Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 10. (Read 33681 times)

This is a long thread, and I may have missed something, but did anyone figure out whether Quickseller had suggested to use himself as an escrow or did the other person select Quickseller. I can understand that he wouldn't want to reveal his alt if someone else chose him as escrow and just went along with it, but if he was the one that said they should use Quickseller, I think that is very shady and there isn't any logical reason to do that when there are many other far more reputable escrows other than Quickseller.

I don't know what you mean by "colluding" here.  Have I talked with others about your negative behaviors towards me, sure.  Did I get any "tip" that you were panthers52, nope?  You showed your own hand on that.


@Jonald, you should request for him to pay you 5BTC if he's bluffing.  If he fails to take you up on your request, you must be wrong.

If he declines, and you fail to prove he was colluding, does that mean you were bluffing?

why is QS escrowing himself ...to save 0.003 escrow fees ?? i dont think so that he cares for those cents ...

the other reason is just to scam ...only left possibility

bad move QS

LAMO on the second trust rating dude. I think the rating speaks pretty loudly.

I was referring specifically about you colluding with someone. Everything else is impossible to prove either way.

Should I take you saying that you are "done with this flame war" as you declining my request (that you put 5BTC into escrow that would be due me and you leave forever if I can prove my claim)?

You'll have to be more serious in stating what your accusations are if you want me to confirm or deny them.  I don't think that  allegations like "I have a vastly superior intellect" are really provable.  And anyway, are you putting up 5BTC on this bet?

Or is this just like more of the mockery you were pulling here, where you were "offering" to pay someone to convince you of something you clearly can't be convinced of.


^^^This kind of stuff is clearly trolling.  As is the idea that I'm going to give you 5BTC in order for "prove your allegations".  If you have allegations to prove, why not just prove them?   Your chest-banging and bluster is getting cheaper and cheaper.

BTW, I'm done with the flame war here, I hope you all will pardon me as this dude does get my dander up a bit.  I'm moving on now.

Cheers!

Are you willing to put 5BTC into escrow that would be due me and to leave forever if I can prove my allegations to be correct? Do you explicitly deny my allegations?

You're right that QS' behavior towards me for the last 6 months has certainly earned him a special place in my heart.  And I was sorta trying to emphasize that by pointing out that if he hadn't been harrassing me with all of his sockpuppet accounts, I certainly wouldn't have ever run across his self-escrow scheme.

With respect to scams, it seems to me that taking an escrow fee while leaving the other party out of the loop is the definition of taking money for a service and not providing that service.  QS has said several times in this thread that if his victim/trading-party was unaware of the fact, then there's no harm done and no foul.  He references something he calls "efficient markets" and says that the only thing a rational person cares about is how much money leaves or enters his wallet.  I think those statements together betray a sort of dangerous sollipcism.  he stil doesn't seem to understand that for a person who hired him as escrow, that person was expecting that both parties send to an escrow, not to have to send first.  That person paid money to him to mitigate risk and he pocketed that money without providing the risk abatement insurance that a third party could provide.  Even now as he writes about this he states that "he is always fair", "he is never wrong because he's so careful".  These statments seem to betray the fact that he can't realize that fairness is also a matter of prespective.  That it's impossible to be objective as humans, that his perspective comes with his own bias (as do each of our perspectives).  I leave people to judge for themselves what his statements, his actions with sockpupets, not to mention his trust ratings betray about his ability to act with impartiality or neutrality.  I think it's good that this stuff has seen the light of day.

That said, yes, I'm probably overreacting

I don't know what you're talking about here, man.  I think the paranoia is perhaps overtaking you.   Lol, now that I think about it, who would have tipped me anyway?  Did you tell someone that Panther52 was your alt?  I don't think you realize something about yourself man:

1) you have a distinctive way with words (cf. the quantification of this in the OP)
2) your persecution of me was outlandish and over-the-top

Put these toegether and it's really not that hard to see what's going on when an account I've otherwise had no contact with starts PMing me about havesting my transaction details and bitcoin addresses with vague motivations like 'maybe I can help'.  Or when that guy starts leaving me ranting PMs saying that I'm nothing but an off-topic posting scammer, but he can get me some deals on a lealanna coin.  Comeon man, you have to try to step outside of yourself once in a while to see how others perceive you.  And when that guys shows up in the thread accusing quickseller of trust abuse and starts ranting about the same exact things that Quickseller has been doing to try to distract from the matter at hand, it was really more than obvious to anyone who was looking.  As I said to you then, are you sure you want to keep pulling more and more alts into this?  I mentioned at the time that I was surprised you were going to end up outing an alt you were doing escrows for.

FTFY.

Were you in my room living on my computer?  Here you go again proclaiming "facts" you have no pertenence to.

You're right.  The reason is that you fessed up.  Why do more experiments to verify the already verified?

Lol, I love it.  I'm clearly too stoopid to do anything clever, ever.  You're probably right.  If you decide to use that superior intellect of yours to build you own language models for youself, the instructions are in the OP.  PM me if you need help.

Lol. You did not find my alt. you were tipped off about Panthers being my alt. You were told to delete the PMs (and so would the person who you were messaging) so the PMs would be deleted from the forums DB. However both you and the person you were colluding with vastly underestimated me.

The "test" that you ran was run in multiple ways and you picked the one that gave the results that you were looking for. Then you continued to run similar tests on other accounts until you found three others that gave you the results you were looking for. Your test is scientifically invalid and your hypothesis was not sufficiently tested and the reason you did not test it was because doing so would not give the results you are looking for. There is a reason why you did not "run more tests tomorrow" as you promised to do several days ago. Your setup is sufficiently complex so that it would be unlikely that anyone would even check your work to make sure the results that you claim to have gotten is what you actually got (nor for others to be able to run similar tests on others). I also have my doubts that you actually were able to design this test yourself, although I will not go as far as to say that you did not personally run these tests.

I really think you're overreacting because of your previous problems with QS. Colluding may be understood as just "acting together" with somebody, with that definition escrowing for yourself is definitely a collusion but it's not necessarily a scam. However I think the most accepted definition of collusion includes "with evil or harmful intent" or "to conspire in a fraud", in this case escrowing for yourself is not collusion; you're colluding only if you do harm (i.e. scam) somebody else by acting together with your other self (i.e. your alt). So escrowing for yourself is just the first step that could end on a collusion.

That said, I reiterate I'd prefer to use an escrow that never escrows for himself and I'd definitely wouldn't do it myself. I find this activity unacceptable and far from transparent. But saying someone that does that (and doesn't steal money or do harm while doing it) is necessarily a scammer or similar is an exaggeration.

Blazr, I have to respectfully disagree.  I think you've got something a little backwards.  If the escrow and one of the two parties are the same person, isn't that the definition of collusion?  How can I fail to collude with myself?  I am myself and my interests are not separate from me nor is my communication separate from me.  How can a "third-party" escrow communicate with one party privately if the other party is also the escrow.

There seems to be two schools of though here, one espoused by QS and Tradefortress (and maybe, hedgingly, TC), which is that when you choose X as escrow, X guarantees on X's reputation that the deal will go smoothly.  The other school of thought, seemingly held by nearly everyone else, is tha an escrow X gurantees to provide a neutral, third-party mediator to manage the deal and any conflicts which might arise.

I personally cannot understand the QS and Tradefortress' opinion here that an escrow is guaranteeing on their own reputation that a deal will go smoothly.  Surely the escrow cannot be held responsible if one party or the other fails to pay, or fails to send, or sends the wrong amount, or any other failure.  Surely what the escrow is guranteeing is that in those cases where some dispute arises, that the escrow will act neutrally to resolve the dispute, or else cancel the deal amicably.  I don't see how it could be any more clear that an escrow who isn't without a conflict of interest is critical for this role.  The idea that you could escrow for yourself and not be in collusion with yourself seems, pardon me, like nonsense.


So, QS, for you, if a person steals from you and you don't realize it then nothing was wrong with that?  You still can't seem to see that if someone pays you to provide a service as a neutral third party, and you hid the fact that you weren't a neutral third party, and then you went ahead and received money for that service, that that is clearly dishonest and stealing.  It doesn't matter if you duped your victim completely and the walked away without realizing it.

Finally, I have to tell you brought this on yourself, if you hadn't continued to pull in alt-after-alt into that crazy personal vendetta you have against me then I would never found your alts.  I don't generally look into any of this stuff.  The fact that you couldn't keep your personal vendettas and your escrow-scam separate is what led to your downfall here.  If you could calm that hot temper, you might have gotten away with it perpetually.  Who knows?  That doesn't make it right to do so, but it's true that no one was really looking.

Finally, after the pages and pages that QS has written to me about alts scams and fake reputation building by doing micro trades here and there to build trust, one has to acknowledge at least a small bit of irony, as it seems like that's exactly what you were doing here.  You continue to build reputation for your various accounts by doing small, risckless trades where the other person has to send first because they don't know you're the escrow.  What you were planning on using all these account for beyond just picking on people and sockpuppeting your hatred, I don't know.  Nevertheless, some of the irony in this has to be acknolwedged.

Here's one of the many posts where QS explains the trust-farming-scam he was actually apparrantely pulling himself: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12303462
Here's one that's chock full of irony as he pulls in a new alt in the thread about his longstanding abuse of me and he uses the sockpuppet to, wait for it, accuse me using sockpuppets! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12312926

I think QS' true character has finally been revealed to the masses, and that's probably a good thing for the community here.

I agree. Although with or without such a disclosure, and even with a disclosure to the opposite, people should assume that there is the possibility of trading with the escrow themselves.

IANAL but to me that sounds like a reasonable explanation. I hope other escrows will add something like that, or the opposite, depending on their view on the subject.

Sure, I can do that.

edit: How does this sound.

edit2: I do plan on taking a break for a while, so it is kinda a moot point, at least for now, but I do see your point.

Or you can just disclose the fact that you're self-escrowing here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-escrow-service-open-1022656

By that logic it shouldn't affect your business much. Sounds like a fair deal. Full transparency, properly informed customers.

The same way you ruined peoples reputation based off assumptions. You don't get treated equally when your treat people like you do.

Considerations only...scam -when one side loses money or or attempt to do so. Excluding  ethics in this situaton QS being victim, he loss reputation , trust and at the same time and money.
I do not know the other victims.

I don't get the positive rating left on the accounts but however, I guess TC has accepted way back that he did in. Contradicting this, QS dint accept that and kept lying about it. He collected the escrow fee as well which makes it even worse.


Self escrowing is not a good practise if one does believe in such things. If the other party doesn't trust you, you can't start escrowing your own deal and then charge a fee to make it look legit. People who believe in self escrowing and then lying about it is all fine, I have no words except that's too immature. Scamming or not scamming is not the case here but it's the case of being an honest person who one can trust. A LIAR cannot be trusted whatsover.

So your idea is basically, do not remove anyone from DT whatever happens? Or add everyone to it?

You needn't be so concerned about QS, he might coincidentally get back into DT after a couple of months. Nothing much to worry about.