Are you black? That's racist!
Topic: Quickseller escrowing for himself - page 14. (Read 33647 times)
Or how about this one:
I actually created this account as an alt of my main so I could talk shit to other people without tarnishing the rep of my primary account.
the point of the matter is that an escrow should be a third party, the person(s) thought that they were using an escrow but no they werent, just one guy behind two different names
There's a wiki for this, it's called Bogus Escrow and is explicitly defined as a scam.
The IC3 defines this exact situation as fraud.
It's definitely illegal in the United States.
Ummm....in both of your examples the person the escrow is trading with gets nothing in return....eg they send money to escrow and receive nothing in return. That is not what happened, nor is what is claimed to have happened.....it is however what happened in a case involving you..... The IC3 defines this exact situation as fraud.
It's definitely illegal in the United States.
In addition to the clear betrayal of the buyer's confidence that secret escrow commits, there's also the fact that using this kind of bogus escrow allows the person to build up trust falsely. QS has posted a lot about these sort of "reputation schemes" where one person is seeking to build up trust by trading with their alts. It's hard to see how this is very different from that. And it explains why QS was so interested in the topic elsewhere.
Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
If they are going to run away with the coins, then what is the point of using an alt? Why don't they just wait for someone else to ask them to escrow and run away with those coins?2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
just stop the hemming and hawing already. there's no good justification for being your own secret escrow.
Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
If they are going to run away with the coins, then what is the point of using an alt? Why don't they just wait for someone else to ask them to escrow and run away with those coins? 2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what.
Not necessarily, it depends on the escrow's behavior.however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting.
One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.
There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded.
I get your point, on the majority of cases there would be little to no difference, but not always. This is a complex problem and it's difficult to come up with the perfect hypothetical example. However I think the point was made: an independent third party would be more neutral so there's no reason to stop using a real third party escrow.One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.
There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded.
It would be my opinion that someone with sufficient trading experience to act as escrow would not make the mistake of failing to clarify which currency is to be used in a trade unless they were acting maliciously. If you plan on acting maliciously then you might as well simply run away with the coins.
After all is said and done, I just hope nobody falls for the scams to come that go like this: I won't send first and I don't trust escrow because of the quickseller incident, how do I know you're not so and so?
Thought it was bad before?
Thought it was bad before?
Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
Well even a normal escrow can do that. Except a 3rd party escrow can also run off with both the goods and the BTCBTCBTC, which is why people say to use a trusted escrow.2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
Well even a normal escrow can do that. Except a 3rd party escrow can also run off with both the goods and the BTCBTCBTC, which is why people say to use a trusted escrow. 2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
Is this possible?,
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
2 persons are trading, lets call them person1 and person2, they both decide that they want to use an escrow, the escrow is person3, person 1 doesnt know but person3 is the same person as person2, the deal includes the exchange for digital goods for 5BTCBTCBTC
Person 3 says they have gotten the good from person 2 (lies)
Person 1 sends the BTCBTCBTC
Person 2 runs off with the money and buys a trusted sr. member account
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties.
You seem to have the missed the point---or you have it bass-ackwards.
If you're escrowing your own deal you're offering hidden risk to the other party. You've done yourself a favor, not a disadvantage. As Ecua correctly says, the point of a third party is to negotiate any issues from a neutral point of view. He correctly emphasizes that misunderstandings can arise even if everyone is operating in good faith. If you escrow your own deal and your trading partner doesn't know you're doing this, then when you sort out a misunderstanding in your own favor, you've pulled the wool over your trading partner's eyes and gotten paid to do it.
Spot on. No justification for being your own escrow.
In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what.
Not necessarily, it depends on the escrow's behavior.Granted he is not neutral
That's my main point. The escrow would be much less neutral in this case. Therefore it would be better to have third party instead.however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting.
One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.
There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded.
I get your point, on the majority of cases there would be little to no difference, but not always. This is a complex problem and it's difficult to come up with the perfect hypothetical example. However I think the point was made: an independent third party would be more neutral so there's no reason to stop using a real third party escrow.One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.
There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded.
However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it.
You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties. If you and I are trading, and you are selling 1 BTC for 240 dollars, then what is the difference between you sending me 1BTC, and me sending you CAD$240 from QS, verses me sending you CAD$240 from an alt? Even if the fact that what currency is being used is not documented properly (an escrow agreement should do this), it is still a scam in both instances. If this would be done as a direct trade, then it would be possible to weasel your way out of it, however if you were acting as an escrow, then your reputation as an escrow would be damaged because you did not properly gather all of the facts prior to advising that it is safe to send money
Let's use a not-so-obvious example to explain what I mean:
Let's say I'm selling 0.1 BTC for 28.3 dollars (note at the moment 283 is the average between BTC/USD and BTC/CAD). I send 0.1 BTC and you send 28.3 USD to the escrow. We didn't specify the currency and for some reason I think it's obvious it's USD because I charge a fee and you think it's obvious it's CAD because you charge a fee (neither wants to scam, we just disagree). If you are the escrow yourself then the escrow would also find it obvious it's CAD and he could just complete the deal.
I may start a scam accusation against both you and the escrow (which I don't know are the same person) and I may win or I may not. Only if I win the escrow risks his reputation and I may get the money back in an attempt of the escrow to keep his reputation. If I lose I just lose. And very probably I wouldn't even bother starting a scam accusation because of the small amount and because I'm aware it was my fault too for not specifying the currency on time.
If a real third party would have been used then he wouldn't be biased and I could trust much more his judgment. It's possible he decides it's CAD too; but he may also decide it's USD or he may not know and make an average or cancel the deal completely.
I'm just saying a real third party can act neutrally without any bias. If it's a neutral third party I'd feel much more comfortable trusting him. And I repeat I do not think this behavior deserves a trusted negative feedback, but I do prefer to use an escrow that never does this.
One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt.
There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded.
Jump to: