don't think the idea would be widely accepted with me "suspected" of being QS' alt . I'm sure some people think I'm going to repeat the same thing as QS "Sell accounts at first-> Suddenly being active in Scam busting -> Added to DT 2-> Open a escrow service-> Self escrow" and the rest is history.
So, gonna wait it out for now
Anyway, seeing as marco is back online, updates:
Bitpop to be removed from list
Tomatocage to be removed from list(His signature shows that he is closing his escrow service "temporarily")
Considering these perhaps:
And considering the most popular responses, moving Sebastian to top three . Psychotic may be considered, but he seems pretty inactive
So, gonna wait it out for now
Anyway, seeing as marco is back online, updates:
Bitpop to be removed from list
Tomatocage to be removed from list(His signature shows that he is closing his escrow service "temporarily")
Considering these perhaps:
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.Seems the same with Anon136
And considering the most popular responses, moving Sebastian to top three . Psychotic may be considered, but he seems pretty inactive
For what it's worth I have also been offering escrow services for a long while now..
but as a lot of people suggested I am allowing people to get accustomed to me first while building a reputation.
I'm not here to replace any of those in the list but I'd like to be (maybe one day) recognized as an alternative escrow
Regards,
Jm Erestain
but as a lot of people suggested I am allowing people to get accustomed to me first while building a reputation.
I'm not here to replace any of those in the list but I'd like to be (maybe one day) recognized as an alternative escrow
Regards,
Jm Erestain
I've actually been reading some threads elsewhere (or was it here? - been a long day...) about there currently being two separate block chains and how coins held by Escrow from one chain could get somehow lost in transit.
Perhaps (and I have no basis to er, base this on) everyone is in "wait and see" mode.
Either that or the Escrow are weighing up whether they want the grief or not. BitPop stated he wasn't being tipped / paid a fee which in part was what made him decide to stop Escrowing.
The Classic drama is only a month or so old, the shills have started acting up lately though. Still, those guys at least would be active if they were regularly visiting the forum. Blazr's last login time is long before the classic drama picked up some speed Perhaps (and I have no basis to er, base this on) everyone is in "wait and see" mode.
Either that or the Escrow are weighing up whether they want the grief or not. BitPop stated he wasn't being tipped / paid a fee which in part was what made him decide to stop Escrowing.
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.
Could be a good vacation he is on - No?
I've actually been reading some threads elsewhere (or was it here? - been a long day...) about there currently being two separate block chains and how coins held by Escrow from one chain could get somehow lost in transit.
Perhaps (and I have no basis to er, base this on) everyone is in "wait and see" mode.
Either that or the Escrow are weighing up whether they want the grief or not. BitPop stated he wasn't being tipped / paid a fee which in part was what made him decide to stop Escrowing.
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.
Could be a good vacation he is on - No?
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.
Could be a good vacation he is on - No?
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.
Could be a good vacation he is on - No?
Removing Blazr should be considered, he has not been active since Nov 2015. And also putting an asterisk over BitcoinDream and PsychoticBoy, both seem iactive since quite some time.
A tx will need to be confirmed on both chains if the parties want both core-btc and classic-btc to be transferred to them upon the release of escrow.
Ah ok. Only was wondering because you mentioned that traders would decide on one chain. But yes, both chains would be the best outcome.
I don't think it would be realistic for a transaction to get confirmed on both chains. If for example, classic were to have 75% of the mining capacity then core would only have the capacity of 25% of what it did pre-fork, which means there will be a major backlog of transactions waiting to get confirmed on blocks that will only be "found" at a quarter of the rate they normally are.
Though that might only stay that way until next diff update. And the transactions will become less and less because coins moving from certain addresses are not existent there, so many transactions will be not valid.
I am sure that some people will probably temporarily trade between core and classic coins, however I don't expect a market to last very long, and the value of the coins on the 'loosing' chain will likely be near zero after a few days/weeks.
I think so too. I await the losing coin to collaps pretty fast. Though both chain's bitcoins would lose alot of value anyway upfront. Just from people going out to watch what is happening.
This is a question to other escrows, regarding the risks of being escrow while an intentional fork is happening.
What are your thoughts about?
What are your thoughts about?
Use Core. Don't intermingle your coins with coins held in escrow.
That is the determination of someone who believes firmly in core. Though there is the possibility that miners chose to support a bitcoin client that creates 2 mb blocks. Which could turn into a mess when you still run core and suddenly your coins become worthless because a fork wins the majority and the old chains coins lose their value.
I'm really not ready to take such a risk. I mean it would be my error, at least if the users are not fully aware of me using a certain chain, and in worst case i had to refund a lot of bitcoins.
If you don't move the coin(s) during the fork, you will not lose nothing ...
Yes, that is for sure. But iam an escrow so i meet similar problems an exchange would meet on a much larger base. As long as i don't want to stop my escrow service once a fork started and only resume it once one chain completely lost, i would need to find a solution to still be able to act as an escrow while avoiding the risks of a forking blockchain.
You would probably want to utilize a fully validating node/client for both core and classic and to not trust what you see on any block explorer though.
I think you are right on the last paragraph. But why do you say that a tx needs to be confirmed on both blockchains when traders deceided on one chain?
I think the safest way would be to make payment on both chains the standard. Obviously many will not want to do that so traders might to negotiate sometimes what coin to take.
Well, a tip on the wrong chain would be unfortunate for sure. Though it is completely open yet if a trading of some kind will be allowed on exchanges... one chain against the other. Well, if not that, some members will specialize on exchanging such things anyway in the service section.
I don't think it would be realistic for a transaction to get confirmed on both chains. If for example, classic were to have 75% of the mining capacity then core would only have the capacity of 25% of what it did pre-fork, which means there will be a major backlog of transactions waiting to get confirmed on blocks that will only be "found" at a quarter of the rate they normally are.
I am sure that some people will probably temporarily trade between core and classic coins, however I don't expect a market to last very long, and the value of the coins on the 'loosing' chain will likely be near zero after a few days/weeks.
I have used the bitcointalk forum escrow services and it works quite well. besides, you can find trusted escrow services with absolutely no fees.
That mentality is why the escrows are stopping their services.
Kind of, most people just ignored my .001 fee. Maybe because I said free, I didn't enforce it anyway. I did it for the community. But lately it's all account selling (my theory is govt agents https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43x8s1/undercover_agents_are_infiltrating_bitcointalk_to/) and carded gift cards. I don't judge. But I originally wanted to do real commerce like services and computer parts. Those stopped a while ago.
Unfortunately that's true. Rarely miner deals. Mostly accounts, digital goods and sometimes consumer goods.
Generally i have the impression that trading is less then before. Instead practically worthless objects are traded in masses.
This is a question to other escrows, regarding the risks of being escrow while an intentional fork is happening.
What are your thoughts about?
What are your thoughts about?
Use Core. Don't intermingle your coins with coins held in escrow.
That is the determination of someone who believes firmly in core. Though there is the possibility that miners chose to support a bitcoin client that creates 2 mb blocks. Which could turn into a mess when you still run core and suddenly your coins become worthless because a fork wins the majority and the old chains coins lose their value.
I'm really not ready to take such a risk. I mean it would be my error, at least if the users are not fully aware of me using a certain chain, and in worst case i had to refund a lot of bitcoins.
If you don't move the coin(s) during the fork, you will not lose nothing ...
Yes, that is for sure. But iam an escrow so i meet similar problems an exchange would meet on a much larger base. As long as i don't want to stop my escrow service once a fork started and only resume it once one chain completely lost, i would need to find a solution to still be able to act as an escrow while avoiding the risks of a forking blockchain.
You would probably want to utilize a fully validating node/client for both core and classic and to not trust what you see on any block explorer though.
I think you are right on the last paragraph. But why do you say that a tx needs to be confirmed on both blockchains when traders deceided on one chain?
I think the safest way would be to make payment on both chains the standard. Obviously many will not want to do that so traders might to negotiate sometimes what coin to take.
Well, a tip on the wrong chain would be unfortunate for sure. Though it is completely open yet if a trading of some kind will be allowed on exchanges... one chain against the other. Well, if not that, some members will specialize on exchanging such things anyway in the service section.
Bitpop you were one of the must trusted escrow of the forum 
, very sad.
, very sad. 
I have used the bitcointalk forum escrow services and it works quite well. besides, you can find trusted escrow services with absolutely no fees.
That mentality is why the escrows are stopping their services.
Kind of, most people just ignored my .001 fee. Maybe because I said free, I didn't enforce it anyway. I did it for the community. But lately it's all account selling (my theory is govt agents https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43x8s1/undercover_agents_are_infiltrating_bitcointalk_to/) and carded gift cards. I don't judge. But I originally wanted to do real commerce like services and computer parts. Those stopped a while ago.
This is a question to other escrows, regarding the risks of being escrow while an intentional fork is happening.
What are your thoughts about?
What are your thoughts about?
Use Core. Don't intermingle your coins with coins held in escrow.
That is the determination of someone who believes firmly in core. Though there is the possibility that miners chose to support a bitcoin client that creates 2 mb blocks. Which could turn into a mess when you still run core and suddenly your coins become worthless because a fork wins the majority and the old chains coins lose their value.
I'm really not ready to take such a risk. I mean it would be my error, at least if the users are not fully aware of me using a certain chain, and in worst case i had to refund a lot of bitcoins.
If you don't move the coin(s) during the fork, you will not lose nothing ...
Yes, that is for sure. But iam an escrow so i meet similar problems an exchange would meet on a much larger base. As long as i don't want to stop my escrow service once a fork started and only resume it once one chain completely lost, i would need to find a solution to still be able to act as an escrow while avoiding the risks of a forking blockchain.
You would probably want to utilize a fully validating node/client for both core and classic and to not trust what you see on any block explorer though.
I have used the bitcointalk forum escrow services and it works quite well. besides, you can find trusted escrow services with absolutely no fees.
That mentality is why the escrows are stopping their services.
Jump to: