Topic: Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK? - page 7. (Read 13095 times)

Why are you still trying to talk your way out? You didn't read my post? -_-

Is the word "ban" anywhere in that statement? Would there be any other reasons why one might force themselves from taking a break from the forum?

Assuming that you could somehow conclude that the above statement is a lie, you still have the issue of proving that I stole money from someone which is what is causing you to be liable for libel.

Good job Vod, glad to have you back on the forums

The exact words Quickseller used were

"Forced 3 day break from the forum Be back Saturday".

Since he didn't have a forced 3 day ban, that makes Quickseller a proven liar.

"https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12331922"

Did my profile say that I was banned for three days? To be clear, is that what you were claiming that I said?

Also lying about being banned is not stealing from anyone, so your statement would still qualify as libel.

Quickseller:

It seems you abused the trust system to a big point where half the forum looked down upon you. You use trust to make yourself make feel better, rather than using it for what it is.

What you did was wrong, and you're being childish and not admitting anything. Maybe if you made a thread explaining the situation and apologizing, people would feel sympathy and understand. Instead you're choosing the wrong path...

How?  You removed it from your profile.

Please point to the post where I made that exact statement.

Quickseller on his profile  -
"I've been banned for 3 days"

You weren't banned.  Hence the lie.  Unless Badbear was lying when he said you were not banned?

Now shut up with all the dramatics.  You are a proven liar.  

What exactly did I lie about? Please quote the exact statement that I said that was a lie, and provide the proof that it was a lie.

Additionally you specifically said that I scammed someone, so please advise who exactly I stole money from, what amount of money I stole, and evidence of this theft.

If you feel that I have scammed someone, then I would suggest that you file a proper report -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-report-format-use-it-to-make-scam-reports-properly-260073

Also please be advised that your statement is libel and as a result will potentially expose your to a lawsuit for libel

Because he scammed people and is a proven liar.  Isn't that enough for you?

You want someone who lies to hold onto your money?

But is still a price he is willing to pay.
uy
At the end of the day, whose pocket the escrow fee goes into really does not make any difference to the buyer (in this example). All that really matters is that the buyer is, in one way or another going to have to pay it. Even though you say it is not the case, it is really true regardless if escrow is used or not.

Exactly! The buyer would be paying a higher price because he didn't know that the seller and the escrow are the same person.

This should be pretty clear based on my trust...is it not?

You failed on multiple levels (moral, ethical, legal, common sense, etc.), not the least of which was answering my binary question with a binary answer.

"or as some like to say "escrow""
You yourself use the term escrow in your Personal Text:
 "Safe and professional escrow goo.gl/ZI2m0Q"

But if we're going to use your second term "middle man", regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be a middleman.


You are not simultaneously yourself and an other person.



You are not simultaneously yourself and an individual person other than yourself.


The context you were replying to in the above quote included YOU in the 3 distinct DNA profiles of a 3 party trade. So the only possible way for "a trade {you} engaged in only involved one DNA profile" is that you either dealt with your multiple personalities (in the psychological sense, not the alt username sense), or you were dealing with AIs (that had no human involvement other than the initial coding which had nothing to with trading, prior to the AI's self-evolution into being able to trade), or your multiple personality & AI. Oh, and it's also "possible" those who have an identical DNA profile as you.

STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE.

So basically, Quickseller, what you're saying is, you engaged in trades where you required escrow to be used, and did not explicitly state the escrow agent used was you, yourself?

Did I lead anyone to believe that a trade I was acting as escrow[1] for had 3 distinct DNA profiles[2]? No. Any trade that I acted as a middle man (or as some like to say "escrow"), no explicit, nor implicit statement was made by myself saying that I was not a party to the trade. Any agreement that I had sent out said something along the lines that party (b) should send a certain amount of money to a particular BTC address, once party (s) saw that such an amount was sent to that address they should send a certain amount of money and/or goods and/or services to party (b), and once party (b) is in receipt of the above mentioned currency and/or goods and/or services they should authorize the release of the funds being held to party (s) who would then receive a certain amount of BTC to the address of their choice; and in the event of a dispute I would attempt to mediate such dispute, and if it would not be abundantly clear as to what a fair resolution would be then a scam accusation would be opened to consult the overall community. Nowhere was the words "3rd" (except for potentially the date or similar), or "neutral" were used.

[1]According to the link you provided one definition of "escrow" is:
Funds were kept in my custody of a specific BTC address until at least when specified conditions were fufilled

[2]I have no idea what the DNA profiles were of any of the people I traded with, nor any of the people that I was acting as a middle man/escrow for. As I never requested, nor received their DNA profiles, and although unlikely, it is possible that a trade I engaged in only involved one DNA profile (I have no reason to believe this to be the case however).

Its pretty unsensible Its no different then holding a ICO and buying all the coins yourself.

Tacitly, no response.

1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts.

And its like you are asking a bonus from your trade partner as your escrow fee? Isnt that like stealing extra bucks?