Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK? - page 12.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Vod on September 11, 2015, 06:01:31 AM

I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing. It's simple fraud.

Even if they do think that it is okay, it should not matter. If two persons (on DT) opinions can overrule the majority then the system is not working properly. It's pretty clear that almost everyone thinks that escrowing for yourself is not okay. I guess it will be added to one of those 'unwritten' rules for trust. If you break it, you might get a negative.

Update: I was not trying to imply that you are trying to overrule anyone. I was just stating a example in which the system would be flawed.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: onemorexmr on September 11, 2015, 05:58:36 AM

as long as TC and Blazr thinks its Ok and stay on DT i dont think it wont happen...

I doubt Blazr and TC feel it is ok to charge someone for a service that you are not providing. It's simple fraud.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Vod on September 11, 2015, 05:33:06 AM

Well, it's almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.

I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.

as long as TC and Blazr thinks its Ok and stay on DT i dont think it wont happen...
IMHO when QS come back in a few months he will be back on DT.

so i just think DT is fucked...

BitcoinBoss666

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 100

Quote from: Vod on September 11, 2015, 05:33:06 AM

Well, it'm almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.

I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.

Who care what u say? You are biggest jealous cunt on this forum! Fuck you abuser.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Well, it's almost completely unanimous that using yourself to escrow is considered a big no no.

I suggest the community leaders tag anyone they catch doing this going forward.

erikalui

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1094

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:37:00 AM

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

Two raings are more than enough as he hasn't scammed anyone. This is a punishment for lying and a lesson for other escrows as well to not have such shady trades. Emplying another escrow to complete the transaction won't be so expensive and don't be pennywise and pound foolish.

tmfp

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1737

"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:57:24 AM

Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here?

It says "Strong belief" not "solid proof". My feedback is left on that basis.

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:37:00 AM

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

Well, we don't really want 117 negative trust feedbacks there... Wink

Quote from: 21coin on September 10, 2015, 05:49:06 AM

Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him.

At 117 saying yes :5 saying no. You can pretty well claim everyone agrees that it is shady.
But not many thinks QS is a scammer, so no issues there.

Quote from: tmfp on September 10, 2015, 05:51:09 AM

As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?

Not leaving anything is inappropriate. Massively adding negative trusts is too. A couple of negative trusts and neutral ones is pretty reasonable whichever way you take it.

zack26

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Quote from: tmfp on September 10, 2015, 05:51:09 AM

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:37:00 AM

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?

Right. Looking at your trust. You have left feedback without solid proof and just an assumption many times. So whats the difference here?

tmfp

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1737

"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:37:00 AM

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?

21coin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Sarthak's a dumb girl

Quote from: zack26 on September 10, 2015, 05:37:00 AM

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him.

zack26

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....

zecexe

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

~ Escrowing for yourself using your alt accounts is like sucking your own two balls. Cool

ndnh

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1005

New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit

Quote from: Quickseller on September 10, 2015, 03:38:58 AM

Quote from: Soros Shorts on September 10, 2015, 03:19:36 AM

No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.

How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example:

What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade.

It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time.

FTFY:

Quote from: Soros Shorts on September 10, 2015, 03:19:36 AM

No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another if both are aware that the person acting as escrow is not a neutral and independent party to the trade. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.

Another way to say it is:
If I want to sell a business, and make one of my employees or partner as an escrow to the trade, do you consider that a fair deal?

It gets worse when you find out that the business owner was the escrow! Shocked

(^try doing this in RL Grin

)

ajrah

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: 21coin on September 10, 2015, 03:27:17 AM

because of QS being removed from default trust many scammer will be running free.

the answer to you post is right within your post as well

Quote from: 21coin on September 10, 2015, 03:27:17 AM

anyone is free to give his negative trust to anyone.

Actually you can also do your share if you think a transaction is about to turn to scam you can report to the ones in higher places
I'm not saying we don't need QS, I even commend QS for running after those scammers and would be scammers
But on this topic, not to single out QS or anyone in this forum, Escrow should a separate person.
So if there's a transaction between A & B escrow should be C not A/C or B/C

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Soros Shorts on September 10, 2015, 03:19:36 AM

No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.

How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example:

What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade.

It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time.

21coin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Sarthak's a dumb girl

I'm not gonna go against QS, but this does seem unethical, and as the trust here is not moderated anyone is free to give his negative trust to anyone.
But coming to the point, because of QS being removed from default trust many scammer will be running free.As for the other members of default trust, I highly doubt they have seen how many people QS has negative repped for trying to scam. A solution to this would be going through QS's trust feedbacks and at least try to figure out who were rightly marked by QS for trying to scam.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Is it okay for me to posture using another account to "escrow" funds for a transaction I am doing with someone else.

Basically putting up an illusion of an actual escrow.

LOL pretty obvious answer is NO it isn't okay.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.

Of course, all this is difficult to prove in the online world.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Neotox on September 09, 2015, 09:31:23 AM

Of-course NO

I am sorry, but I am going to have to call you out on this one. Weren't you escrowing for a signature campaign that you had several alt accounts in?

@shorena - I will respond to your post in due time, however I am short on time currently and wish to put great effort into my response.

Topic: Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK? - page 12. (Read 13138 times)